Senate bills could reopen immigration debate
By Manu Raju

October 23, 2007

Two measures headed to the Senate floor could reopen an immigration debate that left the chamber bitterly divided this past summer.

The Senate on Wednesday will vote to proceed to the so-called Dream Act, which would give undocumented students a chance to attend college. Next week the Senate may move to a measure that would overhaul farm policies, which Senate Democrats want to become a vehicle for a plan allowing undocumented agriculture workers to win legal status.

The outcome of the votes will likely determine whether the 110th Congress can move any measures that could pave a pathway to citizenship for any of the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

“I think the Dream Act is a litmus test,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a Cuban-American who supports the plan. “If we can’t do this for children ... then I doubt we can do anything else.”

Both measures have bipartisan support, but are vigorously opposed by conservatives who say such legislative efforts amount to “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. If the supporters reach the 60 votes needed to proceed to the Dream Act, it could become a vehicle for other competing amendments and reignite debate on a comprehensive overhaul of immigration policies, which the Senate rejected by a 46-53 vote in June. A similar situation could occur with the so-called agriculture jobs measure.

But Democrats are hoping to avoid that situation and keep the debate to both helping students and retaining farm workers.

“We’re going to try to make this very focused,” said Majority Whip **** Durbin (D-Ill.), who is sponsoring the bill. “I don’t want to reopen the comprehensive immigration bill debate in all of its different areas that could come up. Really I just want to test this issue.”

Republican critics appeared unlikely to accept Durbin’s request to keep the measure clean if the Senate proceeds to debating the bill.

"The Senate on Wednesday will vote to proceed to the so-called Dream Act, which would give undocumented students a chance to attend college."

Ha, another tempest in a teacup. "Dream Act" is a sham because it nether involves "children" nor their ability to "attend college". The last time I looked you have to be high school graduate to attend college and that means at least 18 years old - not a child. Anyone can attend any college in the US regardless of legal status in the US as long as one is accepted based on merits.

"Dream Act" deals solely with MONEY for the tuition for the people who were brought here as children and are therefore here without authorization although thoroughly accultured. I am the last to deny the education to such people
but there are and should be other means to provide for the "in-state" tuition than a blatant subversion of the will of the taxpayers who fund the "in-state" tuition. If you are from Maryland you can't get an "in-state" tuition in the state of New York. The better solution would be to fund these tuitions on federal level and based on achievements - akin to scholarships. The right to education ends at high-school level for everyone, legal or not. Why then make an exception and, on top of that, mislabel it a "Dream Act" and pretend it's for "children".

Additionally, if it is supposed to be a "litmus test" then this initiative is really misbegotten.

What really needs an urgent attention is the problem of the farm workers. Just look at the prices - they're skyrocketing but it's only a symptom of who knows how many thousand tons of produce rotting in the fields.

I said a long time ago it would be the Dream Act and AgJobs addressed first. Keep your fingers crossed that they open up debate again on illegals. They need to do something before we look like the laughing stock of the world. (Ooops, we already do!)

We'll see how this goes. With the country so up in arms over immigration issues, I'm afraid these bills are doomed. But, I could be wrong - it's happened before - lol! Stay tuned - I'll try to stay on top of this and post updates as they become available.

Verbalist, you made a very valid point in the educational aspect, but you stopped short in the "legalization" part.

I don't think Dream Act will actually pass the Senate, I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think so. When Sen. Durbin mentioned the effort to re-introduce his amendment as a stand alone bill, Sen. Sessions was quick to raise in opposition branding the bill as, yes, amnesty.

with AggJobs though, I don't know what's going to happen, there's a lot of powerful interests in the mix. Maybe there's a chance for AggJobs, but remember, it's always been Sen. Craig behind the bill and his credibility among fellow GOP Senators may be questionable at this point.

Who knows what's going to happen, even Dream Act has that nice "military service" side that may prompt some "AYE" votes. I honestly don't think either bill will pass, but again, it's just politics.

Rough Neighbor, I have made my point in "Immigrant's Weekly News Links 10/22/07". I believe that the immigration legislation should be comprehensive and thorough. Look at the patchwork of immigration laws today. True, not much different from the Tax Code but at least the tax laws are not crying for urgent action. Nobody is ruined or ground into the dust by tax laws as by this bizarre system called immigration law. This garment has been patched so many times that it's outlived its usefulness and should be discarded. One, two or hundred more patches will not restore it. Whether the politicians are ready to face reality? Probably not. But I'm dead set against trying to pass any laws that are "partial solution" with the sole exception of the agricultural jobs. And, yes, I admit it's for the selfish reasons because lack thereof hurts our economy (not just farmers or consumers). As to "legalization" in the strict sense I have no precise ideas but considering the sheer number of undocumented people in this country I don't think there is much choice. Do we really want to alienate 10 to 20 million people living in this country? Create an enormous antagonism in them, their families and friends? International uproar over such a massive and drastic measure as wholesale deportation? I don't think it's in the cards. For whatever reason, the politicians don't seem to get it, hiding behind the alleged "will of the people". It's quite the reverse. The phenomenon of fear and hatred toward immigrants (legal or not) is only apparent in those areas that don't have any. The places where people mix together whether through residence, work or socially are generally more open and accepting of other languages, custom and culture. The xenophobia has been proven to breed in minds of people who were never exposed to any influence but their own small and constricting circle. It's just a way of trying to block any progress and convulsively clinging to the "old days". Of course, ti's fated to failure but at what cost?

Oh, wow, Verbalist, Verbalist! Sorry to get you going. How about settling the score over a glass of red wine, hmm... your place?

I just meant the legalization (path to permanent residency) component of DREAM Act for the kids after meeting certain qualifiers.

Another attempt at CIR? Let's see, nothing in the horizon before 2011. What with the filibustering minority and the majority that's shying away to lead?

""DREAM Update 10/23/07: Senate Cloture Vote Scheduled for Tomorrow - 60 Votes Needed for Passage!

On 10/18/07, Senator Durbin (D-IL) re-introduced the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2007 or DREAM Act (S. 2205) as a stand alone bill. Tomorrow morning, the Senate will hold a cloture vote on whether to proceed to debate on the DREAM Act. Contact your senators before tomorrow’s cloture vote and urge them to support the DREAM Act.

A Congressional briefing about DREAM, sponsored by AILA and our coalition partners, was held this afternoon at 3pm in SC-6 of the Capitol building. A panel moderated by Angela Kelly (IPC), included speakers from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Education Association, First Focus, and others.

A press conference will be held on the Capitol grounds tomorrow afternoon. The time and exact location of this event are not available at this time.

The DREAM Act would facilitate access to college for immigrant students in the U.S and provide a path to permanent residence for ambitious immigrant youth who were brought to the U.S. as young children and who want to pursue higher education or military service.""

I don't think asking for federal funding is the right idea either. Tax dollars are still tax dollars be it state or federal. We still pay for it. The idea of rewarding children for bad behavior of the parents is wrong. It will just inspire more misbehaving parents. I can see the president of Mexico saying. "Go to American they will pay to educate our children in their colleges"

The will of the people being from areas that don't have immigrants? Where is that? I think some of it comes from the anti-assimilation attitude we're seeing lately. The waiving of other countries flags in our faces, etc.. That is what gets peoples anger up and creates the send them packing mentality.

A divided Country & Congress cannot make any progress,let alone laws.

Any immigration related measures,no matter how piecemeal,is doomed to fail.Unless it is palatable to the public,which seems to be enforcement only at the time being,nothing can pass relating to such a hot topic.

Sorry about previous tirade but I have to agree with Lyric and, with qualifications, with Davdah.

But let's assume that this Dream Act passes. Then what? The children that are now legalized are supposed to renounce their parents, brothers and sisters? Because there is no legal way that leads to legalization of their families.So we'll be playing children against their families. How is that supposed to work?

Aside from that - it's another patch, or rather, darn because it will affect such a minuscule part of the immigrants. It will create false hopes and will only deepen the bitterness. And imagine the heartbreak of deciding who's worthy?

A thoroughly bad piece of legislation albeit well-meaning.

Rough Neighbor, a glass of wine sounds marvelous.

Those that want to help the tens of thousands of young undocumented immigrants that have lived in the U.S. essentially all their lives will vote yes to debate the Dream Act. They are useing their head and their heart. Those opposed I do believe are essentially mean spirited folks.

And here is an example of a mean spirited person.


TANCREADO TURNS IN SENATOR DURBAN EVENT TO IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES

Hugo Mann
Published 10/23/2007 - 4:30 p.m. EDT

Colorado Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo did not pull any punches today when he alerted immigration authorities about a 3:00 PM event held by Democratic Senator **** Durban today that was to have illegal aliens in attendance.

Tancredo issued a statement saying that the event Senator Democratic **** Durbin was holding in conjunction with discussion of the DREAM ACT – was reported to have illegal aliens in attendance.

Tancredo said, “I call on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to detain any illegal aliens at this press conference. Just because these illegal aliens are being used for political gain doesn’t mean they get immunity from the law.”

“If we can’t enforce our laws inside the building where American laws are made, where can we enforce them?”

Tancredo alerted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency earlier today regarding Durbin’s 3:00 PM meeting.

Tancredo has made border security and stopping illegal immigration a top priority in his campaign and has forced other candidates running to adopt the issue.

DREAM Act Won't Spark More Illegal Immigration, Durbin Says

By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 24, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - The Senate on Wednesday will consider the DREAM Act, a bill that would open a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were brought into the United States as children and who prove themselves as productive members of society.

The bill has been derided by conservative critics. But its sponsor, Sen. **** Durbin (D-Ill.), said the bill has specific safeguards and will not spark "chain migration" of illegal immigrants into America.

The bill would grant legal status to illegal immigrants who were brought into the United States as children by their parents. Eligible immigrants must have been in the United States for at least five years before the bill's signing date and must have been younger than 16 when they arrived here.

The newest version of the bill - which has been in existence in various forms for five years - will face its first procedural hurdle Wednesday morning when the Senate is scheduled to vote on cloture to proceed with consideration of the bill.

If it passes with the 60 votes needed, the bill would still face a cloture vote to end debate and a final up-or-down vote on passage.

The bill also sets an age-cap requiring immigrants to be under 30 years old to be eligible. To achieve legal status, the illegal residents must meet several requirements, including a clean criminal record and illustrated efforts to either earn a college degree or enlist in the military.

The current version of the bill does not include a controversial provision that would have repealed a federal prohibition on states granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens.

In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Sen. **** Durbin (D-Ill.), sponsor of the DREAM Act, said he is "heartened by the support I'm receiving on the floor" but said he currently counts support for the cloture motion in the "mid-50s," short of the 60 needed.

Durbin also addressed conservative opponents' criticism that the bill would open a backdoor for amnesty by granting legal status to illegal immigrants' children, who could then turn around and sponsor their parents and siblings for citizenship.

"DREAM Act beneficiaries would have very limited abilities to sponsor family members," Durbin said, adding that they "could not begin sponsoring parents or siblings for at least six years," and illegal immigrants would have to move out of the country for 10 years before being eligible.

"This notion that somehow this will lead to chain migration is just wrong," he said.

Nonetheless, conservative activists who scored a victory over comprehensive immigration reform during the summer have leapt back into action, urging radio audiences and blog readers to call senators and urge them to oppose the measure.

Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wrote on her Web site Monday that the legislation was a "nightmare" and that even with the changes that have been made, "it remains a bad idea - providing instant amnesty, serving as a future illegal alien magnet, and perpetuating inequity."

The anti-illegal immigration group NumbersUSA has raised concerns that the bill does not offer strict standards for proving an illegal immigrant's eligibility beyond meeting the age requirement.

In a statement on its Web site, the group said that a 30-year-old illegal alien "could claim that he illegally entered the United States when he was 15, but there is no requirement that the alien prove that he entered the United States at the claimed time by providing particular documents."

"The proposal would merely require him to 'demonstrate' that he is eligible, which in practice could mean simply making a sworn statement to that effect," the group said. "Thus, it would be an invitation for just about every illegal alien 30 and under to fraudulently claim the amnesty."

The Center for Immigration Studies, a group that opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants and advocates for lower legal immigration, estimates that the DREAM Act could benefit as many as 2.1 million illegal immigrants, including the direct beneficiaries, their parents, siblings and others.

The group also expects that "given the difficultly in determining whether an applicant meets the DREAM Act's amnesty requirements, coupled with the overworked nature of the immigration bureaucracy, fraud could be a significant problem.""

Dream Act fails, again.

Yep - hot off the press.

Senators reject legal status for children of immigrants

The so-called Dream Act would have allowed young people to gain citizenship through education or the military.

By Nicole Gaouette and Johanna Neuman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

10:13 AM PDT, October 24, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The Senate today rejected a bill that would have allowed young people brought to the United States as children by their illegal immigrant parents to gain legal status provided they attended school or entered the military.

The 52-44 vote, short of the 60 required, was seen as a test of the Senate's appetite for pursuing an immigration overhaul on a piecemeal basis, as opposed to the comprehensive approach that failed this summer. The procedural vote would have allowed debate to begin.

"I believe in this bill passionately," said lead sponsor Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who has lobbied for the so-called Dream Act for five years and says he knows many young people who would be helped by it. "Some of their stories are heartbreaking. Many know no other country, know no other language, and now they are being told to leave by our government."

The Dream Act would give conditional legal status to illegal immigrants who have lived in the U.S. at least five years and entered the country before age 16. They must graduate from high school, have no criminal record and have a "good moral character." Provided the students completed two years of higher education or service in the military, the conditional basis of the legal status would be lifted. After five years, they could apply for citizenship.

Estimates vary as to the number of young illegal immigrants the bill would affect. The Congressional Budget Office has put it at fewer than 100,000, while the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute has estimated it at closer to 500,000.

Democrats argued there was a moral imperative to pass the bill, saying that skilled graduates would benefit American business and that the young people who enlisted would provide a much-needed boost to a military struggling to meet recruitment goals.

"Children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "Many of the children this bill addresses came here when they were very young. Many don't even remember their home countries or speak the language of their home countries. They are just as loyal and devoted to our country as any American."

Republicans objected both to the timing of the bill and to its substance. Some complained that the Senate had several spending bills to process and should not be debating a controversial immigration measure.

"We've yet to send a single appropriations bill," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Noting that the Internet tax moratorium expired in "exactly one week" and that 50 million taxpayers could become ensnared in a confusing tangle if Congress did not address the average minimum tax, McConnell said, "We have an enormous amount of work and we're running out of time."

Others, like Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), said the bill was flawed, citing the fact that Dream Act beneficiaries would not be required to graduate college with a degree.

Some who had been supportive of the measure when Durbin brought it up on previous occasions were unenthusiastic. "Even though there's merit in the goal of the Dream Act, I feel this should be part of a comprehensive approach," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

Conservative groups aggressively attacked the bill as an "amnesty" that would provoke a storm of public outrage, as happened the last time the Senate took up the issue of immigration reform.

"This is amnesty," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). "It's a slap in the face to all of those who came in here legally."

Noting the public uproar over previous attempts by the Senate to reform immigration, Inhofe added: "When do we learn? All of America's awake on this one. They know exactly what we're doing."

Durbin countered that Dream Act beneficiaries would have very limited ability to sponsor family members to come to the U.S. and that his bill would not allow them to get in-state tuition or federal aid. And he implored the Senate not to ignore the talents and patriotism of children whose only crime was to pack their suitcases when their parents told them the family was leaving.

"Don't tell me tomorrow you need HB-1 visas because we need more talented people," he said to his Senate colleagues. "Give these children a chance."

The statement on the H1-B visas is the secret weapon of Durbin and company... He's 100% right about that too!