A Bipartisan Dream Act: A Concept That is Within Our Grasp

A Bipartisan DREAM Act: A Concept That is Within our Grasp by Robert Gittelson

In the winter of 2010, I spent three weeks in Washington during the Lame duck session, trying to cobble together Republican support in the Senate to pass the DREAM Act. I was unsuccessful.

However, during the myriad of negotiations that I was involved in during that time, there was one thing that became crystal clear to me. I learned that there was, in fact, a way to pass the DREAM Act. There was a way to attract enough Republican support to be able to attain the elusive 60 votes required to pass anything in the Senate. It was by eliminating the pathway to citizenship through the bill, and substituting instead some form of renewable non-immigrant visa status for the DREAMers.

I explained this concept to the Democrats, but they were reluctant to accept this major concession. I understood then, and I understand now. This is a substantial difference, and for many of the folks involved in this issue, this was, to quote Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, and my colleague in the Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform coalition, “a bitter pill to swallow.”

Now here we are a year and a half later. We are no closer to passing the DREAM Act, as proposed by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin in the Senate, and on a bipartisan basis by Democratic Representative Howard Berman and Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in the House. If anything, we are further away from passage, because the House has flipped to Republican control, and they are less amenable to this version of the DREAM Act.

The fact that Republican Senator Marco Rubio has made public the concept of an alternative version of the DREAM Act has been met by several different reactions. Most, but not all Republicans, have offered cautious optimism about his concept, although everyone seems to be lifting their collective fingers into the air to see which way the wind is blowing on this proposal.

The Democrats seem to be divided, but are also mostly cautiously optimistic. It seems that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is open to hearing more about this proposal, while the administration, while also expressing a measured openness to hearing more about this concept, have attempted to paint anything that doesn’t grant a specific pathway to citizenship as creating a permanent under, or “second” class in this country. This position was exemplified by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s comments on this Sunday’s Meet the Press.

Mayor Villaraigosa is my Mayor. I have a deep appreciation of his outspoken advocacy for the undocumented, and for his passion in calling for comprehensive immigration reform. Full disclosure, I have spoken to and with Mayor Villaraigosa both publicly and in a more private setting about the need for CIR, and I admire him immensely for his advocacy on this issue. However, I must respectfully disagree with his position against this bipartisan DREAM Act alternative. I would further note that the actual DREAMers seem, for the most part, very willing to hear what the Republicans have to offer.

I would simply like to offer another perspective. First, I would say to those who are stating that this new proposal will create a second class of citizenship in America; what exactly do you think that we have now? By relegating 12,000,000 people to a life in the shadows of society by not addressing their illegal status, including all of the DREAMers, we are currently living in an America that has a defacto second class of citizens right now. By allowing these young and high achieving DREAMers to emerge from the shadows and live their lives in a fully legal and above board status, they would be fully respected and participating members of our society. Also, they would be citizens, albeit citizens of their country of birth. After all, they were not born in this country, and that is a fact. Allowing them to come forward and to accept legal status, they would be free to pursue the American dream, and work, study, travel, pay taxes, and live in dignity.

My second point is one of pragmatism. This new version of the DREAM Act is all there is. The current version of the bill cannot reach 60 votes in the Senate. Even if it could, (which it can’t), it would never pass in the House. It doesn’t even have a prayer. Therefore, if one is for the concept of allowing DREAM eligible kids to emerge from the shadows and pursue their happiness in America, I say that you have to allow for the possibility that Senator Rubio, (and several other Republicans that are behind this compromise), should be given every opportunity to pursue this new legislative version of the bill.

I would also caution against delaying this process until after the election. Two of the other Republican Senators that are working on this proposal, Senator’s Hutchison and Texas and Kyl of Arizona, are both retiring after this year. These two Senators are leading on this issue as a political legacy, and if we wait until next year, we will sorely miss their leadership, as well as their two votes.

Finally, I would like to appeal to my friends on the progressive side of the aisle. We need positive change, and we need momentum in the fight for immigrant rights. Granted, this new proposal falls short of everything that you want. That is what legislating, and the art of compromise is all about. I urge you to seek a compromise with the Republicans on this proposal. I would also urge pragmatism and patience. Be pragmatic enough to solve this very difficult problem for the kids, and be patient enough to realize that full rights will come. Time is on our side.

By Robert Gittelson, Co-Founder, Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/

Good to know others realize the importance of passing this bill before elections.

nuff said.

Rubio will have a tough job convincing representatives like this.

It also says Travel in there. Interesting.

"However, during the myriad of negotiations that I was involved in during that time, there was one thing that became crystal clear to me. I learned that there was, in fact, a way to pass the DREAM Act. There was a way to attract enough Republican support to be able to attain the elusive 60 votes required to pass anything in the Senate. It was by eliminating the pathway to citizenship through the bill, and substituting instead some form of renewable non-immigrant visa status for the DREAMers.

I explained this concept to the Democrats, but they were reluctant to accept this major concession. I understood then, and I understand now. This is a substantial difference, and for many of the folks involved in this issue, this was, to quote Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, and my colleague in the Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform coalition, “a bitter pill to swallow."

Wow, this makes me sad and pisses me off. Why wasn't this version pushed for earlier? I was never aware of this. If the non-immigrant visa alternative could have gotten the 60 votes then, we would all be legal now if such a version had been pushed in 2010. Why does this send a chill down my spine?

There is a possibility that Rubio might make him support his bill though. Fingers crossed.

The author is talking about his experience in trying to get the 60 votes in the Senate. It would have been too late to change the bill at that point. If I remember correctly, the house adjourned soon after taking a vote on the Dream Act. They would not have gone back to vote on a whole other version of the bill.

Because Republicans are smart enough to know that the more they reject any immigration bill eventually we will be so fed up with it that we will take anything less than what the Dems are offering. Thus, Rubio's bill. Which in their case, it will benefit them. I mean, if this kind of bill were to be put out before do you think we will accept it? YOU might.. but majority of us won't. As years pass by with no change and some of us are getting older, we just have to give in and eat on the Republican's plate.

have you ever felt so hungry that you'll just about to eat anything you see that's edible?

yea that's US.

I respect that. But, why wouldn't we accept this before. At the time, the GOP came across rigid. I did not know that they were willing to make this concession. Second-class status is what we live in now. It's not even second-class. It's shit-class status.

Nothing against you. Shit just rocks my world . . . All of us are going throught so much shit . . . it's unexplainable. I feel anger, disgust, . .