DACA

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
DACA

According to the Constitution “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person”.

The basis for this and the framework in which it was constructed were the original 13 colonies, now states, whose borders stopped essentially at the Appalachian Mountain chain. The remainder of the country was either claimed, illegitimately by England, France or Spain, including Spanish Florida that is east of the Appalachians. It was intended to put a stop to slavery. From then on out the States had to grow their own populations by the normal means, including those already here as slaves.

One can interpret the terms “States now existing” meaning only the 13 original States and this interpretation hinges on how the term “now” is employed. The Constitution made provision for the inclusion of additional States and how were these states to admit anyone as citizens if “now existing” was restricted to the original 13 States? Therefore the “now existing” really meant all the States then admitted to Union. It still meant the Congress could prohibit the importation of anyone, whether the States wanted to admit them or not.

The federal government’s actions, first to limit migration by numbers and by country of origin was a violation of the power given the Congress. Its failure to enforce its own illegal acts has allowed millions to not only enter the country but to remain here. All they have to do to become a citizen of the United States is to be resident for a certain period of time and pass a test in English and swear allegiance to the United States.

The vast majority of these immigrants, legal and illegal come here because of economic persecution or lack of employment opportunities. In any event it is not political but economic persecution by the dominant ethnic or religious entity that rules the country and favors their own.

The question then becomes what to do with those already here? Their country does not want them back as evidenced by the fact that countries, such as Mexico, do not want them back and actually encourages and assists them in leaving because its economy cannot support them. Unfortunately, our ignorant government has not included in its recognition or treaties with other countries that they shall take back any of their citizens we do not want to take up residence in our country. I should point out that these illegal entrants have not broken any law, except that of trespass and this is not a judicable offence with a right to appeal. The politicians have made it so, unconstitutionally, in order to provide income for their fellow lawyers, just as they have by the mistaken assumption that a right to an attorney means that the government (people) must provide it if you cannot afford it.

The legal and moral answer is to make citizens of all those whom the State in which they reside wishes to accept and return all others to their country of origin. The first is complicated by the fact that those unable to support themselves or who are on welfare are given this primarily by the federal government. Acceptance by the State should be conditioned on the State footing the entire welfare bill for those they wish to accept as citizens. See how many the people of the State would be willing to take in under these circumstances.

This whole mess would have been avoided if the government followed the Constitution in the first place. The greedy wanted cheap labor and they got it, first with slavery and later with the allowance of labor, including management to steal from those who employed them, all courtesy of Franklin Roosevelt and his Democrat (Progressive) Supreme Court.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
"This whole mess would have

"This whole mess would have been avoided if the government followed the Constitution in the first place."

Please clarify.

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 4 sec ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
That's like asking Imelda

That's like asking Imelda Marcos to show you her shoe collection.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
You may lean toward shoe

You may lean toward shoe sniffing, but all I want is a lucid path of logic for the claim.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 21 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Ahh Mel doubtful ypou are

Ahh Mel doubtful you are going to get it,the path.

BlueJay
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 04/18/2005 - 12:01am
I found Breitbart had some

I found Breitbart had some legitimate information on DACA.

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2017/09/05/14-things-msm-wont-tell-...

Hopefully the list below will offer some clarity and context. The first point, I think, is the most important.
1. This Is Only the Fault of the Parents

My wife was born in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and came to America as a small child. But she was brought here by her parents legally and remained here legally until she obtained her citizenship, something she prizes above most everything else. This is how immigration is supposed to work. If you ask my wife about DACA, she blames the parents of these children who, unlike her own parents, broke the law and put their children in this situation.

If your parents don’t pay the rent, is it the landlord’s fault when you are evicted, or is it the fault of your parents?

If your parents sneak you into Disneyland without paying, is it Disney’s fault when you are booted out, or is it the fault of your parents?

If your parents sneak you into a country illegally, is it the country’s fault when you get deported, or is it the fault of your parents?

Blaming America or Trump or anyone other than the parents for any of this, is a ruse, a con, a rhetorical trick.

2. DACA Recipients Are Illegal Aliens

This simple fact has been so downplayed and memory-holed, it just needed to be spoken out loud.

3. DACA Is a Massive Amnesty Program

Although the DREAMers are in the country illegally, DACA allows some 800,000 to stay in the country legally without any kind of penalty. Qualified DREAMers are not only given a two-year deferment from deportation, they are eligible for a work permit, which means they can legally take a job in America.

4. DACA Recipients Are Not the Children

DACA is eligible only to those aged 15-32.

A very large percentage of DACA recipients are adults, not children or even minors.

5. DACA Recipients Take Jobs Americans WILL Do

The idea that illegal aliens take jobs Americans won’t do is, of course, a lie. Plenty of Americans, most especially young Americans, would love the opportunity to work on a construction site or some other manual labor job. Moreover, if the wages were better, plenty of American would be willing to work in the fields. An untold number of young Americans who live in farm communities already do. But when you flood the country with illegal and/or foreign workers this — by design — suppresses wages to a point where only those willing to be exploited are willing to do this work for almost no money.

Nevertheless, even this lie does not apply to DREAMers, many of whom have a high school diploma or a GED, and a work permit. These are not field workers, these are hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens competing for the same jobs against the 4 million young Americans who enter the workforce every year.

6. Some DACA Recipients are Criminals

Over 5 years, between 2013 and 2017, a total of 2,139 DACA recipients lost their amnesty benefits “due to criminality or gang affiliated concerns.”

The DACA screening process is in reality a joke, a rubber stamp.

7. DACA Is Not a Law, It Is the Violation of Law

President Obama’s DACA program is not a law or even a policy. Rather, it is a brazen violation of the immigration law as written and passed by the American people’s representatives in congress.

People in the country illegally are supposed to be deported and repatriated into their own country. That is the law here in America. That is the law in every country in the world, including Mexico.

8. Most DACA Recipients are Not Overachievers

It seems as though every time we see a DACA recipient in the media, he or she is the next Albert Einstein, someone on the verge of curing cancer and poverty.

The reality is actually quite different:

“The [DACA] eligibility bar was set very low, explicitly allowing people with multiple misdemeanor and certain felony convictions to be approved. Only a handful of the applicants were ever interviewed, and only rarely was the information on the application ever verified,” said Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies….

“[T]his statistic undercuts the image of DACA that has been spread by the pro-illegal alien groups and the news media, that the DACA recipients are mostly college kids. This is not true. We don’t know much about the population, but one of the few credible studies that has been done, by a scholar at Harvard University, found that at most are more than 22 years old, and only about 20 percent graduated from or attended a four-year college. A significant share never went beyond high school. This is not really all that surprising, since over 72 percent come from a family at or below poverty level and accessing some public assistance.”

While there are some true-life scholars in the DACA program, these are not a representative sample:

For example, one-third of the people in the study sample who are older than age 25 hold four-year college bachelors’ degrees or better. In contrast, an August 2013 report by the pro-amnesty Migration Policy Institute showed that only 7.5 percent of the 800,000 DACA-qualified illegals who were 18 or older had four-year college degrees or better. An August 2017 study by the MPI showed only 5 percent of 832,000 DACA illegals who were older than 18 had four-year college qualifications.

Also, the 7.5 percent graduation rate reported by the new study is roughly one-quarter the 33 percent of native-born Americans with four-year degrees.

9. DACA Is Wildly Unfair to Americans, Most Especially Young Americans Just Starting Out

You followed the rules. Your parents obeyed the law. You are one of the 4 million Americans ready to enter the workforce every year, eager to begin your own life, to pursue the American dream, but you have to compete against hundreds of thousands of line-jumpers for the same entry-level job.

Moreover, this flood of labor depresses your wages.

10. DACA Was Already Litigated and Debated in 2016

The American people have already had the DACA debate. Hillary Clinton promised to expand DACA. Trump promised to end DACA.
Trump won.

11. DACA Encourages More Illegal Immigrants

Although DACA does not officially grant amnesty to the children of illegal immigrants who have arrived after 2007, the message is still clear: America does not have the will to enforce its own immigration laws. Of course that message works as a magnet for illegals. If you recall…

Obama declared his DACA amnesty in 2012. Central Americans saw the announcement, read the details — and roughly 400,000 people headed north during the next four years.

Moreover, making that trek is dangerous, especially from South America. People die of exposure and are exploited, sometimes sexually, by the Coyotes they hire to lead them here.

Illegal immigration is a lose-lose for everyone but Democrats who desire the votes and business owners who do not want to pay a legal resident a fair market wage.

12. In Most States, DACA Recipients are Eligible for Welfare Benefits

AZCentral:

Once DACA applicants are approved and receive a temporary employment authorization card, they can apply for a Social Security Number. Under this number, they can report wages and pay taxes.

DACA beneficiaries cannot receive federal benefits such as welfare and food stamps. Some states allow for state-funded benefits, but Arizona specifically prohibits it.

13. Unless It Is Stopped, DACA Will Never Stop Growing

Every year, more and more illegal aliens become eligible for DACA’s illegal and unconstitutional amnesty program.

Obama’s deputies low-balled his election-campaign giveaway by initially predicting it would only reach about 560,000 younger illegals who were supposedly brought into the United States by their parents before they turned 16.

But the amnesty has already provided almost 900,000 work-permits and Social Security cards to illegals who say they are aged 36 or less. More than 92 percent of the applicants got their DACA approvals, with a rejection rate of only 7 percent. The amnesty is expected to rise above 1.9 million people as additional younger illegals become adults and try to enroll in Obama’s giveaway.

14. DACA Ignores Some Criminal Behavior

Center for Immigration Studies:

DACA applies to individuals up to age 31 (as of June 2012, so 35 now) — hardly children; consequently, many Dreamers have long-since terminated their studies and most have committed multiple felonies in order to get jobs — Social Security fraud, forgery, perjury on I-9 forms, falsification of green cards and drivers’ licenses, identity theft, etc. Dreamers continue to commit these job-related crimes right up to the day their DACA status is approved and they obtain work permits and their own genuine Social Security numbers.

In addition, many illegal aliens qualifying for DACA status have previously been arrested and convicted of multiple misdemeanors and some have previously been or continue to be associated with violent gangs, as evidenced by a report in the Seattle Times that states that over 1,500 Dreamers have had their DACA status revoked since 2012 due to their involvement with criminal gangs.

On the true merits, the DACA debate is a loser for the Left and their media — which is why the 14 facts above must remain largely unspoken.

Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.

Redcross Texas Relief

BREITBART CONNECT

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Mel: Being a Rutgers

Mel: Being a Rutgers graduate I assume you can read, but you obviously have not read the Constitution. According to that document, the States decide who and how many to admit as residents and the Congress makes the rules that qualifies those residents to be citizens of the United States. According to the Constitution, the President has no say on any matters of immigration. The Congress can prohibit the States from admitting any aliens and they should have done that starting in the early twentieth century when the last continuous State joined the Union. That was Arizona and New Mexico in 1914. Any growth in population after that should have been controlled by a replacement strategy, limiting legally married couples to two children. In the economic system I propose married couples having more than two children could put the excess up for adoption or retain them but have to provide for them out of their own allotment. In my proposed economic system every citizen gets an equal share of the country's kcal production, up front. The details of that system and its logic and justification are contained in my book The Real Economy that you also have not read but criticize the opinions on controversial subjects that emanates from it.

The example I like to use is that of a country club, started by a limited number of people who wish to enjoy the option of playing golf when there is a limited amount of daylight, a limited number of holes and a limited number of days on which to play in certain climates. If the numbers of members were not controlled, the options the original members had to play would continually be eroded to where some would not get to play at all. In the case of life, nature produces only so much food and we have reached that point in nearly every part of the world where the amount is no longer increasing but decreasing. It is food that provides life, and the kcal is the energy value of that food and it is constant in value for each commodity produced. The U. S. and every other country in history have adopted an economic system where the country's government decides who gets how much through the tax system. In the economic system I propose the people get an equal share to start with and those who do the work to grow, harvest and distribute nature's reproducible and non-reproducible assets, can get more for doing so because no one can be self sufficient any longer. Taxation is imposed only on those who have a monopoly and use it to increase their share. The extra is taxed away on the basis it is theft of an opportunity denied to someone who could compete. See the book for details on this system.

The President, the Congress and the courts have gotten into the system through legislation which is unconstitutional because the immigration system designed by the framers does not allow them to make changes in the rules except for the requirements for citizenship. They have done so because they have not been punished for reneging on their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. I suggest you read nearly every opinion handed down by the court, either upholding or rejecting legislation and rarely, if ever, can you cite a reference to the limits imposed by the original document. Like currency, it has accumulated to where the original is no longer recognizable.

I suggest you read the Old Testament book of Leviticus that in twenty or so pages lays down not only the law for an entire society of people, but the punishments to be imposed for those who break it. We and even the Jews who fashioned it would have been well if they had adhered to it.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 21 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
See it is in the "book",first

See it is in the "book",first of two.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Blue Jay: A law that applies

Blue Jay: A law that applies only to certain individuals or groups is called a "bill of attainder" and is specifically prohibited by both the federal and state constitutions. Therefore the DACA "law" is unconstitutional on its face as are every bit of the tax code and nearly every piece of legislation passed by the Congress and your legislature. Nearly every act passed by your Congress and the Legislature since their inception is aimed at correcting or mitigating the problems caused by the very first unlawful acts.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Blue Jay: A law that applies

oops

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
One thing to note that seems

One thing to note that seems to be confusing everyone on both the left and the right is that Trump appears to favor DACA as a policy, just not as an executive policy - he would rather have it be implemented legislatively.

Lefty media seems to portray Trump as *against* DACA but his tweets really seem to indicate that he favors it.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
pmcon: I am capable of

pmcon: I am capable of reading the Constitution, thank you, and have a number of references on it.

There is a big difference between reading and understanding the Constitution, and reading and understanding what you have to say about it.

You have a habit of posturing yourself as one whose work has coherence and clarity far exceeding that of the source document, and with insights that make the founding authors look like rank amateurs. This tone, and the stylistics it inspires, especially when coupled with semantic disconnects, has a way of disengaging this reader, and it appears, many others.

I often find you making statements in an essay that on first read conflict with each other. I have no interest in rereading it multiple times to reach a final decision.

For example, in the subject DACA pronouncement you recently handed down:

The federal government’s actions, first to limit migration by numbers and by country of origin was a violation of the power given the Congress. Its failure to enforce its own illegal acts has allowed millions to not only enter the country but to remain here.

The above is sort of a head-spinner; a non-sequitur.

First, the actions taken violated the Constitution. But then it failed to enforce its illegal actions. The net resulting in millions allowed to enter the country and stay. (So you appear to say.)

Then you close with this in the last paragraph:

This whole mess would have been avoided if the government followed the Constitution in the first place.

I don't know what you weren't trying to say, but you didn't do a very good job of it. At least to those with only a Rutgers education and none of the other credentials that might not have allowed me to discern the difference between what you didn't say, weren't saying, and how it ends up not saying something different in your conclusion.

The only consistent thinking I can find in your work is that everyone else was and is screwed up, and you are the only one able to see it by comparing what they shouldn't have done but did, but then screwed up on the follow-up, which wouldn't have been a problem if they had only not done it the way they were supposed to in the first place.

Perhaps you might consider having a detached, objective, and indifferent individual review your writings before you don't post them.

I have no interest in debating theories on feeding the world, limiting the population, replacing the global economy with your new experimental model, or any of the other breakthrough theories you espouse and brook no comment on. Including whether black holes appear in narratives as well as "the universe," whatever that is.

I just know that when I take a shot at reading one of your new missives, your habitual condescension aside, once my eyes cross and my head spins through one full revolution, I pretty much give up and head for more comprehensible materials.

And that's all I want to say about that. Or not.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 21 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
I think I have covered that

I think I have covered that in past not as nicely put,good ob.Mel.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 3 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
How One Nonprofit Works To

How One Nonprofit Works To Help DACA Recipients Start Over In Mexico

SOURCE
__________________________________________________________________

It's an audio link and I don't see a link to a transcript.

It goes on and on about the harsh circumstances the DACA ejects are certain to encounter as they are torn from their families, forced upon a hostile land they never knew. Don't know the culture, the language, no safety net, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah.

It fails to point out that the parents didn't seem to mind the burden as they forced an even greater hardship upon them during the trip north. Not to mention that the northern migration was illegal vs the perfectly legal southern eject.

The guest droned on and on and on . . can't you people see?

Yessuh, we can.

Al Amoling
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 07/07/2004 - 12:01am
Mel Please be careful with

Mel Please be careful with those long posts. Although I recognize that your post was exceptionally clear, one must avoid becoming like the object of your post. I'm really beginning to enjoy this repartee.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 21 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
It is fun isn't it , Al.

It is fun isn't it , Al.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 21 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
It is fun isn't it.

delete

Al Amoling
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 07/07/2004 - 12:01am
Yes Bruce it is fun.

Yes Bruce it is fun.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Al: I am mindful of that.

Al: I am mindful of that. At some point, I get so flustered by the other person's inability to pick up on the shorter points made that I feel like there is no choice but to use the brute force, kindergarten approach to get things across.

Some folks just can't decode adult comments very well.

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 4 sec ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
So, shitbags like taxfoe

So, shitbags like taxfoe think that a kid that was brought here at 6 and is now 23, is gainfully employed and has been paying taxes, does not speak a lick of Spanish, and has no connection to her parents' country of birth should be sent to, say, San Salvador. Taxfoe says, "tough luck! We've got crystal meth heads in Bingham to support."

Got it.

johnw
Online
Last seen: 3 min 31 sec ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
matt so some might say

matt so some might say shitbags like the dreamers who have been here since they were six and don't speak a lick of Spanish and have no intention of ever returning to their homeland might have taken the initiative to actually become citizens? There problem solved.
I find it hard to believe that it has been kept secret from the dreamers that they could actually become naturalized American citizens..... Or is it all of these wonderfully, talented patriotic, hard working contributing dreamers have actually just been waiting on the LONG promised amnesty that has failed to materialize? I have yet to speak to anyone who would deny immigrants who want to do the work of becoming citizens the opportunity to do so.
As an aside the man who is married to my mother was born in Venezuela, moved here in his teens and became an American citizen........ He asks why these other immigrants shouldn't have to do the same.....

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@johnw: "matt so some might

@johnw: "matt so some might say shitbags like the dreamers who have been here since they were six and don't speak a lick of Spanish and have no intention of ever returning to their homeland might have taken the initiative to actually become citizens? There problem solved."

Be careful of what you ask for... if they do, they're all going to vote Dem.

By the way, I posted this above but nobody seems to have commented... Trump literally changed his tack from "we're repealing DACA" to "we'll revisit in 6 months" before 24 hours expired. And then he basically said he would sign a legislative version of DACA.

So guess what: Trump supports DACA as a policy!

Wait til Bannon gets ahold of this!

johnw
Online
Last seen: 3 min 31 sec ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
AC I don't care how they vote

AC I don't care how they vote as long as they are legal citizens.........that earned their citizenship.

Jasper
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 26 min ago
Joined: 02/06/2014 - 5:24am
If you took your head out of

If you took your head out of your ass once in awhile and did the research, you might learn that coming here as the child of an illegal immigrant makes becoming a citizen legally problematic. Are you really a moron, or do you just play one on AMG?

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
Matt who is this person you

Matt who is this person you are so specific in describing. Name please? You must know him or her very well.

Or are you hallucinating again?

johnw
Online
Last seen: 3 min 31 sec ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
Jasper,looks l the dreamers

Jasper,looks lthe dreamers moms and dads should have done their research doesn't it and not put their children in such a precarious position.....but once again you obviously are one of those enlightened individuals that doesn't think laws or enforcing them matter or should have any consequences for those who break them........ Oh yeah and thanks again for your sweet words .... I'm always impressed how you personally raise the level of conversation here on amg......stunning really.

From a TIME magazine article:

As Angela M. Kelley, an immigration advocate in Washington, told me, “If you think the American tax code is outdated and complicated, try understanding America’s immigration code.” The easiest way to become a U.S. citizen is to be born here—doesn’t matter who your parents are; you’re in. (The main exception is for children of foreign diplomatic officials.) If you were born outside the U.S. and want to come here, the golden ticket is the so-called green card, a document signifying that the U.S. government has granted you permanent-resident status, meaning you’re able to live and, more important, work here. Once you have a green card, you’re on your way to eventual citizenship—­in as little as three years if you marry a U.S. citizen—as long as you don’t break the law and you meet other requirements such as paying a fee and passing a civics test.

Obtaining a green card means navigating one of the two principal ways of getting permanent legal status in the U.S.: family or specialized work. To apply for a green card on the basis of family, you need to be a spouse, parent, child or sibling of a citizen. (Green-card holders can petition only for their spouses or unmarried children.) Then it’s time to get in line. For green-card seekers, the U.S. has a quota of about 25,000 green cards per country each year. That means Moldova (population: 3.5 million) gets the same number of green cards as Mexico (population: 112 million). The wait time depends on demand. If you’re in Mexico, India, the Philippines or another nation with many applicants, expect a wait of years or even decades. (Right now, for example, the U.S. is considering Filipino siblings who applied in January 1989.)

Taking the employment route to a green card means clearing a pretty high bar if you have an employer who’s willing to hire you. There are different levels of priority, with preference given to people with job skills considered crucial, such as specialized medical professionals, advanced-degree holders and executives of multinational companies. There’s no ­waiting list for those. If you don’t qualify for a green card, you may be able to secure one of the few kinds of temporary work visas—including the now famous H1-B visas that are common in Silicon Valley. For those already in the U.S. without documentation—those who have sneaked across a border or overstayed a temporary ­visa—it’s even more complicated. Options are extremely limited. One route is to marry a U.S. citizen, but it’s not as easy as the movies would have you think. The process can take years, especially if a sham marriage is suspected. I couldn’t marry my way into citizenship even if I wanted to. I’m gay. Same-sex marriage is not recognized by the federal government—explicitly so, ever since Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. From the government’s perspective, for me to pursue a path to legalization now, I would have to leave the U.S., return to the Philippines and hope to qualify via employment, since I don’t have any qualifying family members here. But because I have admitted to being in the U.S. illegally, I would be subject to a 10-year bar before any application would be considered.

The long-stalled Dream Act is the best hope for many young people. The original 2001 version would have created a path to legal status—effectively a green card—for undocumented people age 21 and under who had graduated from high school and resided in the U.S. for five years. As the bill stalled in Congress and Dreamers got older, the age requirement went up, getting as high as 35. Rubio is expected to introduce his own variation, granting nonimmigrant visas so Dreamers could legally stay in the U.S., go to school and work. Its prospects are dim in a gridlocked Congress. Obama, meanwhile, is said to be weighing an Executive Order that would halt deportation of Dream Act–eligible youth and provide them with work permits. Under both Rubio’s bill (details of which are not yet confirmed) and Obama’s Executive Order (which is being studied), Dreamers could become legal residents. However, both proposals are only the first steps of a longer journey to citizenship.

From TIME magazine cover story on immigration: http://ti.me/KweGCw

Log in to post comments