Dream Act Reintroduced in Congress

The ACLU reports the Dream Act has been reintroduced in Congress.

The DREAM Act would provide affordable post-secondary education and military service opportunities for young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, have lived here for at least five years and have graduated from high school....The reintroduced bill includes a critical provision that would restore states’ authority to determine students’ residency for purposes of higher education benefits, a provision that was removed from the bill voted on by the last Congress.

< Galleon's Raj Rajaratnam, Found Guilty on All Counts | AQAP Issues New Threat Over Osama bin Laden Killing >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This sounds really good (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdm251 on Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:12:30 PM EST
    This seems like a common sense bill.  I hope it passes.

    They've only been debating it... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed May 11, 2011 at 01:14:56 PM EST
    for what seems like an eternity....lame, but better late than never if it finally gets done.

    One less stain on our warped and cruel immigration/deportation policies would be most welcomed.


    Anything short of immediately deporting (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    everyone here without papers gets labeled 'amnesty!' by the GOP and gets filibustered.

    Sh*t... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:00:07 PM EST
    even if ya got their precious papers in order, they howl "forgery!" or "anchor baby!".

    Papers or no papers, its just too brown for some people's liking around here I suspect...and they will make others suffer for these inevitable demographic changes.

    Me thinks they should chill with the "papers please" and concentrate on gettin' busy makin' pale babies, if they wanna actually change the demographics...babies are prettier than jackboots, if nothing else:)


    What are the (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    chances of it passing? I wouldn't think there would be any chance of it happening with the GOP controlling congress.

    slim to none (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:04:02 PM EST
    GOP is filibustering

    Just (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:10:14 PM EST
    what I figured: it's another Kabuki theater performance by Obama. He can know go out and advocate for it because he knows it won't pass.

    Does this fire up the base? (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    I think the "base"... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:14:47 PM EST
    is burnt out.

    Here are responses from a members of (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 11, 2011 at 05:19:40 PM EST
    the targeted base.

    For example, Marissa Graciosa of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement acknowledged the long odds of the DREAM Act, but called for the President to stop the deportations of DREAM-eligible undocumented students. There is evidence to believe that student deportations have been de-emphasized in favor of undocumented convicts, but students who had no say in moving to America still face the threat of deportation every day while they go to school or work. Graciosa said, "President Obama can and should give ICE clearer guidelines as to where our laws should be tempered by fairness and DREAM students allowed to live free of fear of deportation." She admitted this would be a stopgap solution, but an important one to show the commitment to giving students who only know life as Americans and want to contribute to America a chance.

    Another group, Presente

    Today there are literally tens of thousands of young men and women facing deportation because the DREAM Act isn't law. ....
    The President has the power to help. He can issue an executive order to stop the deportation of DREAMers until we get that legislation passed. And if he's serious about immigration reform, that's exactly what he should do. link

    Probably (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:18:34 PM EST
    initially but then when they realize that there's no chance of it passing I guess they will be demoralized.

    The predictable reaction here (none / 0) (#39)
    by Politalkix on Thu May 12, 2011 at 05:50:05 PM EST
    vindicates the decision of the President not to even bring a single payer plan to the table. It had zero chance of passing and would have been seen as a kabuki move that would demoralize people who wanted it.
    Can't have it both ways folks....can't complain about the President for not bringing up a plan that had zero chance of passing and then complain again for trying to get DREAM act passed (because some here believe that it has zero chance of passing).
    unless cronic complaining about BHO is your hobby.....

    Has he been "vindicated" ... (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Thu May 12, 2011 at 05:58:26 PM EST
    ... for promising us a public option after making a backroom deal with the insurance lobbyists to take it off the table?

    If you (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 12, 2011 at 06:01:21 PM EST
    had paid attention to what I have said you wouldn't even be saying that.

    Major audience (none / 0) (#14)
    by christinep on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:47:51 PM EST
    Hispanic voters...especially so if Repubs persist in disregarding demographics, etc. An important part of that major audience--read: makes a difference in voter turnout in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada (even Texas is in the pragmatic mix; as is Florida) and that difference has a good probability of delivering electoral votes in those battleground states in 2012.

    IMO. The timing is good, the cause is good...and the inexorable outcome looks good as well.


    Here's some insight from a (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:12:44 AM EST
    Latino member of Congress:

    He will also argue that those who care about this issue need to step up pressure on Congress to act, a point he has made privately in a string of meetings with business executives, evangelical leaders and Hispanic celebrities.

    Some advocates of an immigration bill aren't on board the White House's new push. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) said Friday that he won't raise expectation in the Latino community that immigration legislation will pass when it won't.

    "The moment to use pressure is gone," he said. "I'm not going to be disingenuous with the public...It's not going to happen." [...]


    And here are some thoughts from David Dayen:

    A few things here. First of all, Gutierrez is right. This is a 2012 ploy and a cynical one at that, to suggest that a few rallies will flip Republicans with longstanding beliefs and activists of their own on the other side of the issue. Second, it's not like immigrant rights groups didn't try all of this before. I remember undocumented students getting arrested for sit-ins at Congressional offices during the DREAM Act debate last year. And I don't remember them getting a lot of support from the President on that.

    But what leaps out at me is this call for "outside pressure" from the White House to pass a favored piece of the agenda. This is certainly a new concept! After all, the White House threatened to expel MoveOn from their Common Purpose meetings if they pressured Blue Dogs into voting for health care. I believe the phrase thrown around was "fucking retarded." In fact, during the health care debate practically all of these outside pressure moves were frowned upon. But now that we're back in election season, change begins from the bottom up again.

    Only this is completely backwards. Progressive organizations have leverage over, or at least an audience with, Democratic lawmakers. They certainly have a greater audience there than over Republicans. The time to use outside pressure is when Democrats are the ones holding up the agenda.

    Don't get me wrong - this is legislation that absolutely needs to get done, but how many times can the hopes of Latino voters be toyed with before they decide that the Dems' version of quid pro quo isn't working for anyone but the politicians?


    As a hispanic voter, (none / 0) (#18)
    by sj on Wed May 11, 2011 at 05:18:21 PM EST
    I think this is a step in the right direction.  But every journey starts with that first step.

    Personally, I'm not too sure about that inexorable part.  Unless you're thinking in terms of generations as opposed to the 112th Congress.


    Yes, sj...the timing is the thing (none / 0) (#31)
    by christinep on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    Mostly, I am thinking about mid-range...not this Congress. This is one of those "demographics is destiny" propositions in that the long-term (and, not-so-long term) timing flies in opposition to those who would deny expansive reform in the immigration field. Frankly, of all the ignorant positions that the current Repub crazies have clung to, their fear-mongering about immigration must stand as the looniest (ethically & pragmatically.)

    demographics (none / 0) (#32)
    by sj on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    will be a factor for sure.  But we need to have active participation, not just numbers.  andgarden probably has a better handle on where we are there than I do.

    WRT which ignorant position the R crazies have clung to is the looniest... it's most difficult to pick one.  This is definitely one of them, though, isn't it?


    I don't doubt Obama really supports it (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    but it is election run-up Kabuki of the 'we tried' variety.

    Well (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 11, 2011 at 03:25:14 PM EST
    he could have put this on the agenda for the first two years instead of wasting 18 months on HCR and didn't so I'm imagining he doesn't really care that much about it.

    But will Hispanics buy it? I've heard they are very disappointed with Obama.


    What one hears (none / 0) (#15)
    by christinep on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:51:00 PM EST
    I've heard--first hand as well as second-hand--that the legislation is quite popular with Hispanics in my state of Colorado. To you it may be kabuki; to others, the timing is very astute.

    Yes (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 11, 2011 at 04:54:33 PM EST
    the legislation is popular but Obama waits to try to pass it when it has a 0% chance of passing?

    Does Obama think Hispanics are stupid and don't realize that the GOP is NOT going to vote for it? I mean it's really kind of nonsense in a way to even bring this up other than trying to temporarily jack up his popularity with Hispanic voters.


    It doesn't play the way you may wish (none / 0) (#17)
    by christinep on Wed May 11, 2011 at 05:01:08 PM EST
    The Repubs have been against anything related to reforming the INS system since St. Ronnie left them. I would think that those who have advocated showing where each Repub stands by open vote is the kind of hardball that gladdens the heart.

    Look, to wait here--as the administration has done--has increased the potential for passage. Many support the Dream Act in its goals & approach because it reflects who we say we want to be.  With the electoral field before them--AND CLOSER--the Repubs have an opportunity to not lose as many Hispanic votes if they can see themselves free to vote for the bill. Think about it: The timing could well be a win-win, in the best sense of the term, for President Obama.


    Sure that (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 11, 2011 at 05:34:59 PM EST
    works in the house but how many Republicans have Hispanic voters in their district and the GOP is going to fillibuster it in the senate. So how exactly does that work in anybody's favor really? I guess it gives the people who do have hispanic districts the chance to vote for it but still it's not going to be passed.

    I think that it comes down to counting (none / 0) (#21)
    by christinep on Wed May 11, 2011 at 06:29:19 PM EST
    electoral votes. The President is, indeed, playing a kind of hardball. Really. Battleground states include: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada. But, there will be an incursion in Texas, Florida, North Carolina...and, possibly, that ole' Georgia. The numbers, the sheer numbers, do not favor Repubs. The real question is whether the Repubs will attempt in those important electoral states to try some finesse. The pure calculus of reaching 270 is made much easier when looking at the first three states listed here. In & of itself, those numbers could make the difference. Example: The Nevada Senatorial race witnessed a large percentage of a large turnout of Hispanics voting for Harry Reid. The Hispanic vote in Colorado helped elect Senator Bennet. Meantime, the meetings continue between the WH and key Latino/a national groups about the whole process.

    If Obama (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 11, 2011 at 06:42:36 PM EST
    gets a tea party candidate (unlikely) he will have no problem with CO (probably) NV or NM. I think the danger is mainly Hispanics not showing up so much as voting GOP and there would have to be a candidate to motivated them to vote against like Angle.

    This is kabuki (none / 0) (#26)
    by mexboy on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:22:07 AM EST
    I don't believe Obama cares about the Dream act. This is all about trying to get the Latino vote. I have no doubt he knows this has no change in hell of passing. We've seen it before and I think this time it will backfire.

    Heard NPR piece yesterday re a midwestern (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed May 11, 2011 at 02:39:18 PM EST
    state passing it's own such bill, with the governor promising to help raise private donations so the cost isn't pd. by taxpayers.  

    amnesty by another name (none / 0) (#23)
    by diogenes on Wed May 11, 2011 at 10:16:41 PM EST
    Isn't this just amnesty for kids who manage to lay low and hide for five years or so?  

    Look!!! Under that rock over there! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by nycstray on Wed May 11, 2011 at 11:48:40 PM EST
    there's a kid hiding trying to evade US laws. . . skin color brown.

    Wondering how an undocumented minor (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed May 11, 2011 at 11:52:36 PM EST
    completes high school in the U.S. whilst in hiding?

    Didn'tcha know? (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Thu May 12, 2011 at 01:11:21 AM EST
    they have excellent teachers under the rock . . . :)

    Key word "Kids"... (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:32:09 AM EST
    I know you've got some strange views dio, but I never guessed you as the sort to encourage child abuse in the name of immigration enforcement.

    Answer to question? (none / 0) (#33)
    by diogenes on Thu May 12, 2011 at 02:58:39 PM EST
    Leaving aside the snarky ad hominem attacks, isn't the Dream Bill basically an amnesty bill for one large subset of the population of the undocumented?  
    If your platform is amnesty and open borders then say so and be done with it.

    snarkiness almost aside (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu May 12, 2011 at 03:14:27 PM EST
    If the those on the reich, I mean right, are serious about being concerned over American job loss and wage stagnation - and not just worried about Emiliano Zapata dating their daughter - what's say we "close the borders" and revoke the citizenship of all the main outsourcers in the U.S? Let the Walton family and their major shareholders, for instance, go live in China. Let the ceo of Nike move to Bangledesh..

    jondee... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu May 12, 2011 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    can you tell me when "amnesty" became a dirty word?  I haven't gotten the new edition of the Newspeak Dictionary, so I'm still working off the old definition...."pardon for a political offense", with "political offense" being the traditional dirty words.

    Well, all I can say is (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Zorba on Thu May 12, 2011 at 04:25:00 PM EST
    that it must have been after 1986, when Ronald Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to 4 million illegal immigrants.

    revoking citizenship is to harsh (none / 0) (#37)
    by nyjets on Thu May 12, 2011 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    However, I agree that people who outsource jobs should be punished through heavy fines and taxes on their goods. Between that, closing the border, and deporting 'undocumented' immigrants would go along way in saving our economy and jobs.

    It's a bill to keep... (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu May 12, 2011 at 03:34:47 PM EST
    kids who grew up in America from being violently deported, first and foremost...I just wish you didn't have to go to university or join the military to qualify for the get out of chains free card.

    It's a sham (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:31:35 AM EST
    it's obviously not gonna pass.

    That being said, I like having all these new members of the house of representatives on record.  Especially the ones in the southwest.