Democrats Face DREAM Dilemma

Ianus · 07-22-2013, 11:36 PM

http://www.rollcall.com/news/democra...58-1.html?pg=1

Quote:

House Democrats face a dilemma: Should they vote against a new, Republican version of the DREAM Act?

Top Democrats worry that an effort by Republican leaders to move a new version of the DREAM Act will undercut their push for a comprehensive immigration overhaul. And without Democratic votes, the Republican bill would likely fail. But the risk for Democrats is if they block a partial win on immigration — even as a bid to get to a conference with the Senate — the overhaul efforts could fall apart altogether.

In the words of Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a key player in immigration discussions on Capitol Hill, blocking the bill would be a “dangerous game.”

“I’m no Mother Teresa. I play politics, just like everyone else, but on this issue, my God,” the Florida Republican said last week.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Judiciary Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte are quietly drafting the KIDS Act, which would provide legal status for the children of illegal immigrants — the “DREAMers.”

It may have a different name, but the two Virginia Republicans have signaled that their measure will include elements of the 2010 DREAM Act, which House Democrats put on the floor in the waning days of their majority and which only eight Republicans supported.

If it does look similar to that iteration, how could Democrats not endorse it?

So far, Democrats have promised not to compromise on any immigration overhaul until they get their bottom line — a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants.

But with something like the KIDS Act, the scheme could backfire.

“Washington Democrats would look deeply hypocritical,” one House Republican leadership aide said.

Democrats could also be criticized by the GOP for blocking what could end up being the only opportunity in the 113th Congress to address, in any form, the question of legal status for undocumented immigrants. Many House Republicans still resist legislation to provide a path to legal status or citizenship for all, but many have begun to at least warm to helping the “DREAMers.”

For Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairman Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., it seems that the gambit of putting Democrats in a difficult spot has been the Republican plan all along.

“This piecemeal approach is only going to debilitate the Democrats in the long term,” Grijalva said. “We’re going to have to fight battles on the bad ones and we’re going to have to deal with the contradictions of voting against something we already passed and supported.

“[Republicans] could say, ‘Look, we tried to do something, and they didn’t want to do it,’” he predicted.

In the days following the announcement that a Cantor-Goodlatte bill was in the works, senior House Democrats were careful to temper expectations, giving responses that vacillated between “let’s wait and see” to incredulity that the GOP would offer a bill that could be anything remotely palatable.

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairman Rubén Hinojosa, D-Texas, said he needed to read the bill before making any decisions.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., another leading voice in the House for an immigration rewrite, said she would withhold judgment as well, though she conceded that it made her nervous that the measure was being drafted without Democratic input.

“Anything that moves us along we’d love to see, but it should be real,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra of California. “If they’re going to talk about doing something for DREAMers that’s short of even what the president did, come on. We’ve been there, we’ve done that, it’s so yesterday, and so we hope [Republicans] are prepared to join us in today’s world and not talk about the 20th century.”

Others were even more dismissive. One Democratic leadership aide said the bill appeared to be nothing more than “a wolf in sheep’s clothes.”

Another aide said in an email that, “based on Goodlatte’s comments, the legislation he is envisioning is too limited, either in the context of DREAM Act related legislation itself, or more importantly, the larger goal of providing a comprehensive immigration bill that the American people expect for the House to pass, etc.”

At a news conference on July 19, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., pointed out that the DREAMers themselves were in opposition to the bill.

On Monday, the day before the House Judiciary Committee’s scheduled hearing on the issue, activists convened a conference call to “reject GOP attempts to push the DREAM Act without citizenship for the rest of the community.”

“You’re going to have young people that are going to be thankful and at the same time they’re going to wonder why you treat the parents in such a cruel way,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill., who, along with Becerra, Diaz-Balart and Lofgren, is part of the bipartisan “gang of seven” that’s working to produce a comprehensive House immigration bill.

“If it’s part of a greater series of proposals that come together to make comprehensive immigration reform, it’s fine,” Gutierrez continued. “I see a glass that’s getting half full, a good step in the right direction, [but] we’re about three years too late.”

dreamerperson · 07-23-2013, 12:12 AM

Quote:

“If they’re going to talk about doing something for DREAMers that’s short of even what the president did, come on."

Yeah, it worries me that there has been 0 input from Democratic Congress members on this fabled legislation. The GOP's actions on this are always suspect to me...

The DREAM Act itself was a narrow piece of legislation to begin with since it grants a path to legal status for only undocumented young people who pursue higher education or military service. I'm just echoing others' concerns here, but it would be really unfair to leave out everybody who would have qualified for the original DREAM Act...actually, does this KIDS Act really fool anybody?

It's clearly designed to draw attention away from addressing the other proportion who constitute the 11 million undocumented people.

johnnytest08 · 07-23-2013, 12:57 AM

As an undocumented immigrant, I would not really look into U.S. politics. My thought was it most likely won't affect me as I am not eligible for federal benefits. Immigration politics, on the other hand, would. Now, I understand why the majority of Americans are not satisfied with Congress. There is no compromise ever. There's only a minute amount of effort just to show that they "tried" and then they blame that the other party would not allow it. You could not have scripted this...

VeryNicePerson1 · 07-23-2013, 07:25 AM

Like I mentioned in another thread, it seems even Dream Act is nothing but an old toy that is brought up just to mess around with it for a couple of minutes and will be thrown away into the forgotten pile of stuff.

I believe all undocumented, including Dreamers, will only get TPS and nothing more. The GOP supposedly have a chance to reach out to Hispanic/minority voters, but they still play games with something even like the Dream Act by using this laughable Kids Act to make fun of it.

...smh...

freshh. · 07-23-2013, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreamerperson

Yeah, it worries me that there has been 0 input from Democratic Congress members on this fabled legislation. The GOP's actions on this are always suspect to me...

The DREAM Act itself was a narrow piece of legislation to begin with since it grants a path to legal status for only undocumented young people who pursue higher education or military service. I'm just echoing others' concerns here, but it would be really unfair to leave out everybody who would have qualified for the original DREAM Act...actually, does this KIDS Act really fool anybody?

It's clearly designed to draw attention away from addressing the other proportion who constitute the 11 million undocumented people.

I doubt it. We see it for what it is: a ploy to avoid dealing with a path to legalization/citizenship for all of the undocumented.

What I worry about is why it's called the KIDS Act. Are they narrowing the group that would be eligible (i.e. anyone over 18 cannot benefit)? Or are they narrowing the age of entry? Because I distinctly remember them having a tantrum over the age of entry being 16. And it was rumored that Marco's version was going to limit it to those who entered before 13...

VeryNicePerson1 · 07-23-2013, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freshh.

I doubt it. We see it for what it is: a ploy to avoid dealing with a path to legalization/citizenship for all of the undocumented.

What I worry about is why it's called the KIDS Act. Are they narrowing the group that would be eligible (i.e. anyone over 18 cannot benefit)? Or are they narrowing the age of entry? Because I distinctly remember them having a tantrum over the age of entry being 16. And it was rumored that Marco's version was going to limit it to those who entered before 13...

It's going to be a bunch of bollocks anyway.

And, I don't see any progress happening on anything anyway...so best for us to just try to pass the time as best as possible and let us see what is going to happen.

IamAman · 07-23-2013, 09:47 AM

I guess it's time to polish that old match.com profile because congress ain't going to help me.

kabs · 07-23-2013, 09:52 AM

These people SLAY me!

VeryNicePerson1 · 07-23-2013, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAman

I guess it's time to polish that old match.com profile because congress ain't going to help me.

^ This...lol...

...

TexanJose · 07-24-2013, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freshh.

I doubt it. We see it for what it is: a ploy to avoid dealing with a path to legalization/citizenship for all of the undocumented.

What I worry about is why it's called the KIDS Act. Are they narrowing the group that would be eligible (i.e. anyone over 18 cannot benefit)? Or are they narrowing the age of entry? Because I distinctly remember them having a tantrum over the age of entry being 16. And it was rumored that Marco's version was going to limit it to those who entered before 13...

That would be bad for many of us. In reality, I don't think anybody under 18 could really take a decision to say "I won't move to the US", since at that age it's difficult to find work and live by yourself.

Either way, just passing this and avoiding the rest of the illegal immigrants, and even worse, the immigration system, doesn't help at all. People waiting decades for a visa, people still crossing over (I do support more border security), people overstaying, things won't change and will get worse. IMO, of course.

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

September

Democrats Face DREAM Dilemma