Dream Act: Light at the End of the Tunnel?
Published in El Tiempo
(Colombia) on 30 April, 2012
by Sergio Muñoz Bata (link to original)
(Colombia) on 30 April, 2012
by Sergio Muñoz Bata (link to original)
Translated from
by Adam Zimmerman.
Edited by Peter McGuire.
If Republican Marco Rubio introduces a version of the Dream Act that is reasonable and generous and wins the support of his party, the Democrats, beginning with the president, should support it.
The news that Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio is about to introduce a new version of the bill known as the Dream Act, which could help the children who today find themselves in the country because their parents brought them in without immigration documents, has caused an enormous stir.
It remains to be seen how the debate evolves and what the final text of the bill will be, but what is known so far is that it would be a conservative version of previous bills that, while less generous, could perhaps be easier to negotiate politically.
For example, instead of guaranteeing eligible individuals a direct route to citizenship, the proposed bill would offer them visas that would allow them to work, obtain a driver’s license and pay taxes. But these would not be legal residence visas like the so-called green card.
They would also permit those who hold them to obtain legal residency under certain circumstances, for example, if they married a U.S. citizen or if an employer required their services. A big advantage would be that the applicants would not have to leave the country while their applications were being processed.
The initial reactions of Republicans, Democrats and support groups for undocumented immigrants range from skepticism about the benefits to hostility. The point of consensus would be that all agree the proposal merits a deeper analysis. Many do not believe that Rubio is sincere in making this proposal and cite negative aspects of his history as a basis for doubt. They say, for example, that Rubio voted against the Dream Act on one occasion, and disregard that at that time Rubio said that version of the law was “the wrong way to do the right thing.”
Rubio has been criticized for his contradictory statements on Arizona’s horrific immigration law, first saying that he would have voted for the law and later saying that he was greatly concerned by the provision that authorized police to question someone’s immigration status based on a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual may be in the country illegally.
I agree with those who indicate that Rubio’s proposal has an undeniable political motive, but I do not find it any more opportunistic than the promises that Obama made four years ago and again today. Nor do I find it any more cynical than the version of the Dream Act Senate majority leader Henry Reid proposed just in time to win his reelection in Nevada.
It still remains to be seen if Rubio’s proposal will be supported by his partisan colleagues and if it is able to gain significant support in the House of Representatives. We also do not know how many Democrats will follow the path marked by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who advocates a calm analysis of the proposal. What is essential, in any case, would be to urge Rubio to introduce his bill this summer, and push him to work to win over his fellow party members.
It is also essential to demand that the Democrats, beginning with the president, deliver what they promise and relieve the suffering of these students. If this is achieved, according to Doris Meissner, director of the Immigration and Nationalization Service under Bill Clinton, “both parties could take the credit for achieving a bipartisan agreement, which would have electoral advantages for both, if they decide to frame it in this way.”*
What is important in any case is to do what is fair and necessary so that these young people do not waste so many years of study in this country, and are able to contribute all of their energies to its success — not to keep them from realizing their potential.
*Editor’s Note: While accurately translated, this statement could not be independently verified.
The news that Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio is about to introduce a new version of the bill known as the Dream Act, which could help the children who today find themselves in the country because their parents brought them in without immigration documents, has caused an enormous stir.
It remains to be seen how the debate evolves and what the final text of the bill will be, but what is known so far is that it would be a conservative version of previous bills that, while less generous, could perhaps be easier to negotiate politically.
For example, instead of guaranteeing eligible individuals a direct route to citizenship, the proposed bill would offer them visas that would allow them to work, obtain a driver’s license and pay taxes. But these would not be legal residence visas like the so-called green card.
They would also permit those who hold them to obtain legal residency under certain circumstances, for example, if they married a U.S. citizen or if an employer required their services. A big advantage would be that the applicants would not have to leave the country while their applications were being processed.
The initial reactions of Republicans, Democrats and support groups for undocumented immigrants range from skepticism about the benefits to hostility. The point of consensus would be that all agree the proposal merits a deeper analysis. Many do not believe that Rubio is sincere in making this proposal and cite negative aspects of his history as a basis for doubt. They say, for example, that Rubio voted against the Dream Act on one occasion, and disregard that at that time Rubio said that version of the law was “the wrong way to do the right thing.”
Rubio has been criticized for his contradictory statements on Arizona’s horrific immigration law, first saying that he would have voted for the law and later saying that he was greatly concerned by the provision that authorized police to question someone’s immigration status based on a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual may be in the country illegally.
I agree with those who indicate that Rubio’s proposal has an undeniable political motive, but I do not find it any more opportunistic than the promises that Obama made four years ago and again today. Nor do I find it any more cynical than the version of the Dream Act Senate majority leader Henry Reid proposed just in time to win his reelection in Nevada.
It still remains to be seen if Rubio’s proposal will be supported by his partisan colleagues and if it is able to gain significant support in the House of Representatives. We also do not know how many Democrats will follow the path marked by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who advocates a calm analysis of the proposal. What is essential, in any case, would be to urge Rubio to introduce his bill this summer, and push him to work to win over his fellow party members.
It is also essential to demand that the Democrats, beginning with the president, deliver what they promise and relieve the suffering of these students. If this is achieved, according to Doris Meissner, director of the Immigration and Nationalization Service under Bill Clinton, “both parties could take the credit for achieving a bipartisan agreement, which would have electoral advantages for both, if they decide to frame it in this way.”*
What is important in any case is to do what is fair and necessary so that these young people do not waste so many years of study in this country, and are able to contribute all of their energies to its success — not to keep them from realizing their potential.
*Editor’s Note: While accurately translated, this statement could not be independently verified.