It’s the difference between omission and commission.
Preventing people coming in the first place is one thing; actively deporting people is another, especially if they came when they were kids, have been here for a long period of time, have adapted to American life, and have friends and family here. As Richard Parker said, it may be justifiable harm in your view, but it’s definitely harm.
As for the age limit, i’m fine with 16. I think back to myself at age 15, and if my parents had packed up all our stuff and moved to another country, there would have been absolutely no question of me staying behind to fend for myself. I think the whole Act is simply a recognition of reality.
I’m so far to the left on immigration that even democrats look like rightwing fanatics on the issue to me. So my only problem with the DREAM act is that it doesn’t go farther than it does.
However I’m curious, why the concern about age at all? If someone came to the US at 15 and was caught and threatened with deportation at 30, then isn’t the relevant issue that they spent literally half their life in the US rather than if they were 12 or 15 when they came? I could see arguing that the bill should require more time in the US than 5 years, but why the concern about age?
By the way, the fact the bill admits that it is easy, and common enough to require a law about it, to be an illegal immigrant in the country for half a decade is all by itself reason enough to reform immigration far more broadly than the DREAM act.
It’s not right that us immigrants should be brought here by our parents, with or without our consent, and then when we grow up, you throw us back to our own countries.
I came here when I was four, and my parents were of course legal. And I am actually quite opposed to illegal immigration and would generally like it to stop…but I think the restrictions shoudl be relaxed to let people in legally, then. (More educated people and all that).
But to penalize the kids by throwing them back in a possibly third-world country…and the daughters are a whole different thing. You don’t possibly how good it can be for women in their day-to-day-lives here unless you’ve lived elsewhere for a while.
I do think that in many cases, the 15 year old would behave as you say. But 3 years later, when this person has only lived 1/5 of his life in this country, he turns 18 and makes the decision, as an adult, to stay here. So, if there is any hard being done (and I don’t agree that there is), it is being done to an adult, not to a child. At any event, it’s no more “harm” than not letting his cousin, who stayed at home, come here.
Senator Hutchinson proposed at one point that instead of conditional permanent residency, the affected aliens be granted student visas instead, for the six-year term. That seems a reasonable compromise to me, as it allows the program to proceed but does not grant permanent residency, even conditional permanent residency, to the participants.
Permanent residency can of course be considered after program requirements are met.
After spending countless hours and thousands of dollars on the process of legally bringing my wife and stepchildren to the US and obtaining green cards for them, I am dead set against any kind of amnesty for illegals.
I’m not sure what to think of the “two years of college” option. What is the value of two years of school with no degree? It would seem more productive to set a requirement of “a completed degree or diploma,” whether it be a bachelor’s, an associate’s, or an occupational diploma.
I think it’s a no-brainer and the “amnesty” argument is a red herring. These are (or were) minor children when they were brought to the U.S; they didn’t have a realistic choice about whether or not to break the law and shouldn’t be held responsible for their parents. And expecting them to move back to their “home” country at age 18 after growing up in the US is equally unrealistic when they may not even speak the language.
Note that the act requires living 5 years in the US first, so you can’t come at 15 and be covered at age 18. You’d have to have been brought here when you were only 13 or younger.
Plus, we’re getting educated, law abiding citizens - some of whom are volunteering to die for our country. Not to mention the billions of dollars we make in taxes of them, according to the CBO. Not passing this act is just shooting ourselves in the foot.
After spending countless hours and thousands of dollars on the process of legally bringing myself to this country and obtaining a green card, i recognize that not everyone has the sort of opportunities that i did for legal immigration, so i support amnesty for those already here.
I reject the idea that there’s any symmetry between forcibly pushing people out of the country and forcibly keeping people out of the country.
The 5 years residency is key. At that point, someone has lived here for a significant amount of time. He or she has set down roots in the community. Their family, their friends, their church, their community associations, their lover, their schools, their job, their neighborhood merchants are also all here. Having the government tear them away from it does violence not only to them, but to the communities that are uprooted.
Imagine someone getting here at 15 with their parents. They turn 18. Already they’ve set down roots and have few to no connections anymore back home. They stay. How can you fault them for that?
Now they’re 21, been here 6 years and have even less of a connection with their home country. Can you name the value it creates to forcibly seize them and ship them back across the border?
The reason we prevent unlimited immigration is to prevent communities from being disrupted. But the same argument doesn’t work, and actually is a point in the other direction, when it comes to deportation.
This argument, however, logically also supports a full amnesty, not just people who were brought here as children. The only possible difference is making the choice of moving here illegally.
I’m confused about the provision regarding military service. My understanding is you can only join the military if you are a legal permanent resident. And if you have your permanent residency card you can start the naturalization process pretty much as soon as you enlist (rather than the five years, I believe, that non-military individuals have to wait after getting their permanent residency status).
Anyway my question is how can someone have gotten two years in the military if they’re not a legal resident? Would that just be a case of the military not doing its due diligence and properly checking the backgrounds of its recruits (something which really opens up a whole other can of worms)?
Just to be clear, I’m not saying it will. My point about the 15 year old is that he was only here 3 years when he, as an adult, decided to continue staying here illegally.
I’m all for letting people who came here as a child stay here. I just don’t like the age set at anything < 16. I don’t know what the exact right age should be, but I would put if closer to 12.
I also like the idea, posted above, that the 2 years of college be changed to getting an actual degree.
The point is not whether we should have immigration laws. The point is whether we should CHANGE our immigration laws. Laws change all the time, for many different reasons.
Dems want to pretend they are strong on defense so it is being sold that way. But they don’t really want to make illegals join the military so they added the college thing. Now graduating would be expecting too much so all they’d need to do is go to some cheap community college for two years.
I doubt there is any requirement to take a full load or even pass anything … but even if there is they could regulate that minor detail out of the way in the next couple of years.
No, we don’t try youth as adults with “regularity.” That’s only in exceptional cases.
Really, you think this law is too liberal? I think it’s nowhere near liberal enough.
Why should a child who’s lived here since the age of 3 years–or even 3 months–(neither of which this law apparently cares to distinguish from one who arrived at 14 years) have to serve in the military or go to college to be a citizen in his own country, even if it’s the country he freaking learned to speak in?
What if he’s developmentally disabled? What if he is ill for a long period of time in early adulthood?
As for the later arrivals, I think we can be confident that with poor English skills they will for the most part not be going to college & high-tech careers. This is more warm bodies for the army of Yanqui hegemony. This is conscription, & should be damned as such.
The attempt to have one solution for those who arrived at 13 years as well as those who arrived at 13 months is ridiculous. And it’s unnecessary. We should just go back to open immigration, and finally abandon a theory of restricted immigration invented by the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920’s.