Rubio's dream: New details

Rubio’s DREAM
Not likely, say restrictionists.

Consider it the calm before the storm.

Right now, immigration groups and activists on the right are generally holding their fire on Senator Marco Rubio’s DREAM Act, waiting for the legislation to be released. But many of those who opposed the 2010 version of the DREAM Act are likely to oppose Rubio’s as well — and just as vehemently.

To be clear, Rubio’s DREAM is, by all accounts, significantly different from the 2010 DREAM Act. Both plans would give legal status to illegal immigrants who came to the United States as minor children, and who planned to attend college or join the military. But while the 2010 DREAM provided young adults with a path to citizenship, Rubio’s legislation would give only non-immigrant visas. Young adults on the non-immigrant visas would have a set number of years — not yet announced by Rubio’s office — that they could legally stay in the country without having gone on to, say, get a green card or marry a U.S. citizen.

Advertisement

Rubio has been reaching out to various conservatives about the new DREAM, including such figures as Sean Hannity and Senator Jim DeMint (R., S.C.). His office has distributed to chiefs-of-staff for Republican senators a PowerPoint presentation entitled “The Republican Challenge Among Hispanic Voters.” The presentation highlights the U.S.’s growing Hispanic population, and cites a poll conducted by the Hispanic Leadership Network that finds that 73 percent of Hispanics (and 63 percent of Republicans) think that undocumented immigrants who have no criminal records should be given legal status. “Republicans can’t ‘just say no’ to legislation expanding opportunity — we must have an alternative,” is one of the “concluding thoughts” in the presentation.
“People understandably want to see the details before they take a position on it,” Rubio press secretary Alex Conant says of how conservative immigration groups have reacted. “But I think people are very open to the idea. Folks understand that while these young people don’t have any legal claim to remain in the United States, they do have a claim on our conscience. They haven’t done anything wrong themselves.”

But not everyone is getting a meeting. Kris Kobach, the architect of Arizona’s SB 1070 bill, says he hasn’t been contacted by Rubio or his staff about DREAM. Kobach, now the secretary of state of Kansas, tried to meet with Rubio in April in D.C. “I did reach out and see if he was available to meet with me, but his staff reported he was unavailable,” Kobach says.

Asked if he could back the bill under any circumstances, Kobach responds, “Not if he’s giving non-immigrant visas to people who are unlawfully present. That’s an amnesty.”

Kobach isn’t alone. “We have consistently opposed amnesties,” says Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group that opposes illegal immigration. “Even though there is no actual bill to look at, it has all the earmarks of an amnesty and it’s something we’d be against.” Does it matter that Rubio’s bill would give young adults non-immigrant visas instead of citizenship? “If it permits people to remain in the country, gives them some sort of quasi-legal status, it’s a form of amnesty,” Mehlman responds.

Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for NumbersUSA, says the current version, as described by media reports, “is a non-starter” for the group. NumbersUSA would consider supporting the bill only if it ended chain migration, required employers to use E-Verify nationwide, and permitted only those young adults who had been brought to the United States at a very young age (think ten or younger) to be eligible for legal status. If the bill doesn’t include those provisions, NumbersUSA intends to actively oppose it.

That’s no small threat. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, calls NumbersUSA “sort of the most influential lobbying group most people have never heard of” and notes that “they’ve got a million activists.” Krikorian himself has concerns about the legislation; among other things, he would like to see the bill include a provision that would end chain migration.

For now, congressional Republicans have remained largely silent. Representative Steve King (R., Iowa), one of the most influential Republicans on immigration, said in a statement: “Senator Rubio contributes significantly to the national debate through his honest involvement in the public dialogue, and I’m happy to work with him on any subject — but I cannot comment on any bill until I see it in its final form.” Of the members of the House Immigration Subcommittee I contacted, only Dennis Ross (R., Fla.) got back to me with a positive comment: “As a 5-of-5 NumbersUSA Member of the House, I am unashamed to say there is a lot to like about his proposal.”

House speaker John Boehner said he found Rubio’s proposal “of interest” last week, but was frank about his doubts that the legislation could advance in the House, saying “it would be difficult at best.”

Boehner isn’t the only skeptic about the legislation’s chances of passing the Senate and the House. “Frankly, I don’t think that aggressive opposition by me will be necessary,” Kobach says, adding that the legislation doesn’t have a “prayer in Congress.” The DREAM Act, he continues, “will collapse of its own weight if he proposes amnesty.”


So it appears we have found out even more of this bill and the likely reactions from the tea party wing of the party. Thoughts?

So, an 11 year old could have played an active role in the decision to come here? Truly laughable. I knew that they'd support an age cut off that would help 5 DREAMers, tops.

The Tea Party and the xenophobes will continue digging the grave of the Republican Party. They've already alienated Latinos, African Americans, Women and the LGBT Community. I guess they think Romney will be able to win the White House carrying the white, male, over 35 voters.

-Ok so we already know just as Rosemary Jenks puts it, anything that lets anybody of any color other then white stay in the U.S. would be considered Amnesty. Now anybody thats not a Tea Party member isnt as nieve as members of these organizations and knows that publically taking such a racist stance on any policy is suicide. The Tea Party base just isnt what it was all chalked up to be because quiet honestly it was all bullshit, (they have achieved NOTHING!!!!! since taking office and people have noticed). Lets hope many of the prominent members of congress believe in their constituents and actually form their own opinion other then that of a LOBBYING GROUP who by the way is now officially allowed to fund political campaigns.
-We will never appease these lobbying groups so dont even try. Just start praying if your religous or hoping is your not they get some of the nastiest STD's through their inbreeding and die off relatively soon. They will blame those STD's on us , and i for one am willing to take that heat if it ends their tyranni.
-As far as details go TAKE WHAT WE GET BECAUSE THAT OPPOSITION IS REALLY STRONG AND IF WE GO TO WAR THEY WILL BLOW US OUT OF THE WATER LIKE THEY HAVE DONE FOR 12 YEARS NOW.

Link to the article please?

Hey trufth,

Thanks for the article. But, you have been giving the same message; the org or news source could have asked you to write the same piece. Plus, Numbers USA will oppose it anyway. Doesn't Numbers USA essentially want to stop all legal and illegal immigration? That's an ultra-ultra right org. However, not all members of Numbers USA oppose Rubio's idea. Notice:

"Of the members of the House Immigration Subcommittee I contacted, only Dennis Ross (R., Fla.) got back to me with a positive comment: 'As a 5-of-5 NumbersUSA Member of the House, I am unashamed to say there is a lot to like about his proposal.'"

Plus, there is this: For now, congressional Republicans have remained largely silent. Representative Steve King (R., Iowa), one of the most influential Republicans on immigration, said in a statement: “Senator Rubio contributes significantly to the national debate through his honest involvement in the public dialogue, and I’m happy to work with him on any subject — but I cannot comment on any bill until I see it in its final form.” Neutrality is evident here but neutrality now is better than a fuck you, which would happen had it been a proposal from Dems.

I still say that we should wait to see how things play. But, as always, be prepared.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...atrina-trinko#

The source is pretty lame. Wouldn't worry about it too much.

Well, the most important point of this story is. Republicans are really digging their own grave. Okay, lets think for a second, Obama wins election (this will happen). The economy is under recovery and Romney is not popular at all. Obama will do something in his second term. He will be pushed, maybe even executive order given that 2/3 of the American voters sympathize with us.
Even if replublicans win office next time around (which I doubt if the anti-immigrant rant continues). The weight of the immigrant community on elections will be much bigger 4 years from now, and Republicans will not dare to try to overturn such thing as the Dream act, given ofcourse that they win another election. More tea partiers would have died, which hopefully will change the voting tendencies of American citizens.

That is all. I am confident that the Dream act is not too far away in the future.

Someone argue with me. I want to see your point of view.

Sponsorship should not be allowed for Dreamers ever. This will help pass the bill.

Ditto

We need to wait and see until the bill gets presented. Only then can we see how things will work out.

There may still be plenty of details that haven't been reveled yet which could change many people's opinion on the bill.

This Dennis Ross guy some pretty extreme anti-immigrant views. For him to say anything positive about Rubio's proposal is a good thing.

http://dennisross.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=31190

http://dennisross.house.gov/News/Doc...umentID=259408