What amendments to the DREAM Act would persuade you to support it?

König

Registered Users (C)
This question is for those who disagree with the current language of the DREAM Act. What amendments would you propose to give your support to this bill?

From my side, I would restrict the beneficiaries of the DREAM Act ability to file I-130 petition for family relatives. Spouse is ok but not parents and siblings. Also, the beneficiaries' I-485s should go to the back of the line.
 
This question is for those who disagree with the current language of the DREAM Act. What amendments would you propose to give your support to this bill?

As a legal immigrant, I would prefer that immigration happen legally--but I recognize that some of these Dream Act potential beneficiaries are here unlawfully through no fault of their own and some consideration should be granted.

However I would require some changes to personally support a Dream Act.

For one thing, I think the concept of giving a path to citizenship for people UNDER a certain age (eg 25, 30, or 35) is the complete opposite of what is needed. It is the people OVER a certain age (eg 25, 30, or 35) who deserve such consideration--assuming as always that they were brought here as children by their parents. Such people will have much more deeply entrenched lives in the USA and making the adjustment to return to their original countries will be much more difficult for them--so it is these older immigrants who deserve a path to citizenship. For example, the older one gets, the harder it is to pick up a new language--so if the only language spoken is English, it would be very difficult for a 50 year old to return to their original non English-speaking country.

Plus if their only "crime" was to be brought here by their parents unlawfully, and they have otherwise followed the law, the older someone is, the more they have contributed to this country, and the more consideration they deserve.

I would still provide some relief to the younger group, but it would be more limited. For the people under the age limit (eg 25, 30, or 35) I would stop short of giving an automatic path to citizenship, but I would forgive all past time in unlawful status and grant them a one-time, non-renewable, 3-to-5 year, work status. Although there would be no automatic path to citizenship, because they would be in status, they would be allowed to change status to another status (eg F-1, H-1B, etc) or apply to adjust status to a GC. They would have to qualify for the GC using one of the same paths to a GC (eg EB1, EB2, EB3, etc) that anyone else has to use. Simply being a Dream Act beneficiary wouldn't, by itself, qualify them to apply for a GC. They could also leave the country for a period of time without being subject to a bar for their previous overstay.

In other words, for the younger group, I would expect them to earn permanent status the same way any other potential immigrant needs to do. But I would give them a one time chance to get back in status so they aren't unfairly penalized for their parents' actions.

Finally, all my comments above are in a civilian context. For someone--of any age--who has served honorably in the US military, I have no problem granting a path to citizenship unless they have been convicted in a civilian court of the absolute most serious crimes (murder, kidnapping...).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i don'th think they should go to the back of the line. sure they commited a misdemeanor, but that is more than offset by the billions undocumented persons contribute to our economy i the form of taxes they will never see a return on. let them pay a fine as long as they have been clean and working otherwise.
 
i don'th think they should go to the back of the line.
So, which category of GC seeking people are you going to put behind? Employment based, family based, DV? Please tell us.I really do not think that those who legally started their GC process and are patiently waiting in line should be delayed further because of any kind of amnesty.
 
lol. i think they're separate issues. they are here already. if they have been for a certain amount of time, then they have been paying taxes and in most cases not collecting a thing on them. if they have been doing so without breaking any laws outside of the misdemeanor of crossing, then they should be fined. there should be certain requirements and length of time here can be part of what's taken into account, but it's just as much the government's fault in many ways. these are not the cockroach sub human hoards anti-undocumented worker enthusiasts make them out to be and if there were no jobs and a market for them, they would not come.

so they should not impede anyone's progress, it should be treated as a separate category and perhaps even take length of wait time in other categories of waiting applicants into consideration as the standard for what length of time already in country should be the baseline. if they can't pay the fine, but agree to have money withheld from their paychecks that's okay, if not they have to go. there are so many ways we can do it, but the idea they just leave is preposterous. that will never happen. it's fantasy land. people need to be realistic about that. even george w and vice president vader knew that.
 
Top