Shouldn't we add limitation on sponsorship in the current DA?

I keep hearing opponents screaming that the DA will cost the US billions because they say we will apparently sponsor our parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles etc...

Shouldn't we keep the provision (from the 2010 DA) that:

1. We cannot sponsor our extended family, and we cannot begin to sponsor our parents or siblings for 12 years after we gain permanent residency.

That will take away another ammunition for the DA opponents to use.

Who agrees with me?

If DA is passed then most likely some anti-immigrant law will be passed along with it. Like e-verify or a much more stringent version of the Real ID BS. Most dreamers parents will have to live like Anne Frank for 12 years.Sounds pretty awful to me.

For that to be the case the DA bill would have to create a second class citizenship which is against the constitution? The only other thing they could do is just give us some sort of restricted residency or a renewable visa.

I do.

The requirement would apply for us when we gain permanent residency.

i agree also. the past has shown that if the U.S satifies every illegal immigrant and gives a backdoor amnesty than even MORE illegals will come over. i really doubt full amnesty will be given so may as well try to pass something atleast like the dream act. since the dream act satisfies most reasons for coming here like *give their children a better life*. i feel bad for the ones that wont get papers but i dont want to suffer more for other ppls sake.

oddly enough I would have to agree with your viewpoint, and have voices a comparable concern in the past as well as denoted a likely scenario which I feel could become favorable for the majority.

My observation has been just that, the vast majority of the movement against the DREAM Act has been focusing on that particular point, that through our legalization we might be able to petition our parents, despite the fact that the goal would not really be reasonable, it would take 13 years before we are able to attain USC status and then those parents who are EWI would still have to leave the states and be banned for 10 years before they are able to come back in through legal means, it is a multidecade process as it stands.

But by breaking up the two, that is by ensuring that the DREAM Act meets its primary goal and only its primary goal, to grant a path to legalization to those individuals that great up in the united states, came to the united states before the age of 12, graduated from a high school in the united states, and went to college or served in the military, then it might have a better shot at passing.

And the sacrifice, as its apparent does not have to be a sacrifice. As it stands we are able to get the supports of tens of thousands to prevent the deportation of someone or another, but the DREAM Act provides a path to legalization for an estimated 1 million people, 1 million people that would be able to come out of the shadows without fearing that they would be deported for doing so, and 1 million people that may finally share who they are and what their lives have been like, 1 million people who may add a reasonable voice to the comprehensive immigration reform movement which could potentially decrease the time our parents would have to be in the shadows.

Ironically there is already an immigration process that is just like this. I am talking about adoption cases, in that case the adoptee is prohibited from petitioning their biological family members but they may still petition their children or their spouses.

I did go to the group which shall not be named and searched myself to see if they had quoted me in any way, and they had. I created an account and sent PM to everyone that responded to that thread and started conversations with them. There is a divide between both groups for obvious reasons and we tend to think of them as our enemies, as I suppose they think of us, but at the end of the day we are all people, humans, and their stance is for what they feel is right. No one does anything with the idea that they are being evil or doing the wrong thing, at least not any significant portion of the population. My intentions where to see if there was anything misconception that I could correct them on. Thus I was surprised to observe any kind of support from members of such a group, even members which have thousands of posts to their record, even though they were not for the DA, it seemed to develop to the same conclusion, that it would benefit the people that were adults and broke the law, our parents, their entire stance against the DREAM Act was not for the intended beneficiaries of the DREAM Act, they did not really mention that as a reason.

I don't think that adding e-verify to make sure the DREAM Act passes would be a bright idea. It's comparable to extending the bush tax cuts for 2 years while extending unemployment benefits for one as was the Obama "compromise" during the lame duck session, at the end of the day you are setting up for a lot of problems once the unemployment benefits expire. We, as in the immigrant community and the economy of this country in general would be in a lot of trouble when more than 10 million immigrants are forced from their jobs and have to leave, or be forced into more abusive positions with no regulation, underground economies or abusive employers, it could set the entire immigrant community, and that includes us by extension towards a path of likely abuse of the likes which may prove detrimental on the long term. We already have pugnacious senators claiming that its the fault of undocumented rape victims for the rape that they endured for being in this country illegally, and to add to the insult that the victims should be deported as was stated by one senator a while ago essentially giving a green light to any would be rapists that undocumented immigrants are probably not going to come forward, a dangerous resolution which thankfully most people would be against supporting.

sorry for the lengthy post

Also take the part of the in-tuition out and any grants and gov't help.

No, just no.

We already won't get any federal government aid.

And most of the states in-state tuition laws are based on the students' 3 years of high-school, not on the students' immigration status, that's why CA AB540 survived so many lawsuits.