Thread: The Dream Act is Back

H-1B Visa replacement workers from India are going to persuade Republicans to sponsor and pass the dream act amnesty bill.

http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/fo...-act-plan.html

Replacement Workers' lobby organizations intend for the GOP to re-draft the Dream Act to their liking. It's going to be the GOP Dream Act if H-1B replacement workers have their way.
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/0 ... -plan.html

Behind the Scenes, - foreign nationals are working the Congress to get it passed! They're gonna make the Republicans do the dirty work.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum ... ct-11.html
'

It's so bizarre that we have any US citizen still pandering to these people, let alone elected representatives taking their money to sell out our country. I don't believe most Republicans will fall for it. Just in case, we must be on the alert and as vigilant and diligent as we can be.

HERE'S THEIR PLAN:

How to Revise the DREAM Act, Part I: Remove Egregious Loopholes
By Stanley Renshon, December 30, 2010

Debra Saunders makes the very good suggestion in her column on the most useful starting place for revising the DREAM Act: "If Republicans write the bill, [is that] they can make sure the Dream does not include egregious loopholes." She doesn't name the offending culprits, but they are obvious:

1. The DREAM Act voted down in this month's lame duck congressional session included a safe harbor provision that allowed any illegal immigrant to submit an application for adjustment under the bill and in doing become instantly protected against any immigration enforcement. Or, as the congressional summary puts it, the bill "Prohibits the Secretary from removing an alien with a pending application who establishes prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal and conditional nonimmigrant status."

2. The bill provides for fines for any applicant who, "willfully and knowingly falsifies, misrepresents, or conceals a material fact or makes any false or fraudulent statement or representation, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false or fraudulent statement or entry."

Yet it also prohibits the "use the information furnished by an individual pursuant to an application filed under this Act to initiate removal proceedings against any person identified in the application."

In other words, the measure provided substantial incentives for applicants who had no standing to benefit from the legislation because they were not brought to the United States as children, or did not meet others of the bill's requirements, to assert that they were eligible because such an assertion would freeze their status and prohibit their deportation until such times as their cases were resolved. Moreover, their false claims could not be used against them in any removal proceeding.

3. The bill essentially waived serious past criminal conduct. More specifically, the applicant could still be admitted if he or she "has not been convicted of--(I) any offense under Federal or State law punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year; or (II) 3 or more offenses under Federal or State law, for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the 3 offenses and sentenced to imprisonment for an aggregate of 90 days or more."

An aide to bill sponsor Sen. Richard Durbin is quoted as arguing that "No serious crimes would be allowed…Misdemeanor crimes are all minor crimes by definition. ... Murderers are not going to be eligible under the DREAM Act."

That aide is right about murder not being allowed, but there are serious crimes short of murder. State statutes vary with regard to the definition of misdemeanors and some states distinguish between Class A and Class B misdemeanors. Class A misdemeanors can include endangering a child's welfare, some forms of assault, engaging in prostitution or soliciting a prostitute, writing bad checks, reckless driving, and driving under the influence. One senator noted that bill as written would allow the following to be eligible for amnesty: "alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible."

It is hard to reconcile giving persons convicted of such crimes a pass with the stipulation contained elsewhere in this and past legalization bills that the applicant has been and must be "a person of good moral character since the date the alien initially entered the United States." Nor should any future legislation have to try and do so.

Next: How to Revise the Dream Act, Part II: The Permanent Administrative Visa

How to Revise the DREAM Act, Part II: The Permanent Administrative Visa
By Stanley Renshon, January 1, 2011

Removing the most egregious loopholes in any revised dream act still leaves complex and difficult problems to be solved. They are, as noted, the vexing problems of: (1) what to do about those who have been living in the United States for some period of time; (2) the question of rewarding immigration transgressions, (3) the question of providing incentives for future immigration lawbreakers; and (4) the question of where, and how clearly, to draw the line for any proposed solution so that any agreement will not be undone by subsequent legal warfare.

Assuming that moderates and conservatives want to act on the common ground of addressing the plight of those brought to this country as infants or young children and have grown up here, the best solution would be to include in relevant legislation the creation of a new immigration visa category: The Permanent Administrative Visa.

Applicants would have one year from the starting date of any legislation to apply for a PAV. Upon application, a person would be given a Temporary Administrative Visa issued for a reasonable (say, six months) non-renewable period of while the application process was completed.

This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:

1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor’s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.

The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:

1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;

The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:

1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.

A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:

1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.

http://cis.org/renshon/revising-dream-2

FROM WHAT LITTLE BIT I READ ON THE WEB SITE MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE, THOSE FOLKS ARE JUST AS CORRUPT AS ANYONE IN THE NATION'S CAPITOL. I HOPE THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT GOING TO BE STUPID ENOUGH AS TO BE INFLUENCED BY THESE THUGS FROM INDIA. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THIS COUNTRY ALLOW JUST ANY AND EVERYBODY TO COME HERE IN GOOD FAITH. AND, DO THESE PEOPLE NOT REALIZE THAT THE DREAM ACT CROWD ARE ONLY LOOKING OUT FOR ILLEGAL MEXICANS AND THATS ALL THEY ARE LOOKING OUT FOR. THE AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE SPOKEN LOUD AND CLEAR, NO AMNESTY AND NO DREAM ACT PERIOD