DREAM or NIGHTMARE?

Swim19 · 02-17-2012, 12:20 AM

Quote:

DREAM or NIGHTMARE? Why Congress Should Reject a Military-Only Version of the DREAM Act

First proposed in 2001 by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act would allow certain undocumented noncitizens a chance to legalize their status by going to college or serving in the military. Since then it has been introduced regularly both as a stand-alone bill and as part of comprehensive immigration reform bills, drawing bipartisan support each time in both the House and Senate. The closest it has come to enactment was in 2010, when it passed the House but failed to get through the Senate.

Congress has watered down the DREAM Act over the last decade.The original 2001 version would have granted permanent resident status (green cards) to any undocumented child who had been in the United States for at least five years, as long as they had good moral character and were attending a college or university.

By contrast, the Senate’s 2011 version of the bill would require individuals to have entered the United States before they were 15; have graduated from a U.S. high school or received a GED from a U.S. institution;be under 35 on the date of enactment; and have lived in the United States for at least five years. Prior versions of the bill did not include an age cap. Similarly, the current version of the bill would require beneficiaries to stay in conditional resident status for six years before they could get permanent green cards. Early versions of the DREAM Act would have immediately granted green cards to individuals who met the bill's requirements.

The current version would also make applicants subject to more grounds of inadmissibility, deportability, and other restrictions. Some want to water down the DREAM Act even more.Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich say they would support a DREAM Act — but only for young immigrants who join the military. Representative David Rivera (R-FL) has introduced a bill along similar lines.

Problems with a military-only DREAM Act range from the practical to the philosophical. For example, Representative Rivera’s bill would require people to enlist within nine months; otherwise they would lose their eligibility under the bill. The bill fails to realize, however, that people can’t start the enlistment process until they are legal and have a social security number. It can take longer than nine months to complete the enlistment process, and the military services have annual quotas that get filled quickly when the economy is bad, forcing people into the next fiscal year.

In addition, some potential enlistees may fail to qualify for medical reasons. Suppose someone gets temporary status under the Rivera bill, tries to enlist, and turns out to be colorblind. Do we tell them, "Sorry, we are deporting you because you are colorblind. No refund of the immigration fees you paid to start the DREAM Act process"?

The call for a military-only DREAM Act also poses moral problems. It effectively tells undocumented noncitizens that they are only useful for war, not for improving our economy through their hard work or inspiring the next generation by teaching in our schools. Those professions are just as noble as fighting for our country. As a new book, Green Card Stories, points out, people who legalize their status help this country in a variety of important ways.

Proponents of a military-only DREAM Act also forget the economic benefits of enacting a broader bill. For example, A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion. Similarly, a 2008 study from Arizona State University found that an individual with a bachelor’s degree earns approximately $750,000 more over the course of his or her lifetime than an individual with only a high-school diploma. In these tough economic times, we need the earnings of everyone in this country as much as we need their military service.

Langston Hughes once wrote:
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?  
Or fester like a sore and then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over, like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?”

Politicians should watch out. Trying to dilute the DREAM Act may backfire on them and cause DREAMers to explode in widespread demonstrations and cries of outrage, if necessary to enact a true DREAM Act.

http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/i...act/index.html

tyler129 · 02-17-2012, 12:31 AM

we've been in nightmare for the last 10 years

CB124 · 02-17-2012, 11:33 AM

By the way, I keep hearing about it, but what is the actual physical status of the ARMS act bill? Can I get that instead of an editorial>

Swim19 · 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB124

By the way, I keep hearing about it, but what is the actual physical status of the ARMS act bill? Can I get that instead of an editorial>

Same status as DREAM Act. Introduced in the House and referred to House subcommittee. Not very difficult to look up.

And though the article is an editorial, it is written by someone knowledgeable and I felt brought up some important points based on facts.

MalditoDuende · 02-17-2012, 01:03 PM

I remember I was actually excited for the DREAM act in 2010..I actually got involved in a few organizations, made phone calls, and I told all my friends about it, but i just cant bring myself to feel the same for the ARMS act. I wont even lie. I haven't done any rallying for this nightmare act and I dont think I ever will.

MiGSTeR · 02-17-2012, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalditoDuende

I remember I was actually excited for the DREAM act in 2010..I actually got involved in a few organizations, made phone calls, and I told all my friends about it, but i just cant bring myself to feel the same for the ARMS act. I wont even lie. I haven't done any rallying for this nightmare act and I dont think I ever will.

Then don't. Nobody is putting a gun on your little head.

No wonder we are still illegals, lol many of u are choosier than an 11th grader blonde.

MalditoDuende · 02-17-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiGSTeR

Then don't. Nobody is putting a gun on your little head.

No wonder we are still illegals, lol many of u are choosier than an 11th grader blonde.

You bet your sweet little ass I wont

hollisterco · 02-18-2012, 09:07 AM

im actually gonna ask a friend about this, was in class last time just shootin the shit and being hispanic asked about our story, yet it stopped at him, cuz he got into a story of how he got his paperwork from joining the army and some girl recruiter or something told him he probably should apply for his USC and he had it in a couple months, problem is what happens if you didnt make the cut tho? im gonna try asking hes cool but i just met him so ill use the friend of a friend line

dreamy14 · 02-18-2012, 03:29 PM

^^

Under ARMS act, you probably will not get your USC papers until after 13 years as the bill says (if it passes as it is now). I bet they'll make it so it won't be possible for you to get it sooner....add a notation to your record or something....so I won't lay all my cards on this one just yet. The bill is more strict that it sounds. But yeah, if you find more info, please come back and let us know.

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

August

DREAM or NIGHTMARE?