Clarifying DREAM Act vs CIR

i think some people in this forum are still confused about the difference between the nature of CIR and DREAM Act and as a DREAM Act activist, i find this very alarming and cause for serious concern. i even got into some heated arumented in another thread. and i do apologize for my language but we really need to clarify this. if people in this forum are confused about the spirit of DREAM ACT, what does that tell you about how the general public may think about this???? some people may read this and say "What the hell, we know this already" but some people are missing it by a mile. this is very important concept to cover.

like i mentioned in another thread, the whole idea of CIR is to provide pathway to citizenship for those who have knowingly and willfully commited illegal act, violating immigration laws. that constitutes 12 million people, and yes that includes our parents.

DREAM Act is to provide legal recourse to those who were brought here when they were toddlers and kids who had no decisional making capacity and had no say in coming to this country unlawfully. they ended up growing up here and have become now adults who cant simply just go back to their "home country" because all they know is here and "home" is in fact, here. that constitutes hundreds of thousands at most, including us.

DREAMies did not commit the crime. CIRies? they did. this is a HUGE sticking point that we need to focus on and drive that point to people's head so that they dont think that this is all a same thing--amnesty for illegals.

there needs to be a clear fundamental distinction between DREAM and CIR and not try to pass on DREAM as a mere extension of CIR or subset of CIR. we cant associate ourselves with "CIR illegals". yes we are talking about our parents and elderly and it feels wrong. but this is about the passage of the DREAM ACT, not CIR. we are not "them" (and to some of you: dont misconstrue this statement as me saying we are better then them because that's not my point). this is not being negative, or selfish. this is stating hard cold truth:

we did not knowingly commit the crime. we came here as toddlers and babies, we are educated, we speak english, we are assimilated, all we know is here. that makes us different. not better. different. that's why i think DREAM ACT needs to be a separate issue.

amnesty is by definition forgiving. CIR is trying to forgive those who have commited an act of crime and thats why it is a tough sell. DREAM Act is trying to save those who were victimized by that act of crime. FORGIVING AND SAVING. DREAM ACT is not an amnesty because we did not commit a crime to begin with. thats the nature of difference between DREAM and CIR.

At the core, however, these people who you so passionately try to pin down as lawbreakers, are our parents, in most of our cases.

Advocating for DREAM while using our experiences of what the American dream is about, while honoring the sacrifices our parents made, is OK. It is fine to claim to be your own person without culpabillity for your status, as long as you do so without hurting the bigger cause at hand, which is a more orderly way to immigrate so that parents like YOURS are not forced to make such painful decisions on behalfs of kids like YOU.

Advocating for DREAM while at the same time embracing the opposition's hateful rhetoric and divisive framework of the issue is counterproductive, and gives that opposition the security of ensuring we remain divided and ultimately, defeated. That is what is at stake and that's why we cannot effectively organize and be part of a broader coalition working on our behalf if we continue to be deadset on a bill, rather than in the future changes we seek not just for our generation but future ones.

Ultimately, I would accept your apology and understand your frustration over the image of the marches as you witnessed them. But the challenge remains to understand how much we are in this together even if our path to legal status will be different than our parents' path.

yes, they are our parents but they are in fact, "lawbreakers" even if that term doesnt sit well with you. they did break the law. plain black and white. you cant deny it. for you and i, we know that they did it largely for our future so there is great sense and obligation for us to symphasize with their situation.

but about the general american public? they dont care about that. what they see is that they broke the law. its clear as night and day. we are trying to appeal to the general public for the passage of the DREAM ACT by trying to convince them that we are not "them", that we did not commit this crime, that we are in fact, victims. afterall, thats what this legislation is about, isnt it? so i find it frustrating when people are trying to mix up DREAM ACT and CIR together and pass it off as going hand in hand because they are fundamentally different. they should be mutually exclusive. we have to understand the population we are trying to convince and play the politics game, which includes semantics. that means clearly distinguishing ourselves from the "rest" even if that sounds like alienating our parents. if you dont agree with that, might as well push for CIR and not DREAM. why even bother with DREAM if you dont agree with the fact that we are a separate group?

im separating emotions and cold reality. im an advocate of DREAM ACT, for those who were victimized. not CIR. there needs to be clear distinction because i think amnesty really is going to be a tough sell this year with everything goign on.

"yes, they are our parents but they are in fact, "lawbreakers" even if that term doesnt sit well with you. they did break the law. plain black and white. you cant deny it."

So are you if you think in that logic.

Boohoo, I'm a big effin victim. Don't play the victim game or they will prey on you, in fact it seems they already got to your head. Keep it high kid, for else you shall lose.

I will personally trust and follow what ever path President Obama decides to take.

If he decides to go with CIR and if he thinks it is better to tackle CIR, i would personally then just go with CIR.

Dont get me wrong. I am all for DA and would hope it would come before CIR, but President Obama would know about the politics of the day much more than i would.


Also if Dream act fails, i think CIR is basically done for. But if CIR fails, there will probably still be chances for Dream act to pass.

See we dont know which senators would vote for only one of the two. There might be some senators that would only vote for CIR or some that would only vote for DA. Those numbers and those information are gathered by the whips in congress ( Like Senator Durbin in senate). They know these information and they know the political atmosphere much better than we do.

Immigration reform is a very touchy issue. Decisions should be made by the people who have enough information to decide which is the best path.


AGAIN, Trust president Obama and all of our supporters and do your best.


P.S. I hope you apologize to alex for your shallow comment.

I didn't bother reading any of that. With that said, STFU please.

If Obama wants to push for CIR, we can't change that. Either get behind the push for the passage of CIR or GTFO.

Mods, please delete this thread. It's an insult to anyone with a brain.

we should try and understand...that our parents were not this old when they made their decisions....They had big hopes and aspirations back then; you know when the USA was actually doing good. Although yes they knowingly broke the law....they were young and thinking of only our futures. I agree that passing the DReam Act is the most important part but our parents have suffered enough. They broke the law yes, but now look at most of them...they are respecting the law and continue to give to this country. In all fairness....our parent's also need some hope...

hilarious. obviously you missed the logic. try harder then come back.

and watch it with the derogatory "kid" im not here to start something. if you dont got anything intelligent to say, then dont.

so without reading any of it you managed to respond to the thread. wow. you lost your credibility right there.

your last sentence is pretty ironic. why cant these people have decent debate without throwing idiotic one liners and name calling because they dont agree?

maybe its hard to think for half a second for you or read something thats more than 2 sentences long, but if you dont got anything constructive to say, then at least try not to instigate a fight and stay away from adult conversations.

again, you are trying to mix up DREAM with CIR based on sentimental emotions. that is exactly the kind of thinking that will ultimately fail DREAM ACT from passing if you keep trying to tie us to "law breakers" because our opposition doesnt care for all that sob stories. they committed a crime to be here. we had no say in being here. our parents' hopes lie on CIR. ours lie on DREAM Act. they both need to be worked on, sure. but what im saying is they need to be completely separate issues because a) DREAM has higher chance of passing b) we are and ought to be considered as completely different groups. i cant explain that any more clear.