What A New Dream Act Could Look Like

Interesting viewpoints for sure. We have to rally hard against the so called achieve act, dreamers deserve at the very least permanent residency. The achieve act is the perfect formula to create a permanent underclass. The actual article includes a table that compares republican and democratic approaches to how a dream act 2.0 would look if created and detached from CIR.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21...ould-look-like


On Sunday evening, before the fiscal cliff deal was reached, President Barack Obama sat down with NBC's David Gregory on Meet the Press for a rare interview heading into New Year's Eve. While the nearly 30-minute long interview was not about immigration reform, President Obama stated on immigration reform that he "will introduce legislation in the first year" of his second term as president and labeled immigration reform as a "top priority."


In 2012, President Obama surprisingly announced that his administration would stop deporting undocumented immigrants and allow temporary work permits from a program called deferred action targeting DREAMers. Up to this point on the scale of need-to-tackle domestic issues, immigration seems to be right behind the economy. The disheartening truth on immigration is that while it is a hot button issue, it is often one that is kicked down the road. With the heavily partisan bickering in Washington, is it the right time to pursue immigration reform and, more importantly, what does a bipartisan, quasi-DREAM Act law look like?

Thus far, twelve states — more recently California and Maryland — have pushed their own unique versions of the DREAM Act through state legislatures. The state passed DREAM Acts effectively give good standing, youth undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors and graduated high school the opportunity to pursue a college education or enlist in the military and effectively obtain legal permanent residency.


On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have placed on the table a far-fetched counter offer called the ACHIEVE Act which contains stricter keeping of the laws, does not offer any form of financial aid to undocumented immigrants, and most importantly does not give a pathway to citizenship to undocumented immigrantsEven while ordinary Americans have trouble paying their way through college, Republicans believe marginalized undocumented youth have the means to pay for college tuition out-of-pocket and receive nothing for it. For immigration reform, this deal, while a step in the right direction in reaching a bipartisan deal, is flawed because it is too strict and unreasonable for most undocumented immigrants to complete and does not offer a pathway to citizenship (via legal residency). If it doesn't offer a pathway to citizenship and keeps undocumented immigrants in a limbo of conditional immigrant status, my question is: what's the point?

Here's how Congress can reach a bipartisan deal:

1. Permanent residency (AKA, a pathway to citizenship must exist)

While Democrats argue that undocumented youth deserve a pathway to citizenship, Republicans slam the idea because they believe this would incentivize more illegal immigration to the United States. Senators have expressed their concern that the DREAM Act, if passed, would require more surveillance of the U.S.-Mexico border. Regardless, ACHIEVE Act sponsors must understand that undocumented youth who consider the U.S. their home and have stayed in the U.S. for a continued presence have no place else to call home. As stated earlier, if the ACHIEVE Act only allows a temporary four-year, renewable work visa, then the mission of developing and relieving undocumented youth to their highest potential is not accomplished. A halfway approach to this is making it so that obtaining legal permanent residency for undocumented youth more stringent by required applicants to have longer continued presence in the U.S. before applying and more education/military service (like the ACHIEVE Act proposes, four-year college degrees/4 four years of military service).

2. Financial assistance is a must

When applying for college, large amounts of undocumented youth are currently looking at schools that offer 100% need-based financial aid to their students that offer financial aid to undocumented students. This is just one more way undocumented students are working their way through college educations but we know that this isn't the whole story.

The National Center for Education Statistics finds that two-thirds of all undergraduate students received some type of financial aid in 2007-2008. There should be no contest on why students need some form of financial assistance to get through college, especially for undocumented youth and their families who are consistently vilified and marginalized by society. Perhaps a bipartisan approach on this end is making it so that students can receive extended loans, but not state funded financial aid or Federal Work-Study. Or states can even try to mobilize to set up privately funded scholarship funds for undocumented youth, like Illinois did in 2012.

3. Meet halfway on other smaller issues

The other talking points are really within reach for a bipartisan approach. For example, based on the chart above, perhaps Congress can agree upon undocumented youth entering the U.S. by age 15 and being 30 as a reasonable compromise. Congress can also meet halfway on application fees, legal standing, and whether or not undocumented youth receive some public benefits.

But then again, I had hoped Congress knew a thing or two about multitasking and not coming to a complete standstill (see: fiscal cliff). Upcoming is sequestration within the next two months and the debt ceiling in another year. Let's hope that they prove me wrong.

The last bill in 2010 was good enough, but please no fucking visas. Conditional green cards must be issued.

The best choice is the DA not the Achieve Act. I'm sure Democrats would not allow the AA pass so we have nothing to worry about. That's crazy we would have no aid at all when we hardly receive anything and some of us don't receive anything at all. :/

Application fees that much for Achieve Act??? :O :O :O :O :O

I'm hoping the DA passes even though it's so old and has been turned down so much. :/ If not something very similar.

I don't expect to pass to be honest

Ill never understand the random upper limit age cap. Enter 14 and 28 seriously? I know people right now who entered at 8 and are 30. Ill be all for self deportation when some of these law makers participate in self elimination.

I think the Achieve Act will pass under CIR but not stand-alone.

We need the original Dream Act where it had the Retro.

They should stick with the original age limit and increase the upperbound by to 35.

What about people that will turn 31 this year?
Have this politicians thought of that?

And another thing, this politicians always say that
they do not want a "piece·meal" approach. That they
want one huge immigration bill. Well, that was already
done in 86' and did not work!

If they could only realize how f'ed up the system is then
they would realize that it was too f'ed up to be fixed by one
single legislation. They need to tackle on issue at a time
and have a methodological approach.

I would like for them to try and bring a family member
via their shitty system to realize what a living hell
it is.

On financial aid, we should at least have access to loans.

On the age-range specifics, the politics on the age range just piss me off. If the US really does not punish minors for the actions of their parents, why punish those who were brought here by their parents at the ages of 16 and 17? I ask this question because I know some Dreamers who were brought here at those ages, did not qualify for DACA, and would not qualify for a DREAM Act with an age range that the writer argues would be a good compromise.

Some of you may criticize me for complaining about the age range, but let's be honest. All those brought here before the age of 18 were/are minors and should not be punished. And, making the argument that those who were brought her at an older age (16-17 or even 15-17 under the Achieve Act) should not benefit because they may not have an attachment to the US is nonsense. I was brought here at the age of 4, and I feel like I had strong ties to my home country, which did not necessarily go away even though I was raised here. What legislators should focus on is the desire of those brought here before 18 (legally, minors) to contribute to this great country.

My question exactly man. Politicians are trying handle the issue in a politically expedient way to prevent the appearance of an "amnesty"--not in a humane, just, and logical way.

Why in the bloody hell is there an age cap?! Politicians are trying to punish DREAMERS for factors that they cannot control; time/age is one of them. And, these ideas violate or go against the whole purpose of the DREAM Act movement: don't punish immigrant kids for something they could not control. We should not be punished for the actions of our parents; aged-out DREAMERS should not be punished for the governmental inaction on the issue and, hence, the resulting fact that they are older now!