Tweet
One of the bigger myths floating around regarding DREAM is that it will lead to chain migration. The thought is that DREAMers will get citizenship and then quickly sponsor their parents for green cards. Not quite. DREAM Act recipients must wait ten years in a non-immigrant conditional status to apply for a green card. The adjustment of status will probably take a year or so to get and then a person must wait three more years for citizenship (which could take a year to get). So we're talking about 15 years to citizenship in all likelihood. Then they FILE for green cards for their parents. But because the parents are very likely subject to reentry bars, they'll then have to exit the country and wait TEN years before they are allowed to step foot in the US with permanent residency.
DREAM Act sponsor Howard Berman explained last night:
My good friend DAN LUNGREN says these people, once we give them this status, will be able to petition for their adult siblings. We have taken away petition rights for adult siblings, young siblings, grandparents, grandchildren; and it will be 25 years before any person whose status is adjusted under this legislation will be able to petition for the parent that brought that kid here, because we never undid my friend LAMAR SMITH's provision that required 10-year absence after the petition is filed for anyone who came to this country without authorization. The chain migration argument is another bogus argument, just like the amnesty argument.
You and I know that this is the case. However, by failing to properly address the twisted arguments that the Cans/antis are known to resort to, the Dems shoot themselves in the foot by not anticipating such rhetoric.
In this instance, the Dems should have inserted language in the Bill stating that minors who had no stay in the migration decision should not be punished but instead we will hold the culprits responsible and bar the parents from AOS and subject them to a 10 year bar. Since they are already subject to the 10 year bars this would be redundant and meaningless but would be a great way to get the message across that the Bill is not a backdoor amnesty.
Personally, I do have a minor objection to the DREAM act. Any person convicted of any criminal offense (rather than an offense requiring a 1 year prison term) should be ineligible.
Lastly, the anti below agrees with my earlier post that Reid's putting off the cloture vote was a brilliant vote:
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/kausfiles/2010/12/09/reid-postpones-dream-vote-this-is-not-kabuki.html
Too bad, Barry Obama doesn't have the courage of a Harry Reid!