Why DREAM act will have to be brought soon to a vote
 

http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/...1.shtm#comment

"Comment: DREAM Deferred 56 To 43 - The Defense Authorization Bill failed its first cloture vote by 56 for to 43 against (with 60 votes needed for victory, and Republican Senator Murkowski of Alaska absent). The Democratic Judases were Senators Pryor and Lincoln of Arkansas (Senator Reid voted against, only to preserve his procedural right to recall the legislation to the floor in this Congress). Clearly, Senator Reid and President Obama were not sufficiently convincing (so far) in their efforts with the two Democratic Senators from Arkansas. On the other hand, many other fence-sitting Democratic Senators took a firm stance today, which is a good sign.

It is likely that Senator Reid will bring this bill back for another cloture vote soon. The reason is as follows. The three Democratic constituencies that have been railroaded throughout the 111th Congress by the Democratic leadership have been the LGBT community (who have not gotten a repeal of DADT), the immigrant community (who have gotten nothing but increased deportations) and the Unions (who have not gotten card check). Since Unions have also strongly been in favor of immigration legislation (needed to bolster their membership), it is not surprising that, faced with the specter of imminent defeat about 6 weeks from today, the Democratic leadership attempted to win on both issues – DADT and DREAM - today.

It is highly unlikely that any one of these three core Democratic constituencies will be mollified by this token effort by the Democratic leadership. At a minimum, another cloture vote is necessary with Senators Pryor and Lincoln voting YES along with all of their Democratic colleagues. Furthermore, President Obama and Majority Leader Reid need to make such deals as are necessary to break the filibuster. After nearly two years of total and complete inaction on the issues that matter to LGBT, immigrants and unions, the fact that we are now at the absolute 11th hour is completely the decision of the Democratic leadership for which they can and will be held accountable in November. It is not possible for Democrats about to lose their seats to a huge Republican wave to argue with a straight face to their core constituents that they should continue to vote a Democratic ticket no matter how many times they are thrown under the bus. In particular, we expect the LGBT community to hold the Democratic leadership accountable and make Democrats pay at the ballot booth (the immigrant community will join in on making Democrats pay the price for failure).
We once again repeat – it is unfair to blame the Republicans for doing what all opposition parties always do, which is to oppose the majority party. The current Democratic leadership repeatedly took cold, calculated, cynical, decisions throughout 2009 and 2010 to throw key Democratic concerns out the window in favor of their favored bills (the health bill and the climate bill). In particular, President Obama broke his solemn campaign promise to do something on immigration in his first year in office. To add insult to injury, Mr. Obama’s underlings at DHS are on a huge deportation spree, breaking more than a thousand immigrant families each day (which they proudly boast about). With near-super-majorities, the current Democratic leadership has no excuses and no one else to blame.
We congratulate our readers for their valiant phone call efforts to convince Senators about the importance of including DREAM. Thanks to you (and to the great efforts by DailyKos/SEIU), for the first time in the history of Congressional phone campaigns on immigration bills, the pro-side defeated the anti-side in the number of phone calls made on Monday and Tuesday. We may have to repeat the performance as soon as Mr. Reid schedules the next cloture vote, stay tuned."


In summary, the Democrats say:

Vote for me so I can fail you again!
Only if we let them...

No statements from the CIR "leaders" Schumer, Gutierrez, Martinez, etc. Interesting, as apparently Martinez has a new CIR bill ready to go at the end of this month. I'm sorry, but Durbin needs to fess up and disclose who tabled DREAM back in March 2009 at its best prospects for passage. And then they should be voted out.

Re: Why DREAM act will have to be brought soon to a vote
 

I hope plan C isnt to include Dream to that ridiculous CIR bill that they claim will pass before the year ends.

Re: Why DREAM act will have to be brought soon to a vote
 

Unless it passes by some fing miracle it would kill the bill. And we'd loose a generation of DREAMERS.

Those in their mid and late 20s can't afford to wait any longer =(

I'm 16 and I feel like time is against me, I can't imagine what it feels like for those who are older...

Re: Why DREAM act will have to be brought soon to a vote
 

Did I miss something ? what happened in March 09 ?

Re: Why DREAM act will have to be brought soon to a vote
 

Aw, I wish I was 16. I'm sure that by the time you are 18 there will be some sort of indication of what will happen. If you don't see any progress before turning 18 LEAVE so that you dont get a 10 year ban. Of course if you can pay for college then stay and get your degree. I finished my associates but can't transfer.

As for me, I am 21 and have lived trough this like 2 times. My life is pretty much on hold and I don't know if I can wait for another dream vote unless it happens this year.

Re: Why DREAM act will have to be brought soon to a vote
 

Do you remember the USCIS draft memo discussing administrative alternatives for CIR? Here is what I see as the plan "B" the Dems have been planning -- yes, the decision to plan to add DA as an attachment to the DoD bill was planned despite wha anyone says--they already have the guidelines for potential DREAMERS to stay. There is the possibility that the sudden addition of DA to the DOD was for show for the elections.

This is what I think we will hear and see soon, if DA isn't passed on its own merits:


D. To Prot ect CerlA in IndividUllls or Groups from the Thrcat of Remo\'al
I. Incrcase the Use of Dcferl'cd Action
For individuals already admitted to the U.S. (and therefore inel igible for PIP), USCIS can
increase the use of deferred action. Deferred action is an exercise of prosecutodal discretion not
to pursue removal from the U.S. ofa particular individual for a specific period oftimc.2 A grant
of deferred action does not confer any immigration stalUS, nor does i[ conveyor imply any
waivers of inadmissibility that may exist Likewise. deferred action cannot be used to establish
eligibi lity for any immigration benefit that requires maintenance of lawful status. Periods of
time in deferred action do, however, qualify as periods of stay authorized by the Secretary of
DHS for purposes of sections 212(a)(9)(8) and (C) of the Act, and may be extended indefinitely.
Individuals who have been granted deferred action may apply for employment authorization.
Within DHS, USCIS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. and CUSlOms and 80rder
Protcctio.n all possess authority to grant deferred action.
USCIS has previously allowed the use of defcrred action to provide relief to non·immigrants
whose periods of admission had expired. or otherwise had failed to maintain lawful immigrant
status. In the aftennath of Hurricane Katrina, USCIS instituted a policy of deferred action for
non·immigrants impacted by this natural disaster. USCIS has also granted deferred action for
particular groups including applicants for interim relief related [0 the U visa program. Most
recently. the SPC approved the use of deferred action for cenain military dependenls for whom a
visa number is not currently available and who are ineligible for PIP.
While it is theoretically possible to granl deferred action to an unrestricted number ofunlawfully
present individuals. doing so would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive. Presently
no specific application form or fee is required to request or receive deferred action. Were USCIS
to increase significantly the use of deferred action, the agency would either require a separate
~ See, US Citizenship and Immigration Set vices, AdjlldiCOlOr '.J FI/!/d MOIllIO{. HI seelio!! 40.9.2(hXJXJ), added
May 6. 2009. FBClorlllO be c('lIlsidcred in evaluBlinQ Q requesl for derc:rrc:d Klion art llso discussed III the
November 11, 2000 IllCII lClrlllMlum cl1lillc:d ~Excrcisllig Proseculorinl Discretion" by runl1er Immigrftllon nl1cJ
Nllurllizauol1 Services CommiSSIOner. Doris MClssner RI fOOlnolc I
•
DRAFT •• Immigration Administrative Relief Options
Page I J
appropriation or independenl funding stream.1 Alternatively, USC IS could design and seek
expedited approval ofa dedicated'deferred action form and require a filing fee.
Rather than making deferred action widely available to hundreds Of lhousands and as a non·
legiSlative version of"amnesty", USCIS could tailor the use of this discretionary option for
particular groups such as individuals who would be eligible for relief under the DREAM Act (an
estimated 50,000), or under section 249 of the Act (Registry), who have resided in the U.S. since
J 996 (or as of a different date designed to move forward the Registry provision now limited to
entries before' January I, 1972).

Sorry , I copied and pasted the text and the pdf format doesn't translate well here, but if you go back and reread the memo, you will see several of the 'alternatives' have already been put into action, namely, they have allowed TPS applicants to adjust to permanent resident status, have started to issue NTAs strategically, only to those who can gain relief during trial, and have started to review the 3 and 10-year bars of inadmissability, along with advanced parole from DHS. Go back and read the memo, and you will notice target dates of September/October 2010!

The government's review of pending immigration cases in litigation and the dismissal of sure deportation cases in court that started last month, are related to issuing NTAs strategically.

The wingers and baggers all railed against the proposed measures without discussing the fact that we are now in the middle of such 'target' dates. At least this would help many of us and is worth questioning the administration about it.

Re: Why DREAM act will have to be brought soon to a vote
 

So one Republican voted yes? Is there a list somewhere that says all of the votes?

.....
 

.....

Re: Why DREAM act will have to be brought soon to a vote
 

The chances of the DREAM Act passing this year are slim to non-existent.

Re: Why DREAM act will have to be brought soon to a vote
 

honestly, if u don't have anything positive to say then don't say it at all! don't discourage other dreamers, this year is not over yet