My idea

DELETED

It's hard for us to even get an education as high as a bachelors, if that is what you have, great. But some of us can't afford, or complete that level of education without monetary aid. And serving in the armed forces as part of the criteria, seems a little off the grid due to the fact that you need to posses a SSN to be part of them.


Other than that I think the "Chance Act" seems very realistic, and the criteria would not be favoring any type of "amnesty", or making it easier for anybody to become a citizen, or a permanent resident. To the contrary, I think that if most of us meet this criteria, and still want to become citizens after going through all of that process, then it would show the rest of the public how serious, and patriotic we really are.

thiefofdreams proposes a good bill..however, I'd strike out Section 2.B.c. There is no reason to prove extreme hardship after the 5 year visa expires. We should ask for one year renewals if we continue to pursue the goals led out in Section 1. Also rephrase Section three to "the alien shall return to the immigration status before he/she received such benefit under this Act". Some of us are involved in alternative means to legalize our status. Making us all illegal doesn't make any sense and only compounds the problem by creating more illegal aliens after 5 years.

I think this plan is good because America makes this seem like you have to be skilled and "useful" in order to stay in this country. People who get legal visas coming here are always those employment visas. If they could up the requirement to a BA, it's going to show that we can be productive residents.

But there needs to be a green card.

i have to oppose this bill. Tell me has there been any arguements from opponents to lower the entry age???? Under the immigration system, anyone under the age of 16 is considered a MINOR. That is why the entry age has always been 15 and lower.

why can't we travel outside the U.S... i would like to go back home and visit my parents. maybe i'm confused on what you mean here.

Please do not forget that we are not the only ones in this fight, this bill is meant to help thousands of other children as well.

Why give so many concessions when we already have support of the majority? I could understand this entire re-working of the bill had we utterly failed but this is certainly not the case.

It seems that many of you are rushing to put through a version of this bill, even if doing so means less children will actually benefit from it. Remember this fight is not just about us, but many thousands of other children who are sometimes in totally different shoes. Please keep them in mind when making such broad changes/proposals.

Mistake number one. No amount of re-wording is going to make those who think this is amnesty that it is not. These people are looking at it from a totally different standpoint, they do not read the actual bill and come up to this conclusion based on that standpoint. They reach this conclusion from false understandings they have about us as people.

Please please please stop trying to appease these people as that will not happen.

Why? Does a 13 year old child have the ability to make his own decisions? What brought you to this number? I mean if our goal here is to appease people then let us make it say... 4?

Let us not rush into this, let us remember there are others we are fighting for and this bill needs to apply to as many kids that are in the same/similar shoes as possible. Just because it came very close this year but did not pass does not mean that it needs an entire re-working. Let please be considerate of everyone when proposing changes.

DELETED

I must agree with quaker. Lowering the entry age is not necessary, since 15 is safely considered to be "minor". Quaker is also right in stating that our opposition isn't willing to compromise at all, so our attempts at compromise will, in effect, undermine the purpose of the bill. We have the majority support. Let us focus on convincing neutral Americans on the merits of the DREAM Act to win their support. Remember, ALIPAC and its associates are just a loud minority in the country.

Very true...ALIPAC doesn't speak for most people, however they do have the loudest voice. I don't think you have to make all of those concessions. I think some will have to be made in the spirit of what Hutchison said, "to make it palatable to Republicans." But I know the biggest problem is getting the average person to know who you are. Most Americans aren't aware of your population. We need something for you in the media. Something like 60 Minutes or Dateline or a series of stories on a national news program.
When I've talked to people about DREAM, most people agree that people like you should be "made legal". But Numbers and ALIPAC are framing the debate every time. That's what kills it.