Sometimes its worth a look at what the other side is saying. This article talks about Reid and Durbin's anger over the failure of the DREAM ACT on the Senate floor.
The author of this article notes that Durbin thinks that people against the DREAM ACT are racists. I don't believe Durbin actually said this, although many others have made that statement.
Pinning bigotry on someone is not just about the DREAM ACT. While many anti-immigrationists say it's not about race, but about illegality, I don't believe they would be so upset if the current wave of immigration was from northern Europe. There are few complaints about undocumented Irish immigrants these days.
-----
November 13, 2007 Tuesday
Stand on merits, please;
A Congress too sly
Alan Nathan, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
'...Mr. Reid has been demonstrating all the tactical sure-footedness of a running-back in dress shoes. He tried, and mercifully failed, to pass the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the DREAM Act. This would have granted legal status to aliens arriving before the age of 16, providing they graduate high school, sustain a clean criminal record and demonstrate a "good moral character." Mr. Reid was furious over his failure, saying "Children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents." Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, a Democrat, added that "to turn on these children and treat them as criminals is an indication of the level of emotion and, in some cases, bigotry and hatred that is involved in this debate.
...Mr. Durbin is correct when he asserts that hatred was involved in this debate. That hatred, however, was against politicos like him who unpardonably castigate folks as bigots merely because they want laws universally applied regardless of the offender's demographic origin."'
Showing posts with label DREAM Act Vote. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DREAM Act Vote. Show all posts
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
LA Times on Lost DREAM ACT Vote 10 26 2007
Dreams put on hold for many illegal immigrant students
Many poised to graduate may have to rethink their future in view of the Senate's failure to pass a bill granting them a path to citizenship.
By Teresa Watanabe
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 26, 2007
The defeat of Senate legislation that would offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrant students set off deep disappointment among many of them Thursday as they scrambled to figure out their futures.
"It keeps so many doors closed," said Cesar Gomez, 21, a Cal State San Bernardino student in industrial psychology. Gomez, who attained a 3.9 grade-point average at his Los Angeles high school, said he would probably have to take his skills back to his native Mexico after graduation.
That, he said, would deprive U.S. society of his bilingual skills, his strength in science and a work ethic that drove him to work his way through school at a construction firm.
Jorge Romero, 25, a Cal State L.A. student who asked that his full name not be used, said the bill's failure would probably compel him to start his own business after graduation rather than offer his talents to a U.S. firm.
Romero, an economics major who earned a 3.3 high school GPA and volunteered as a math and reading tutor at the public library, had been accepted to six University of California campuses but could not afford the tuition.
"There's no hope for me getting a job after I graduate, so the best thing is for me to create my own job," he said.
The two young men are among an estimated 20,000 illegal immigrant college students in California, more than in any other state. Most of them attend community colleges. Their ranks include between 340 and 630 of the UC system's 200,000 students, according to Robert J. Birgeneau, chancellor of UC Berkeley.
There are no clear estimates for the California State University system, but officials say they comprise "hundreds" of its 417,000 students.
The specter of illegal immigrants' receiving subsidized public education and coveted spots at premier state universities infuriates some, however.
"Seats at state universities are valuable finite resources, and for every [illegal immigrant] kid who gets in, that's one fewer legal immigrant or American who does not get in," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
While the children may have been brought to the United States through no fault of their own, Mehlman said, "it was their parents who knowingly broke the law and put them in that situation. We're very sorry, but they have to deal with it."
But UC Berkeley's Birgeneau said bilingual, bicultural, academically gifted immigrant students are precisely the kind of talent California needs to succeed in the global economy. Children of illegal immigrants who make it into California colleges are particularly impressive, he said, because they've had so many obstacles to overcome.
And many know only the United States as their home, having left their native countries at very young ages, he said.
"We live in an extremely competitive world internationally, and it's simply wasteful of California not to take advantage of their talent," Birgeneau said.
The legislation, known as the Dream Act, would have offered a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who had served in the military or completed two years of higher education and who had lived in the United States for at least five years, entered the country before age 16, graduated from high school, compiled no criminal record and demonstrated "good moral character."
The vote on the proposal Wednesday was 52-44, short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and begin debate.
Immigrant advocates said Thursday that they would continue to press for passage, though probably as part of a comprehensive measure that would also toughen border and workplace enforcement and increase family and work visas.
Activists also planned to continue public advocacy and education on the issue. In Los Angeles, the bill's supporters plan to hold a mock graduation ceremony Nov. 7, featuring students in caps and gowns holding placards saying, "Now what?" to signify their lack of work prospects, according to Anike Tourse, spokeswoman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.
She said critics primarily focus on the bill's education benefits without acknowledging that it could also help the military recruit needed soldiers.
"It's very frustrating," Tourse said of the Senate action, "but it's not breaking our spirits. It's only a matter of time before the measure passes."
For some students, however, time is running out.
Wilbur, who asked to be identified only by his first name, said his father was picked up by immigration agents a month ago after a political asylum request was rejected and was scheduled for deportation to his native Peru this week.
The family asked for anonymity because they feared immigration agents could soon come after them, as well.
But Wilbur, 20, a UCLA junior in political science, said Peru held no future for him because of the paucity of professional jobs and widespread corruption. He was brought to the United States at age 7, earned a 3.6 GPA at his Pasadena high school, played varsity soccer and won a community service scholarship for initiating a tutoring program for children.
Now struggling to manage his academic workload, his father's gardening business and family obligations to his mother and younger sibling, he said the Dream Act was his only hope for a future.
"We're not trying to ask for money; we just want an opportunity to work because we've been here all of our lives," he said. "It's really disappointing and sad, because we represent the best and brightest immigrants of this era."
teresa.watanabe@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dream26oct26,0,1545431,print.story?coll=la-home-center
Many poised to graduate may have to rethink their future in view of the Senate's failure to pass a bill granting them a path to citizenship.
By Teresa Watanabe
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 26, 2007
The defeat of Senate legislation that would offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrant students set off deep disappointment among many of them Thursday as they scrambled to figure out their futures.
"It keeps so many doors closed," said Cesar Gomez, 21, a Cal State San Bernardino student in industrial psychology. Gomez, who attained a 3.9 grade-point average at his Los Angeles high school, said he would probably have to take his skills back to his native Mexico after graduation.
That, he said, would deprive U.S. society of his bilingual skills, his strength in science and a work ethic that drove him to work his way through school at a construction firm.
Jorge Romero, 25, a Cal State L.A. student who asked that his full name not be used, said the bill's failure would probably compel him to start his own business after graduation rather than offer his talents to a U.S. firm.
Romero, an economics major who earned a 3.3 high school GPA and volunteered as a math and reading tutor at the public library, had been accepted to six University of California campuses but could not afford the tuition.
"There's no hope for me getting a job after I graduate, so the best thing is for me to create my own job," he said.
The two young men are among an estimated 20,000 illegal immigrant college students in California, more than in any other state. Most of them attend community colleges. Their ranks include between 340 and 630 of the UC system's 200,000 students, according to Robert J. Birgeneau, chancellor of UC Berkeley.
There are no clear estimates for the California State University system, but officials say they comprise "hundreds" of its 417,000 students.
The specter of illegal immigrants' receiving subsidized public education and coveted spots at premier state universities infuriates some, however.
"Seats at state universities are valuable finite resources, and for every [illegal immigrant] kid who gets in, that's one fewer legal immigrant or American who does not get in," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
While the children may have been brought to the United States through no fault of their own, Mehlman said, "it was their parents who knowingly broke the law and put them in that situation. We're very sorry, but they have to deal with it."
But UC Berkeley's Birgeneau said bilingual, bicultural, academically gifted immigrant students are precisely the kind of talent California needs to succeed in the global economy. Children of illegal immigrants who make it into California colleges are particularly impressive, he said, because they've had so many obstacles to overcome.
And many know only the United States as their home, having left their native countries at very young ages, he said.
"We live in an extremely competitive world internationally, and it's simply wasteful of California not to take advantage of their talent," Birgeneau said.
The legislation, known as the Dream Act, would have offered a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who had served in the military or completed two years of higher education and who had lived in the United States for at least five years, entered the country before age 16, graduated from high school, compiled no criminal record and demonstrated "good moral character."
The vote on the proposal Wednesday was 52-44, short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and begin debate.
Immigrant advocates said Thursday that they would continue to press for passage, though probably as part of a comprehensive measure that would also toughen border and workplace enforcement and increase family and work visas.
Activists also planned to continue public advocacy and education on the issue. In Los Angeles, the bill's supporters plan to hold a mock graduation ceremony Nov. 7, featuring students in caps and gowns holding placards saying, "Now what?" to signify their lack of work prospects, according to Anike Tourse, spokeswoman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.
She said critics primarily focus on the bill's education benefits without acknowledging that it could also help the military recruit needed soldiers.
"It's very frustrating," Tourse said of the Senate action, "but it's not breaking our spirits. It's only a matter of time before the measure passes."
For some students, however, time is running out.
Wilbur, who asked to be identified only by his first name, said his father was picked up by immigration agents a month ago after a political asylum request was rejected and was scheduled for deportation to his native Peru this week.
The family asked for anonymity because they feared immigration agents could soon come after them, as well.
But Wilbur, 20, a UCLA junior in political science, said Peru held no future for him because of the paucity of professional jobs and widespread corruption. He was brought to the United States at age 7, earned a 3.6 GPA at his Pasadena high school, played varsity soccer and won a community service scholarship for initiating a tutoring program for children.
Now struggling to manage his academic workload, his father's gardening business and family obligations to his mother and younger sibling, he said the Dream Act was his only hope for a future.
"We're not trying to ask for money; we just want an opportunity to work because we've been here all of our lives," he said. "It's really disappointing and sad, because we represent the best and brightest immigrants of this era."
teresa.watanabe@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dream26oct26,0,1545431,print.story?coll=la-home-center
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Vote Against DREAM ACT: Symptom of Male Menopause?
"The vote against the Dream Act was so irrational, so counterproductive, that it seemed the product of some sort of hormonal imbalance."
So says Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. I agree. In fact, his description reminds me of Bill the Butcher from the movie "Gangs of New York"... the guy who thought immigrants were the scum of the earth and wore the flag on himself.
Could McConnell or Sessions be the Bill "the Butcher" Cutting of 2007?
_____
Republican Hot Flashes
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, October 26, 2007; A21
Has America become a mean, ungenerous, cramped and crabby nation, a deeply insecure colossus -- one that just might be taking all those Viagra and Cialis commercials a bit too personally? Is the country desperate to find scapegoats for a perceived decline in, um, vigor? Or is America still a confident land of hope and promise, a place still potent with possibility?
It's watching the Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail that makes me pose those big-picture questions. I'm just suggesting a context for assessing the actions and rhetoric of a party that seems to be in the throes of andropause.
That's the popularly accepted term for "male menopause," which medical dictionaries tend to describe as a "purported" syndrome rather than an actual clinical diagnosis. I'm not qualified to offer an opinion on whether dads go through a Y-chromosome version of what used to be euphemistically called the "change of life." But I think the "Daddy party" has been presenting clear symptoms.
The latest was the Senate vote Wednesday in which Republicans, supported by a handful of red-state Democrats, narrowly scuttled the Dream Act, a bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for some young undocumented immigrants -- but only those who did everything this country once found worthy and admirable in pursuit of the American dream.
Under the proposal, men and women who fulfilled several conditions -- they had to be under 30, had to have been brought into the country illegally before they were 16, had to have been in the United States for at least five years and had to be graduates of U.S. high schools -- would have been given conditional legal status. If they went on to complete two years of college or two years of military service, they would have been eligible for permanent residency.
Let's see. Here was a way to encourage a bunch of kids to go to college rather than melt into the shadows as off-the-books day laborers -- or maybe even gang members. And here was a way to boost enlistment in our overtaxed armed forces. Aren't education and global competitiveness supposed to be vital issues? Aren't we fighting open-ended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The vote against the Dream Act was so irrational, so counterproductive, that it seemed the product of some sort of hormonal imbalance.
"I do not believe we should reward illegal behavior," sniffed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who led the fight to kill the measure. But the potential beneficiaries of the Dream Act didn't do anything illegal; it was their parents who made the decision to come here without papers.
The real reason for denying at least 1 million young people the opportunity to make this nation stronger is that illegal immigration is the scourge du jour. Undocumented immigrants are convenient scapegoats for perceived American decline, convenient targets for the unfocused anger that Republicans seem to believe their constituents feel -- the sense that "they," whoever they might be, are taking something away from "us."
George W. Bush's veto of the bill reauthorizing the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program -- an action backed up by loyal House Republicans -- had the same defensive, bitter sense of we'll-show-them-a-thing-or-two. The Republican Party has to be aware of the polls showing how concerned Americans are about the health insurance crisis. It has to be betting that the act of saying no -- in what looked like a fit of andropausal pique -- would play better with voters, perhaps subliminally.
And just listen to the Republican candidates' rhetoric about our great nation's place in the world. With the exception of Ron Paul, every one of them agrees that America is under siege, molested not only by dangerous bands of Islamic terrorists -- which is true -- but also by sovereign nations such as Iran, China and Russia that have had the temerity to pursue what they see as their national interests. Which is a bizarre way of looking at foreign relations.
The solution, according to the Republican presidential hopefuls, isn't give-and-take negotiation. It's chest-thumping. It's a series of declarations about what we will find "acceptable" and what we won't. Maybe this is calculated; maybe they've decided that national security is the only issue that gives any of them a chance against any Democrat in 2008.
But I think they're badly misreading the country. I think this is still fundamentally a hopeful, generous nation, aware of both its challenges and its strengths. And not yet ready to start downing Levitra by the handful.
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502234_pf.html
So says Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. I agree. In fact, his description reminds me of Bill the Butcher from the movie "Gangs of New York"... the guy who thought immigrants were the scum of the earth and wore the flag on himself.
Could McConnell or Sessions be the Bill "the Butcher" Cutting of 2007?
_____
Republican Hot Flashes
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, October 26, 2007; A21
Has America become a mean, ungenerous, cramped and crabby nation, a deeply insecure colossus -- one that just might be taking all those Viagra and Cialis commercials a bit too personally? Is the country desperate to find scapegoats for a perceived decline in, um, vigor? Or is America still a confident land of hope and promise, a place still potent with possibility?
It's watching the Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail that makes me pose those big-picture questions. I'm just suggesting a context for assessing the actions and rhetoric of a party that seems to be in the throes of andropause.
That's the popularly accepted term for "male menopause," which medical dictionaries tend to describe as a "purported" syndrome rather than an actual clinical diagnosis. I'm not qualified to offer an opinion on whether dads go through a Y-chromosome version of what used to be euphemistically called the "change of life." But I think the "Daddy party" has been presenting clear symptoms.
The latest was the Senate vote Wednesday in which Republicans, supported by a handful of red-state Democrats, narrowly scuttled the Dream Act, a bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for some young undocumented immigrants -- but only those who did everything this country once found worthy and admirable in pursuit of the American dream.
Under the proposal, men and women who fulfilled several conditions -- they had to be under 30, had to have been brought into the country illegally before they were 16, had to have been in the United States for at least five years and had to be graduates of U.S. high schools -- would have been given conditional legal status. If they went on to complete two years of college or two years of military service, they would have been eligible for permanent residency.
Let's see. Here was a way to encourage a bunch of kids to go to college rather than melt into the shadows as off-the-books day laborers -- or maybe even gang members. And here was a way to boost enlistment in our overtaxed armed forces. Aren't education and global competitiveness supposed to be vital issues? Aren't we fighting open-ended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The vote against the Dream Act was so irrational, so counterproductive, that it seemed the product of some sort of hormonal imbalance.
"I do not believe we should reward illegal behavior," sniffed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who led the fight to kill the measure. But the potential beneficiaries of the Dream Act didn't do anything illegal; it was their parents who made the decision to come here without papers.
The real reason for denying at least 1 million young people the opportunity to make this nation stronger is that illegal immigration is the scourge du jour. Undocumented immigrants are convenient scapegoats for perceived American decline, convenient targets for the unfocused anger that Republicans seem to believe their constituents feel -- the sense that "they," whoever they might be, are taking something away from "us."
George W. Bush's veto of the bill reauthorizing the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program -- an action backed up by loyal House Republicans -- had the same defensive, bitter sense of we'll-show-them-a-thing-or-two. The Republican Party has to be aware of the polls showing how concerned Americans are about the health insurance crisis. It has to be betting that the act of saying no -- in what looked like a fit of andropausal pique -- would play better with voters, perhaps subliminally.
And just listen to the Republican candidates' rhetoric about our great nation's place in the world. With the exception of Ron Paul, every one of them agrees that America is under siege, molested not only by dangerous bands of Islamic terrorists -- which is true -- but also by sovereign nations such as Iran, China and Russia that have had the temerity to pursue what they see as their national interests. Which is a bizarre way of looking at foreign relations.
The solution, according to the Republican presidential hopefuls, isn't give-and-take negotiation. It's chest-thumping. It's a series of declarations about what we will find "acceptable" and what we won't. Maybe this is calculated; maybe they've decided that national security is the only issue that gives any of them a chance against any Democrat in 2008.
But I think they're badly misreading the country. I think this is still fundamentally a hopeful, generous nation, aware of both its challenges and its strengths. And not yet ready to start downing Levitra by the handful.
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502234_pf.html
The Day After
The DREAM ACT didn't receive cloture on the senate floor yesterday. Most of you already know that. While the journalists might be somewhat disappointed, their job is to find the stories, so there isn't time or need for grieving. For the politicians, surely Durbin feels something, at least disappointment that his political clout wasn't strong enough to overturn the current anti-immigration sentiment. Sessions and McConnell are probably happy today.
The real question is: how are the DREAM ACT students? Some are in shock, some cried, some were angry; others couldn't sleep last night- they wonder what could happen next.
This might have felt like a last ditch effort. We may want to be optimistic, but the current political climate has made most American voters and their representatives blind to anything or anyone that was not Born in the USA. That is their only criteria.
Unfortunately, the DREAM ACT kids weren't born here, and we can't magically go back in time and change their location of birth. This isolated criteria is making our country look like something medieval, where only those born to the nobility count, and everyone elses life means nothing. We have gone retrograde to a time where logic and reason have been lost. Ideology now determines the future of the country.
What people don't understand if the bill were passed, the DREAM ACT kids would be the ones to lead the way. The paradox is that they would feel more American than those of us lucky enough to be born here. Who else works so hard, uses all resources available, respects societal rules, and would have such a bright future? Talk about the American work ethic - they are the prime example of what many of us don't have anymore.
We are producing kids that believe that World of Warcraft is more important than food. The high achievers are programmed like robots from an early age, with their own appointment books so they can list their daily classes or instructions. Even their play times have to be scheduled.
For the rest, its World of Warcraft or some other video game, floating through high school, coming to love their computer more than the people around them.
DREAM ACT kids are different. I can say that because not only have I had many as students, but also because I've been working on a book about the DREAM ACT for the last 18 months. Its been a revelatory experience.
The students I know are telling me to finish the book quickly; maybe it will help get the bill passed. Perhaps it would, but more importantly, for anything to happen the U.S. will need to have sometype of brain shift - The problem is that there is no model to follow from the past. This type of globalization is new, as are recent societal movements, practices, and rapidly changing technology - America is reacting to this by hiding its head in the sand - and when it does look out at the world it hallucinates monsters and destruction.
photo: WWI, http://www.mises.org/images4/CenturyOfWarCrop.jpg
Where Was McCain During the DREAM ACT Vote?
McCain Skips Vote on Immigration BillAfter Vote for Controversial Judge
by Michael Roston
Huffington Post
October 24, 2007 05:15 PM
A maverick no more?
Senator John McCain skipped out on a vote this afternoon on a bill that creates a path to legal residency for college students who entered the United States illegally with their parents. While McCain has decided to miss many votes in order to stay on the campaign trail, the move was notable this time because it came on the same day when he made a point of announcing that he was canceling campaign events to confirm the nomination of a controversial federal judge. The Senator has also co-sponsored the bill during earlier congresses.
The Arizona Senator spent years cultivating his reputation as a "maverick" Congress member who spoke only in the American dialect of English called "straight talk." He probably cost himself the 2000 Republican nomination for President by sticking to his guns on social issues and other matters. And this time around, McCain has come in for massive criticism from his party's conservative base for promoting a compromise immigration reform bill that conservatives slammed as granting "amnesty" to all illegal workers.
The DREAM Act allows high school graduates who have lived in America for at least five years and attended two years of college (or agree to two years of military service) to enter a path to becoming legal residents in the United States. A filibuster of the bill was sustained on Wednesday by a vote of 52-44.
In 2005, McCain joined 27 other Senators in co-sponsoring the legislation. Sitting out the vote this time might suggest that McCain no longer feels he can brave the anti-immigrant currents swirling in his party if he wants to keep his troubled presidential campaign afloat.
McCain's campaign offered no explanation for why he sat out the vote.
"Sen. McCain had to catch a flight to Iowa right after the Southwick vote," the spokesman said in an e-mail to the Huffington Post. "I'm sure he'll address the issue in more detail in Iowa."
McCain's campaign announced yesterday that he was skipping "his New Hampshire events scheduled for tomorrow, October 24th, to return to Washington to vote on the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit."
Southwick's nomination has prompted controversy due to allegations of racism and homophobia. The former Mississippi judge reinstated a state employee who was fired for calling a co-worker a "good ole nigger," and awarded sole custody of a child to a father because her mother was a lesbian.
McCain dismissed these concerns as a "smear campaign," and added, "Liberals, including the Democratic presidential candidates, are opposing Judge Southwick because they know he will strictly interpret the law rather than make it from the bench."
On the other side of the aisle, Democratic critics accused McCain of abandoning his principles to skip the vote on the DREAM Act.
"Missing the vote on the DREAM Act is consistent with McCain's chase for conservative votes if not with his principles," said Luis Miranda, Democratic National Committee spokesman. "Once again he's avoiding taking a stand on what was previously a signature issue."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/24/mccain-skips-vote-on-immi_n_69745.html
by Michael Roston
Huffington Post
October 24, 2007 05:15 PM
A maverick no more?
Senator John McCain skipped out on a vote this afternoon on a bill that creates a path to legal residency for college students who entered the United States illegally with their parents. While McCain has decided to miss many votes in order to stay on the campaign trail, the move was notable this time because it came on the same day when he made a point of announcing that he was canceling campaign events to confirm the nomination of a controversial federal judge. The Senator has also co-sponsored the bill during earlier congresses.
The Arizona Senator spent years cultivating his reputation as a "maverick" Congress member who spoke only in the American dialect of English called "straight talk." He probably cost himself the 2000 Republican nomination for President by sticking to his guns on social issues and other matters. And this time around, McCain has come in for massive criticism from his party's conservative base for promoting a compromise immigration reform bill that conservatives slammed as granting "amnesty" to all illegal workers.
The DREAM Act allows high school graduates who have lived in America for at least five years and attended two years of college (or agree to two years of military service) to enter a path to becoming legal residents in the United States. A filibuster of the bill was sustained on Wednesday by a vote of 52-44.
In 2005, McCain joined 27 other Senators in co-sponsoring the legislation. Sitting out the vote this time might suggest that McCain no longer feels he can brave the anti-immigrant currents swirling in his party if he wants to keep his troubled presidential campaign afloat.
McCain's campaign offered no explanation for why he sat out the vote.
"Sen. McCain had to catch a flight to Iowa right after the Southwick vote," the spokesman said in an e-mail to the Huffington Post. "I'm sure he'll address the issue in more detail in Iowa."
McCain's campaign announced yesterday that he was skipping "his New Hampshire events scheduled for tomorrow, October 24th, to return to Washington to vote on the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit."
Southwick's nomination has prompted controversy due to allegations of racism and homophobia. The former Mississippi judge reinstated a state employee who was fired for calling a co-worker a "good ole nigger," and awarded sole custody of a child to a father because her mother was a lesbian.
McCain dismissed these concerns as a "smear campaign," and added, "Liberals, including the Democratic presidential candidates, are opposing Judge Southwick because they know he will strictly interpret the law rather than make it from the bench."
On the other side of the aisle, Democratic critics accused McCain of abandoning his principles to skip the vote on the DREAM Act.
"Missing the vote on the DREAM Act is consistent with McCain's chase for conservative votes if not with his principles," said Luis Miranda, Democratic National Committee spokesman. "Once again he's avoiding taking a stand on what was previously a signature issue."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/24/mccain-skips-vote-on-immi_n_69745.html
MALDEF Statement on DREAM ACT Vote 10 24 2007
From Mexican American Legal Defense Fund
1717 K Street, Suite 311, Washington, DC 20036 Office: 202-293-2828
PRESS RELEASE CONTACT:
FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION Estuardo Rodriguez: 202-365-0625
October 24, 2007 Peter Zamora: 202-293-2828
Bush Administration and 44 U.S. Senators Block Passage of the DREAM Act
Vote is a victory for anti-immigrant sentiment over education and national service
Washington, DC - Today, by a vote of 52-44, the United States Senate rejected the DREAM Act, which required 60 votes to move forward. The DREAM Act would offer conditional legal immigration status for many of our nation's best and brightest high school graduates who enroll in community colleges or four-year colleges or serve in the nation's military.
More troubling than the 44 Senators' votes against the DREAM Act was the Bush Administration's late opposition to the bill and inaccurate message to the U.S. Senate on the substance of the proposal. In contrast to its previous support for comprehensive immigration reform that included a path to citizenship, the Administration turned its back on the graduates of U.S. high schools who could better contribute to the economy and society if the DREAM Act became law.
"President Bush and 44 Senators have weakened America by this vote. By cowering in the face of divisive anti-immigrant sentiment, they make it harder for the nation to be equipped to be ready, both here and abroad, for the economic, societal and other challenges we face. The DREAM Act was a modest proposal to increase educational opportunities for young people to serve the nation," stated John Trasviña, MALDEF's President and General Counsel.
"Our country needs elected officials who are willing to take action to strengthen our nation," stated Peter Zamora, Washington, D.C. Regional Counsel. "44 Senators and the White House have instead chosen to use anti-immigrant fear-mongering as a political tool. This is reprehensible."
1717 K Street, Suite 311, Washington, DC 20036 Office: 202-293-2828
PRESS RELEASE CONTACT:
FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION Estuardo Rodriguez: 202-365-0625
October 24, 2007 Peter Zamora: 202-293-2828
Bush Administration and 44 U.S. Senators Block Passage of the DREAM Act
Vote is a victory for anti-immigrant sentiment over education and national service
Washington, DC - Today, by a vote of 52-44, the United States Senate rejected the DREAM Act, which required 60 votes to move forward. The DREAM Act would offer conditional legal immigration status for many of our nation's best and brightest high school graduates who enroll in community colleges or four-year colleges or serve in the nation's military.
More troubling than the 44 Senators' votes against the DREAM Act was the Bush Administration's late opposition to the bill and inaccurate message to the U.S. Senate on the substance of the proposal. In contrast to its previous support for comprehensive immigration reform that included a path to citizenship, the Administration turned its back on the graduates of U.S. high schools who could better contribute to the economy and society if the DREAM Act became law.
"President Bush and 44 Senators have weakened America by this vote. By cowering in the face of divisive anti-immigrant sentiment, they make it harder for the nation to be equipped to be ready, both here and abroad, for the economic, societal and other challenges we face. The DREAM Act was a modest proposal to increase educational opportunities for young people to serve the nation," stated John Trasviña, MALDEF's President and General Counsel.
"Our country needs elected officials who are willing to take action to strengthen our nation," stated Peter Zamora, Washington, D.C. Regional Counsel. "44 Senators and the White House have instead chosen to use anti-immigrant fear-mongering as a political tool. This is reprehensible."
White House Statement on DREAM ACT 10 24 2007
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 24, 2007 (Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
S. 2205 - Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of
2007
(Sen. Durbin (D) Illinois and two cosponsors)
The Administration continues to believe that the Nation's broken
immigration system requires comprehensive reform. This reform should
include strong border and interior enforcement, a temporary worker
program, a program to bring the millions of undocumented aliens out of
the shadows without amnesty and without animosity, and assistance that
helps newcomers assimilate into American society. Unless it provides
additional authorities in all of these areas, Congress will do little
more than perpetuate the unfortunate status quo.
The Administration is sympathetic to the position of young people who
were brought here illegally as children and have come to know the United
States as home. Any resolution of their status, however, must be careful
not to provide incentives for recurrence of the illegal conduct that has
brought the Nation to this point. By creating a special path to
citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective
immigrants-including young people whose parents respected the Nation's
immigration laws-S. 2205 falls short. The Administration therefore
opposes the bill.
The primary change wrought by S. 2205 would be to establish a
preferential path to citizenship for a special class of illegal aliens.
Specifically, S. 2205 awards permanent status to any illegal alien who
is under 30, has been in the United States for five years after arriving
as a child, and has completed two years of college or in the uniformed
services. This path to citizenship is unavailable to any other alien, no
matter how much promise he or she may have, no matter how much he or she
may contribute to American society. Moreover, the path that S. 2205
creates would allow illegal aliens to obtain a green card before many
individuals who are currently lawfully waiting in line.
Sponsors of S. 2205 argue that the bill is necessary in order to give
children who are illegal aliens incentives to obtain an education. But
it is difficult to reconcile that professed aim with the bill's
retroactivity provisions: even those who attended college years earlier
will be eligible for a green card.
The legal status that the bill grants its beneficiaries means that they
can petition almost instantly to bring family members into the country.
It also places them on the fast track to citizenship because they can
immediately begin accruing the residence time in the United States that
is necessary for naturalization. Finally, this legal status entitles the
bill's beneficiaries to certain welfare benefits within five years.
The bill is also indiscriminate in whom it would make eligible for the
program. For example,
S. 2205 includes loopholes that would authorize permanent status for
certain aliens convicted of multiple misdemeanors and even felonies.
The open-ended nature of S. 2205 is objectionable and will inevitably
lead to large-scale document fraud. The path to citizenship remains open
for decades, thus creating a strong temptation for future illegal aliens
to purchase fraudulent documents on a burgeoning black market. Moreover,
the bill's confidentiality provisions are drawn straight from the 1986
amnesty law and will provide the same haven for fraud and criminality as
that law did.
Immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people-and of
this Administration-but it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive and
balanced way that avoids creating incentives for problems in the future.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 24, 2007 (Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
S. 2205 - Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of
2007
(Sen. Durbin (D) Illinois and two cosponsors)
The Administration continues to believe that the Nation's broken
immigration system requires comprehensive reform. This reform should
include strong border and interior enforcement, a temporary worker
program, a program to bring the millions of undocumented aliens out of
the shadows without amnesty and without animosity, and assistance that
helps newcomers assimilate into American society. Unless it provides
additional authorities in all of these areas, Congress will do little
more than perpetuate the unfortunate status quo.
The Administration is sympathetic to the position of young people who
were brought here illegally as children and have come to know the United
States as home. Any resolution of their status, however, must be careful
not to provide incentives for recurrence of the illegal conduct that has
brought the Nation to this point. By creating a special path to
citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective
immigrants-including young people whose parents respected the Nation's
immigration laws-S. 2205 falls short. The Administration therefore
opposes the bill.
The primary change wrought by S. 2205 would be to establish a
preferential path to citizenship for a special class of illegal aliens.
Specifically, S. 2205 awards permanent status to any illegal alien who
is under 30, has been in the United States for five years after arriving
as a child, and has completed two years of college or in the uniformed
services. This path to citizenship is unavailable to any other alien, no
matter how much promise he or she may have, no matter how much he or she
may contribute to American society. Moreover, the path that S. 2205
creates would allow illegal aliens to obtain a green card before many
individuals who are currently lawfully waiting in line.
Sponsors of S. 2205 argue that the bill is necessary in order to give
children who are illegal aliens incentives to obtain an education. But
it is difficult to reconcile that professed aim with the bill's
retroactivity provisions: even those who attended college years earlier
will be eligible for a green card.
The legal status that the bill grants its beneficiaries means that they
can petition almost instantly to bring family members into the country.
It also places them on the fast track to citizenship because they can
immediately begin accruing the residence time in the United States that
is necessary for naturalization. Finally, this legal status entitles the
bill's beneficiaries to certain welfare benefits within five years.
The bill is also indiscriminate in whom it would make eligible for the
program. For example,
S. 2205 includes loopholes that would authorize permanent status for
certain aliens convicted of multiple misdemeanors and even felonies.
The open-ended nature of S. 2205 is objectionable and will inevitably
lead to large-scale document fraud. The path to citizenship remains open
for decades, thus creating a strong temptation for future illegal aliens
to purchase fraudulent documents on a burgeoning black market. Moreover,
the bill's confidentiality provisions are drawn straight from the 1986
amnesty law and will provide the same haven for fraud and criminality as
that law did.
Immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people-and of
this Administration-but it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive and
balanced way that avoids creating incentives for problems in the future.
Politico on DREAM ACT 10 25 2007
‘Dream Act' backers still dreaming
By: Martin Kady II
Politico.com
October 25, 2007 07:38 AM EST
The immigration issue has become so toxic in American politics that Congress is now unable to pass even modest measures that once had widespread support, and immigration supporters who were once on the verge of a bipartisan breakthrough are now in danger of a backlash in next year’s elections.
The potency of the issue was on full display in the Senate on Wednesday, as eight Democrats, mostly from Republican-leaning states, helped scuttle a narrowly tailored measure aimed at granting legal residency for longtime students whose parents came to the United States illegally.
And the death of the so-called DREAM Act, which once had 47 co-sponsors in the Senate, was a stark reminder of the depth of discontent among voters to Democratic strategists who personally back liberalization of immigration rules.
“This issue has been so painful for so many people — they’re running scared,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the sponsor of the DREAM Act. When immigration is debated in Congress, Durbin said, “the switchboards light up and the hate starts spewing.”
The vote in the Senate shows just how terrifying it is for most Republicans and even some Democrats to appear open to accommodating illegal immigrants. The election in the 5th District of Massachusetts last week was another bellwether. Democrat Niki Tsongas’ victory over Republican Jim Ogonowski was much closer than expected due to frustration among working-class voters over the immigration issue.
The House has no plans to take up the DREAM Act anytime soon.
At one point, the DREAM Act had 47 co-sponsors in the Senate but had little chance in the toxic atmosphere that has engulfed the immigration issue. And the key procedural motion requiring 60 votes failed 52-44, perhaps the final death knell for any significant immigration legislation until 2009.
The DREAM Act was narrowly targeted and would benefit only high school graduates whose parents brought them to the country illegally years ago, but even this scaled-down legislation was derided as “amnesty” by opponents.
Indeed, despite the votes of a dozen Republicans, eight moderate Democrats voted against the legislation, guaranteeing its defeat. The Republican votes in favor mostly came from politically vulnerable senators from Democratic states. Republicans Mel Martinez of Florida and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who come from states with large immigrant populations, also voted for the bill.
But regardless of the Republican support, Democrats were undone by a handful from their own party who consistently get an earful about illegal immigration when they go back home.
“What I hear is, ‘Look, you’ve got to secure the border,’” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who voted against the bill. “That has to be the No. 1 priority.”
Conrad was joined by other moderate Democrats such as Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana, Max Baucus of Montana and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, who faces a tough election next year in a state trending for the GOP, also voted against the bill.
If every Democrat had voted for the bill, it would have achieved the 60-vote threshold needed to proceed.
“We’ve been through a very emotional time on immigration, and we need to sit down and think this through,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who voted against the bill. “This summer [immigration debate] just fired up the emotions, and that has not gone away.”
Durbin, who has adopted this issue as a top priority, predicted that his support of the DREAM Act would be used against him in his campaign next year, and he was pessimistic the Senate would take it up again anytime soon. One other immigration measure, which would loosen rules for migrant agricultural labor, could be attached to the farm bill next week, but it’s not clear if that proposal has enough support to be approved.
The DREAM Act is designed to reward students who have been in the United States for years, have graduated from high school and plan to go to college or join the military. The idea is that kids whose parents are illegal aliens should not be punished with deportation, because they had no choice in coming to the country at a young age. The eligible students would receive no federal funding or benefits but simply would be granted permanent resident status.
“This is not a free education,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “It’s an opportunity to go to college.”
But the limited scope of the bill seemed irrelevant in the debate. Brimming with confidence from the summer defeat of comprehensive immigration reform, opponents rejoined the arguments that lit up talk radio over the summer and killed the last immigration bill.
“America has clearly rejected amnesty, but Democrats have obviously refused to listen,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). “This is a clarifying moment in the immigration debate: Republicans have heard Americans’ desire for border security and interior enforcement first.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D4A8E0F5-3048-5C12-00CD96062358BF7F
By: Martin Kady II
Politico.com
October 25, 2007 07:38 AM EST
The immigration issue has become so toxic in American politics that Congress is now unable to pass even modest measures that once had widespread support, and immigration supporters who were once on the verge of a bipartisan breakthrough are now in danger of a backlash in next year’s elections.
The potency of the issue was on full display in the Senate on Wednesday, as eight Democrats, mostly from Republican-leaning states, helped scuttle a narrowly tailored measure aimed at granting legal residency for longtime students whose parents came to the United States illegally.
And the death of the so-called DREAM Act, which once had 47 co-sponsors in the Senate, was a stark reminder of the depth of discontent among voters to Democratic strategists who personally back liberalization of immigration rules.
“This issue has been so painful for so many people — they’re running scared,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the sponsor of the DREAM Act. When immigration is debated in Congress, Durbin said, “the switchboards light up and the hate starts spewing.”
The vote in the Senate shows just how terrifying it is for most Republicans and even some Democrats to appear open to accommodating illegal immigrants. The election in the 5th District of Massachusetts last week was another bellwether. Democrat Niki Tsongas’ victory over Republican Jim Ogonowski was much closer than expected due to frustration among working-class voters over the immigration issue.
The House has no plans to take up the DREAM Act anytime soon.
At one point, the DREAM Act had 47 co-sponsors in the Senate but had little chance in the toxic atmosphere that has engulfed the immigration issue. And the key procedural motion requiring 60 votes failed 52-44, perhaps the final death knell for any significant immigration legislation until 2009.
The DREAM Act was narrowly targeted and would benefit only high school graduates whose parents brought them to the country illegally years ago, but even this scaled-down legislation was derided as “amnesty” by opponents.
Indeed, despite the votes of a dozen Republicans, eight moderate Democrats voted against the legislation, guaranteeing its defeat. The Republican votes in favor mostly came from politically vulnerable senators from Democratic states. Republicans Mel Martinez of Florida and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who come from states with large immigrant populations, also voted for the bill.
But regardless of the Republican support, Democrats were undone by a handful from their own party who consistently get an earful about illegal immigration when they go back home.
“What I hear is, ‘Look, you’ve got to secure the border,’” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who voted against the bill. “That has to be the No. 1 priority.”
Conrad was joined by other moderate Democrats such as Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana, Max Baucus of Montana and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, who faces a tough election next year in a state trending for the GOP, also voted against the bill.
If every Democrat had voted for the bill, it would have achieved the 60-vote threshold needed to proceed.
“We’ve been through a very emotional time on immigration, and we need to sit down and think this through,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who voted against the bill. “This summer [immigration debate] just fired up the emotions, and that has not gone away.”
Durbin, who has adopted this issue as a top priority, predicted that his support of the DREAM Act would be used against him in his campaign next year, and he was pessimistic the Senate would take it up again anytime soon. One other immigration measure, which would loosen rules for migrant agricultural labor, could be attached to the farm bill next week, but it’s not clear if that proposal has enough support to be approved.
The DREAM Act is designed to reward students who have been in the United States for years, have graduated from high school and plan to go to college or join the military. The idea is that kids whose parents are illegal aliens should not be punished with deportation, because they had no choice in coming to the country at a young age. The eligible students would receive no federal funding or benefits but simply would be granted permanent resident status.
“This is not a free education,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “It’s an opportunity to go to college.”
But the limited scope of the bill seemed irrelevant in the debate. Brimming with confidence from the summer defeat of comprehensive immigration reform, opponents rejoined the arguments that lit up talk radio over the summer and killed the last immigration bill.
“America has clearly rejected amnesty, but Democrats have obviously refused to listen,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). “This is a clarifying moment in the immigration debate: Republicans have heard Americans’ desire for border security and interior enforcement first.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D4A8E0F5-3048-5C12-00CD96062358BF7F
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)