A new DREAM? - Page 2

Ianus, yeh the CIR might not be effective until January 1st 2008, but if DREAM or the EARN act get swept in into the overall CIR i think it will still go into effect 6 months after the CIR is signed.

For instance say CIR gets signed in July, but doesn't take effect until Jan 08, that means in Jan of 08 the guest worker program, border security, and legalization of some of those 11million will take effect then, but components of it like DREAM/EARN or AGJOBS will go into effect several months after it is signed or however long its spelled out in those particular acts (6 months in the EARN act).

Not sure if i'm right but what do ya'll think?

the question is, if earn act and dream act are going to be incorporated into the CIR then why would they introduce them separately ?

Because EARN and DREAM would probably have a better chance of passing on their own if worse comes to worst. Or they could probably put them as amendments to other bills like they tried to do with AGJobs.

ohh i see, and it is definitely better to pass either one of them on their own.

I'm just glad there is a version of DREAM with no in-state tuition.

So am I!

now lets all hope that there is no age limit, and if there is one, it's 40.

In my opinion removing instate tuition is just a way of appeasement for those who oppose the bill. But to say that something like this will make the bill better is not true. No instate tuition means that college will still be out of reach for many, now because of their financial 'status'.

Yes, this shuts the trap of those that use in-state tuition to oppose the bill, but I think its more about them being against 'rewarding illegal behavior'. They'll find something else wrong with the whole idea and that 'rewarding illegal behavior' argument is NEVER going to go away, no matter how else they starve the bill.

Suppose they add an age limit to the bill? Does that make it 'better', because now more people are excluded from the benefits of the bill? I honestly dont think so. So removing in-state tuition and adding an age limit are in the same ballpark in my mind, both accomplish EXACTLY the same thing; appeasing those who opose the bill and limiting the extent of its benefits to only a small portion of people who most certainly deserve it.

I used to think that these two proposals were different (an age limit and no in-state), but no longer. Dont forget that to qualify under the DREAM Act you HAVE to go to college or military, and in a family where people are making just enough money to stay afloat neither is an option.

I can see that the general opinion here is 'give us something', while I certainly agree to some degree, I strongly believe that appeasement never works and I hate the idea no matter how many 'immigration hawks' it pleases.

Yeah, but Nick, you have to also understand that once we can have some kind of legal ID or document we can receive in-state tuition (in FL. all you need is an employment authorization RECEIPT from USCIS....not even the actual card). If you talk to the powers that be, you can get in-state tuition with the most minimal of legal documents. So in-state tuition was, in effect, redundant.


And anyway, under DREAM, the STATES decide whether or not to give in-state; it's not obligatory. There is no guarantee that we will get in-state tuition regardless of DREAM. It may even be years after DREAM passes for the states to decide through the state Senate and House to push the in-state tuition bill along. The only states that will have it automatically are the ones that offer it right now.


The only differences between DREAM and EARN are in-state tuition and the military option. I do think DREAM may have a better chance of passing since it sort of has name recognition, unlike EARN that I literally just stumbled upon. I highly doubt that an age limit will be implemented in either DREAM or EARN because last year, when the bill was up in the Senate in S.2611, no one really touched upon it.


Here's hoping Durbin introduces DREAM and Kennedy introduces CIR this week. =)

Your post motivated me to take a deeper look into this.


What the in-state tuition part of the bill is, is the following:

Text: http://dreamact.info/index.php?optio...Itemid=53#sec3



Here is 8 U.S.C. 1623:

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...tion_1623.html


In other words if you qualify under DREAM you get in-state tuition no matter what, because you are now a legal resident (and no its not for the state to decide, they must give it to you, otherwise its discrimination).

What Section 3 of the DREAM Act does, and the part that EARN does not have, is that illegal aliens will be able to recieve in state tuition (no need for state level DREAM Acts). In other words if you do not qualify under DREAM (and hence stay illegal) you will at least qualify for in-state tuition. So in effect, it will be the inverse of the current situation, states will have to pass a law to prevent illegal aliens from recieving in-state.

So my original opinion was a bit ignorant of details I guess (and I see I'm not alone in that boat). I still did not form a solid opinion on exactly what it means to remove this section. However, just because it does not affect most of us, does not mean that we can just strike this provision out and say this bill is better.