DREAM Act Portal Forum - Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

DREAM Act Portal Forum (http://dreamact.info/forum/index.php)

- The News Room (http://dreamact.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23)

- - Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham (http://dreamact.info/forum/showthread.php?t=27586)

Re: Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

Dudes, just wait. My balls are getting blisters. These are all what-ifs, and it could go either way.

Re: Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

wow, you guys are obviously unemployed....no more essays please.

Age cap will be set at 7, so only a few of us will qualify. The rest of you can wait for CIR. OK?

lol

Let the harassment begin..... j/k

Age cap will be 30 with retro/provision and only those brought here under the age of 12 will qualify. Dems and Reps will debate and bring that number to 15 or 16.

Re: Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

It will pass. Rubio says humanitarian issue. Well 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 age that u have had when u entered the USA is not being all humanitarian at all. So it will be at least 14

Re: Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2Face (Post 254832)

Man that age has gotta be 15. Anything younger than that shit is not fair! Really hope nobody is left crying! Pray for the best! Here we go!

All DA bills have been 15 and under so I doubt this will change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by immigration truth (Post 254833)

I doubt he's going to compromise on age, he's been going on about qualifying age for weeks now. And think about it, the younger the age the more republicans can vote for this en masse, and he could still draw a sizeable bloc of democrats. Can any of you see Durbin having the heart to even block this if it's like ten and under? I can't see it. I hate to say it, but the younger the age, the better the chances this passes, which alone will still be hard because of the house.

And let's say it does bar most dreamers, would anyone on this forum really stand in the way of those who could it help? Would we not all still stand together and support it as one?

Most likely 15 and under and that is what all the DA was about even in the lame duck on 2010.

Quote:

Originally Posted by immigration truth (Post 254836)

She came at seven years old, so she's prob going to be safe.

http://weareamericastories.org/audio/gabby-pacheco/

Knowing all the details I'm getting, I'm thinking the bill will only apply to those who came here before 12 or possibly even ten and under. I think we are nearing the realization it probably won't be a 16 and under bill. The Republicans seem to want to attract those here who have little or few memories of their homelands.

The age limit could have a second purpose though. By limiting the number of people eligible for it, you prevent a huge disruption towards the services of SCIS, two million and a half people rushing to get those non immigrant visas would cause a virtual collapse. Through provisions like this, you go from two and a half million towards possibly even 500,0000, thus making it more acceptable to those who are not in favor of a even more strained USCIS and question the logistics.

Why did you pick 12? I have seen 10 in recent articles but I still think it will be 15 and under.

[quote=immigration truth;254854]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DA User (Post 254853)

It looks like there maybe no maximum cut off age. Retroactive Provisions is looking pretty to me.

-------_______-------

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAman (Post 254861)

If any of you knows anybody or has any power, we really have to let them know that it's cruel to leave any Dreamer behind. There is a good case to be made to put an age limit on when someone came here - an 18 year old for instance could have crossed over alone and made the decision. 17 year old...I think that's a young adult. 16 year old? that's more sell-able though some might object. Personally I think the cutoff will be 16, but who knows. I think when giving examples, the younger examples bring more sympathy from the average person.

As far as a dreamer's age now, I don't think there should be any limit because it doesn't change the fact that they were brought here as a child and any limit they put would have to be retroactive.

I really think now the Retroactive provisions will be added. None of the articles talk about maximum age.

USA wants educated people so I don't see a reason why someone with a 4 year degree from USA would be left out.

Re: Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

Quote:

Originally Posted by immigration truth (Post 254852)

I have to disagree, firstly as for Rubio's consultation with the fellow dreamers, that was supposedly a one-off meeting, so it doesn't seem as if he's in active consultation with them, and as for some dreamers who were in the meeting with him, many such as representatives from C4D state he hasn't even been back in contact. So I wouldn't count on agents with their own interets and goals and no true meaningful link to Rubio to heavily advocate for us.

Secondly, if you look at the dream act's progression through the decades, the age limit keeps dropping, even the 2010 version reduced the age by a few years, I do not expect this attempt by a tea party republican to be any different. The discourse of the dream act becomes ever more stricter and limited.

Thirdly, reducing the age limit makes political sense. The lower it goes, the more republicans would be supportive with or without chain migration provisions(which rubio's version does not bar at all in any sense), and which gives him an even greater imperative to be more strict regarding other provisions.)

This article, although from 2010, captures the main gist of my argument.

And I never said it would be 7 and under, or even really 12. Just that it would be lower then the dream act's "16 and under". And according to tea party republican logic, the most favored dreamers are those who cam e at very young ages. They're not exactly loving of those who came here 14+ with knowledge of their homeland and life outside the states(not that I think it's a bad thing.)

Additionally, Rubio's own spokesperson said they're still trying to find the correct "qualifying age", if he was truly sticking to tradition, why not just make it a 16 and under bill from the start. This is a compromise bill, this will not exactly be the dream act 2.0, therefore I would expect a lower age limit.

I maintain though that even with a lowered age position, this bill should still be supported, because there would still be hundreds of thousands of souls that could prosper from it. Dreamers should not hold dreamers back.

http://newamericamedia.org/2010/12/t...ds-reality.php

If Rubio follows any Tea Party "logic," I can assure you that the Democrats will NOT support it.

I have said this before, but let me say it again; According to the United States Immigration Law, children under the age of 16 are considered children. Your age is esssentially "frozen" as a child if you are under 21 when a parent becomes a US Citizen and you have a pending petition with USCIS. Also, under the American law, everyone under the age of 18 is a child.

If I use some of the ridiculous logic that I have read on this thread and forum from some members and relate it to the Foster care system in the US, then it'd mean that only children that were "2 years old, 7 years old or at most 12 years old" should be allowed into the Foster care system, not those that were admitted into the Foster care system at ages 13 and above, right?

Do people see how ridiculous that sounds? Everyone's situation is different, and we do not know the circumstances that led them into being under the care of the State and subsequently the Foster system. At the end of the day, whether the child is a month old or 17 years old, they are still minor children and both should be afforded the same opportinities.

I hope those members on this thread (and forum) that are very excited to see more people written out of the Dream Act (that isn't even written yet, for all you know, Rubio just wants to sell his book), see how ridiculous their reasoning is.

How about Rubio just disregard everyone that is presently over the age of 16, whether you came here as a day old baby or not, and just give temporary visas to those that are presently 16 years of age and under?

How about they give temporary visas to only those undocumented kids that came here before the age of 7 and are presently not up to 7 years old, after all, those of us over the age of 18 are now adults, and do not/are not being forced to stay here? Right?

I know things are tough, but that's when people's true characters come out, and I can say that with the exception of a few people on this thread, there are a lot of weak and selfish characters here that very excitedly want to kick everyone else that came here at an older age than they did, and that are older than they are, off benefitting from the Dream Act. I'm glad that for me, the Dream Act doesn't define who I am or where my future will be at the end of the day so I do not put my faith and trust in politicians and activists.

Re: Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

Guys,

I know we are on edge. But, chill. We are all arguing hypothetical cases, which are all possible given the well-reasoned arguments that both sides have given. But, worst case scenario that the majority of dreamers do not like the age range, we do not have to call for a filibuster. We must first pressure Rubio and his conservative supporters to change their minds if, again, the age range is inappropriate.

Re: Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth (Post 254885)

Guys,

I know we are on edge. But, chill. We are all arguing hypothetical cases, which are all possible given the well-reasoned arguments that both sides have given. But, worst case scenario that the majority of dreamers do not like the age range, we do not have to call for a filibuster. We must first pressure Rubio and his conservative supporters to change their minds if, again, the age range is inappropriate.

Very true, you are one of the more resonable people on this website. However, judging from how quick some people here are to throw others under the bus, I can bet any amount of money that whenever this Bill comes out, even if the age range disqualifies half of the members of this forum, the qualifying half will selfishly say that those that were disqualified should be quiet. This forum is beginning to morph into something else, it's unfortunate.

Re: Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

Yes be quiet. If we qualify and you don't then too bad. I guess you'll have to wait until CIR passes....probably 2030. lol

No more fkn essays please. I read enough essays as it is, so please be concise with your thoughts.

Rubio's bill needs to pass no matter who gets excluded...that includes me. Wake up people, unless Dems take control of congress, nothing will pass in the next 2,3,4 years.

Another generation of dreamers will fail unless we stop being so fkn dramatic.

Re: Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

Quote:

Originally Posted by cacheton011 (Post 254891)

Yes be quiet. If we qualify and you don't then too bad. I guess you'll have to wait until CIR passes....probably 2030. lol

No more fkn essays please. I read enough essays as it is, so please be concise with your thoughts.

Rubio's bill needs to pass no matter who gets excluded...that includes me. Wake up people, unless Dems take control of congress, nothing will pass in the next 2,3,4 years.

Another generation of dreamers will fail unless we stop being so fkn dramatic.

Obviously I highlighted and/or underlined and italicized the most important points of my "essay," sometimes people need to explain things in detail in order to fully get their points across.

Your terrible attempt at sarcasm continues to fail terribly, move on if you don't want to read what someone wrote, no one's being dramatic, I call things as I see it, plain and simple.

Also, if the original people that this Dream Act Bill was written for in 2001 are disqualified from the Bill, then it should be renamed, it will no longer be the Dream Act; calling a possibly watered-down and totally different Bill the same name is misleading.

Re: Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dream becomes Reality (Post 254888)

I am not for a very limited dream act, nor do I claim to be in support of such a strict option. Rather I assert that due to the strict climate regarding immigration, anything that can help a substantial number of people should be supported. The dream act no longer of course applies to me as well, but I am interested in anything that can relieve any dreamer's fears or uncertainty. I would love to see a broad dream act, but if it does not result, I would just as well support a more limited one. Saddening, yes. But realistic? All the very well.