The Hill: DREAM Act champion likes Rubio's new plan

CNN contributor, syndicated columnist and DREAM Act advocate, Ruben Navarrette, Jr. praises Marco Rubio's alternate plan as a "common sense solution" and warns Democrats against opposing it for "ugly partisan reasons." (ea).


You may have heard that a group of Republicans in Congress -- including GOP rock star and possible vice presidential pick Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida -- are getting ready to introduce their version of the DREAM Act.You also may have heard that Democratic lawmakers and liberal advocacy groups despise the Republican alternative and derisively label it "DREAM Act Lite."

As someone who has written about immigration for more than 20 years and hammered Democrats and Republicans (including Rubio) when appropriate, I call the GOP approach to the DREAM Act something else: A common sense solution. It could break a stalemate and improve millions of lives. And it could only be opposed for ugly partisan reasons.

Navarrette is a conservative but has been a tireless advocate for the DREAM Act and frequent critic of the GOP over it.

The first step for Rubio and the Republicans is winning over sympathetic critics of the GOP. The next step is harder because, and as Navarrette explains, it may have stultifying partisan politics at its root.

Rubio is attached to the bill, and, in fact, seems to have been put front and center by Republican colleagues such as Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. Democrats know that the Cuban-American senator is on the short list of likely running mates for GOP nominee Mitt Romney. And that has to terrify them.

Rubio has skills. Besides, they know that putting him on the ticket could lure some Latino support away from Democrats -- especially given that, according to polls, a majority of Latino voters disapprove of President Barack Obama's handling of immigration. If they can torpedo the GOP DREAM Act, they might just hobble Rubio. But if they can't, and Rubio uses the bill to score points with Latino voters, it could be a nightmare for Democrats in November.

http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/04/dre...ubios-new.html

That's cool, and i'm still waiting for the bill to be put out. Can't wait.

It should come out in June.

We can finally agree in something.

Hmm, I am honestly intrigued by what possibile changes will be made to the bill, if pro DA seem in favor of it. Reps cannot submit a bill too similar to the previous versions, but at the same time the new one it still has to carry its most basic ideas and ideals, so I have no idea what they are going to come up with that is worse than the non-immigrant status, but better than no status at all. You get to work and drive as long as you wear a big red 'I' on your shirt?!

This is one is for DA User and the like: Removing eligibility for citizeship is huge, HUGE.

So, make anyone who qualified for the Democratic version of the DA, but for the fact that they aged out due to the legislative delay, eligible. That way it doesn't exclude those who have been working toward its passage for the last decade and it does remove the arguement from conservatives that it would produce chain-migration and Dem voters. Fair is fair.

Worse then non-immigrant status would be just student visa and/or a tourist visa, still non-immigrant though. I am also guessing that those of the Dreamers who do not have a SSN Card will get one also.

You can still attain USC through current methods though, not banned. If one gets aged out then Retroactive gets everyone in and if you did not complete a 4 year degree yet then that is the Dreamer's fault. They should ban all Dreamers for sponsoring anyone for life.

Seriously? Now THAT would create a sub-class of people. Why should we be unable to sponsor a relative once we've become legal residents here, which may be 10 years from now? The wait is over 20 years for some countries, so you're saying that 30 years from now we should still be paying for this? And those DREAMers that go the military path should be unable to file for a relative after serving in a branch of the armed forces? That's ludicrous.

Well, do we really care what they label us? They are just labels after all. I put that ban on there to get enough votes for passage. Why worry about sponsoring now though? Sponsoring someone should be the last thing on a Dreamer's mind right now.

You have a point. But once the bill passes, I'm sure the Supreme Court would have a thing or two to say about that provision in the bill don't you think?