TECHWEB
October 25, 2007 Thursday 3:10 PM GMT
Could Europe's New 'Blue Card' Cause Global Tech Talent To Shun U.S.?
The European Union hopes that its proposed blue-card program will provide a more attractive alternative to the U.S. green-card program, which critics say is plagued by backlogs, cumbersome processes, and insufficient quotas.
While the United States continues to argue about whether to raise the H-1B visa cap and reform green-card processes to allow more foreign tech workers into the country, the European Union wants to make it much easier for highly skilled workers from abroad to land jobs in the EU's 27 member countries.
The EU, which is predicting a severe workforce crisis over the next several decades as its Baby Boomer generation retires, aims to attract 20 million workers from the outside in the years to come.
The EU hopes that a new proposed "blue card" will help fill that void, providing a more attractive alternative to the U.S. green-card program, which critics say is plagued by backlogs, cumbersome processes, and insufficient quotas.
The blue card would provide educated immigrants, including tech professionals, with a two-year, renewable permit to work and reside in an EU member nation. Because the EU aims for a worker's blue-card application process to take less than three months, the visa would provide a fast track for foreign-born individuals to land jobs in EU member countries.
By contrast, the U.S. green-card process can take anywhere from five to 10 years for an individual to gain permanent residency. And the 85,000 annual quota on H-1B visas for temporary foreign tech workers has been running out quickly for the last few years, forcing many prospective workers to take jobs elsewhere.
In addition to being an alternative to the U.S. green card, the blue-card program will also provide an option to foreign-born individuals who might have considered taking jobs in Canada or Australia, two other favorite destinations for the highly-skilled international workforce.
The EU's unveiling of the blue-card program this week comes at the same time that the U.S. Senate approved a spending bill amendment that could raise employers' H-1B visa fees to $5,000 per worker from $1,500. The additional fees will be used to fund new scholarship programs for U.S. students pursuing technology, math, and science-related degrees.
Compete America, a coalition of technology companies that has been lobbying Congress for several years to raise the H-1B visa cap and make green-card reforms, blasted the fee hikes and expressed worry about the blue card's potential impact on the U.S. tech workforce."Europe has sent a message. They're aggressively pursuing the professional talent they need to compete on the global stage," said Robert Hoffman, VP for government and public affairs at Oracle and co-chair of Compete America, in a statement.
"The Senate has unfortunately also sent a message, and it doesn't bode well for the U.S. economy," Hoffman said.
Friday, October 26, 2007
European Union's Blue Card for Technology Workers
EU 'Blue Card' to target skilled
BBC World News
October 23, 2007
The European Commission has unveiled a Blue Card for skilled immigrants, based on the US Green Card.
The plan would allow suitably qualified people and their families to live and work within the European Union.
The EU says it needs 20m skilled workers over the next two decades, and is very short of expertise in engineering and computer technology.
The scheme, which is more restrictive than the US Green Card, would need the approval of all 27 EU member states.
Correspondents say another aim of the plan is to reverse a current trend under which skilled migrants, mostly from Asia and Africa, emigrate to the US to find work.
'Centralisation too far'
The BBC's Mark Mardell in Brussels says the proposal is controversial and some countries are sure to oppose it.
Critics also fear that Europe's attempt to take the best and leave the rest will only encourage a brain-drain from poorer nations.
The UK, Ireland and Denmark could opt out, but the other EU members will have to take part.
UK ministers say they are studying it, but our correspondent says they are not keen on the card, preferring to develop an Australian-style points system.
Unveiled at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday afternoon, the Blue Card would enable holders and their families to live, work and travel within the EU.
To be eligible, new immigrants would need to show a recognised diploma and have at least three years professional experience.
They would also need the offer of a job, for a minimum one-year contract, which could not be filled by an EU citizen.
European Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini said: "This is not an 'open doors' policy."
"If a given member-state needs engineers or doctors, it has to decide how many, and then I will provide a state with a common procedure," he added.
But some politicians in the Netherlands and Germany are hostile and the Austrian government has condemned the plan as "a centralisation too far".
Across Europe there is a real tension between politicians, who know voters are worried about immigration, and businesses demanding graduates from India and China, our correspondent says.
BLUE CARD V GREEN CARD
Blue Card
Does not give permanent residency
Valid up to two years, renewable
Allows holders and families to live, work and travel in EU
Applicant must have one-year EU job contract with salary of three times minimum wage
Permanent residency automatic after five years
Green Card
Gives holder permanent residency
Valid for 10 years, renewable
Allows holder to live, work and travel in the US
Five channels to seek a card: employment, family links, a lottery, investment, or resident since before 1972
Holders can become US citizens after five years
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7057575.stm
BBC World News
October 23, 2007
The European Commission has unveiled a Blue Card for skilled immigrants, based on the US Green Card.
The plan would allow suitably qualified people and their families to live and work within the European Union.
The EU says it needs 20m skilled workers over the next two decades, and is very short of expertise in engineering and computer technology.
The scheme, which is more restrictive than the US Green Card, would need the approval of all 27 EU member states.
Correspondents say another aim of the plan is to reverse a current trend under which skilled migrants, mostly from Asia and Africa, emigrate to the US to find work.
'Centralisation too far'
The BBC's Mark Mardell in Brussels says the proposal is controversial and some countries are sure to oppose it.
Critics also fear that Europe's attempt to take the best and leave the rest will only encourage a brain-drain from poorer nations.
The UK, Ireland and Denmark could opt out, but the other EU members will have to take part.
UK ministers say they are studying it, but our correspondent says they are not keen on the card, preferring to develop an Australian-style points system.
Unveiled at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday afternoon, the Blue Card would enable holders and their families to live, work and travel within the EU.
To be eligible, new immigrants would need to show a recognised diploma and have at least three years professional experience.
They would also need the offer of a job, for a minimum one-year contract, which could not be filled by an EU citizen.
European Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini said: "This is not an 'open doors' policy."
"If a given member-state needs engineers or doctors, it has to decide how many, and then I will provide a state with a common procedure," he added.
But some politicians in the Netherlands and Germany are hostile and the Austrian government has condemned the plan as "a centralisation too far".
Across Europe there is a real tension between politicians, who know voters are worried about immigration, and businesses demanding graduates from India and China, our correspondent says.
BLUE CARD V GREEN CARD
Blue Card
Does not give permanent residency
Valid up to two years, renewable
Allows holders and families to live, work and travel in EU
Applicant must have one-year EU job contract with salary of three times minimum wage
Permanent residency automatic after five years
Green Card
Gives holder permanent residency
Valid for 10 years, renewable
Allows holder to live, work and travel in the US
Five channels to seek a card: employment, family links, a lottery, investment, or resident since before 1972
Holders can become US citizens after five years
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7057575.stm
SF Chronicle on Lost DREAM ACT Vote
The San Francisco Chronicle is saying that the new blue card in the European Union will welcome DREAM ACT graduates. However a BBC article states the graduates need 3 years professional experience, which is impossible to obtain if the DREAMERS are in the U.S.
'[U.S.] Technology lobbyists pointed with alarm at the decision this week by the European Union to offer legal status to educated immigrants in information technology and other skilled fields with a new blue card explicitly designed to divert such workers to Europe from the United States.
"The EU is saying, 'We're coming for your students. We know the U.S. produces the best math and science students coming out of college. And we're going to come get them,' " said Robert Hoffman, vice president for government and public affairs at Oracle, the Redwood Shores software giant.'
Otherwise the SFC tells just about the same story as all the other papers on the loss of the DREAM ACT
___
San Francisco Chronicle
October 25, 2007
(10-25) 04:00 PDT Washington- -- The Senate killed help Wednesday for the single most sympathetic group of illegal immigrants - those who were brought to the country as children and now wish to go to college or join the military - and seemed to dash the hopes of Silicon Valley technology companies and California farmers for more immigrant workers they say they desperately need.
The DREAM Act, sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were brought to the country as children, live here more than five consecutive years and complete two years of college or military service. The bill, which goes by its acronym and is named the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, received a 52-44 majority, but that was far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
The vote split both parties: It was backed by 12 Republicans, but opposed by eight Democrats. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein voted for the bill; Sen. Barbara Boxer, also a Democrat, was touring the fire zone in California and missed the vote.
The legislation was the first major attempt since a broad immigration bill crashed in the Senate last June to split off elements that have significant support - without granting legal status to all of the estimated 12 million people living in the country illegally.
The University of California had pushed hard for the bill, with a plea from UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau and news conferences with UC students caught in immigration limbo.
Anti-illegal immigration activists mobilized too, deriding the legislation as the nightmare act and stealth amnesty and warning that the measure would trigger a chain migration of sponsored relatives. Supporters vigorously denied those charges.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., went so far as to call for federal agents to round up illegal college students who lobbied for the bill.
Instead of gaining ground, the DREAM Act fractured the unlikely coalition of business and immigrant rights groups that had united earlier this year behind broader immigration overhaul legislation.
Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, conceded that with an election next year and anti-immigrant sentiment increasing, further efforts at immigration reform are probably doomed. That would include the so-called AgJobs bill to provide temporary permits for farmworkers that Feinstein had hoped to push through this year.
It also hampers recent efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, to respond to a rising clamor from farms, resorts, high-tech companies, nursing homes and dozens of other industries that say they need workers, and immigrant rights groups who say illegal immigrants are being targeted by federal agents and local and state governments.
The moderate New Democrat Coalition, chaired by Rep. Ellen Tauscher of Walnut Creek, wrote Pelosi on Monday urging action on visas for scientists, mathematicians and engineers, warning that U.S. competitiveness is at stake. But objections arose from other Democrats wanting relief for illegal immigrants.
At the same time, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., one of Pelosi's top political lieutenants, was quoted as saying immigration "has emerged as the third rail of American politics, and anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people."
Technology lobbyists pointed with alarm at the decision this week by the European Union to offer legal status to educated immigrants in information technology and other skilled fields with a new blue card explicitly designed to divert such workers to Europe from the United States.
"The EU is saying, 'We're coming for your students. We know the U.S. produces the best math and science students coming out of college. And we're going to come get them,' " said Robert Hoffman, vice president for government and public affairs at Oracle, the Redwood Shores software giant.
Behind the scenes, business and immigrant rights groups blamed each other for the meltdown - and are refusing to back each other's legislation if they can't attach their own.
Durbin made an impassioned plea for young illegal immigrants who were raised in this country and know no other home yet cannot get permission to work or go to college. He said there is sentiment among Democrats that business groups should not come asking for more workers if they refuse to support such strivers who are already here.
"If we're going to tell these children to leave, that we don't need them, we don't need their talent, we don't need their education, how can you make an argument that we need to bring in more foreign talent to America?" Durbin said.
Technology lobbyists said they have never opposed the DREAM Act and accused Durbin of trying to kill expanded immigration benefits for high skilled legal immigrants at every turn.
"We've always believed we have anywhere from 80 to 90 votes in the U.S. Senate for high skilled immigration," and an equally overwhelming majority in the House, said Ralph Hellman, a top lobbyist with the Information Technology Industry Council. Hellman drew a sharp distinction between expansion of visas for legal immigrants, such as skilled workers on H-1B visas, and illegal immigrants.
"People have always used our issue in legal immigration as sweeteners to get their issue across the finish line. ...We have been a political football for three years on immigration, and we're tired of it," Hellman said. "Given what has happened in the EU, our competitors are going to lap us."
H-1B temporary visas for skilled workers are now running out the first day they are issued, and tech companies say they need them to attract foreign students who have earned math, science and engineering degrees from U.S. universities. Skilled H-1B workers who wish to remain in the United States also face a growing backlog for green cards that grant permanent resident status.
California farmers say the crackdown on the border with Mexico is preventing workers from coming north, and they face the prospect of rotting crops or moving their operations to Mexico.
Doris Meissner, chief of the federal immigration service under President Bill Clinton, who is now at the Migration Policy Institute, said the failure of the DREAM Act "certainly says the piecemeal approach is failing. Whether it means nothing will happen on something like H-1Bs, I don't know. H-1B has a very well organized lobby and it deals with changes in the legal immigration system. The DREAM Act and AgJobs and other things that fall into the realm of being branded amnesty are the ones that really just don't have any legs right now."
E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.
'[U.S.] Technology lobbyists pointed with alarm at the decision this week by the European Union to offer legal status to educated immigrants in information technology and other skilled fields with a new blue card explicitly designed to divert such workers to Europe from the United States.
"The EU is saying, 'We're coming for your students. We know the U.S. produces the best math and science students coming out of college. And we're going to come get them,' " said Robert Hoffman, vice president for government and public affairs at Oracle, the Redwood Shores software giant.'
Otherwise the SFC tells just about the same story as all the other papers on the loss of the DREAM ACT
___
San Francisco Chronicle
October 25, 2007
(10-25) 04:00 PDT Washington- -- The Senate killed help Wednesday for the single most sympathetic group of illegal immigrants - those who were brought to the country as children and now wish to go to college or join the military - and seemed to dash the hopes of Silicon Valley technology companies and California farmers for more immigrant workers they say they desperately need.
The DREAM Act, sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were brought to the country as children, live here more than five consecutive years and complete two years of college or military service. The bill, which goes by its acronym and is named the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, received a 52-44 majority, but that was far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
The vote split both parties: It was backed by 12 Republicans, but opposed by eight Democrats. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein voted for the bill; Sen. Barbara Boxer, also a Democrat, was touring the fire zone in California and missed the vote.
The legislation was the first major attempt since a broad immigration bill crashed in the Senate last June to split off elements that have significant support - without granting legal status to all of the estimated 12 million people living in the country illegally.
The University of California had pushed hard for the bill, with a plea from UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau and news conferences with UC students caught in immigration limbo.
Anti-illegal immigration activists mobilized too, deriding the legislation as the nightmare act and stealth amnesty and warning that the measure would trigger a chain migration of sponsored relatives. Supporters vigorously denied those charges.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., went so far as to call for federal agents to round up illegal college students who lobbied for the bill.
Instead of gaining ground, the DREAM Act fractured the unlikely coalition of business and immigrant rights groups that had united earlier this year behind broader immigration overhaul legislation.
Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, conceded that with an election next year and anti-immigrant sentiment increasing, further efforts at immigration reform are probably doomed. That would include the so-called AgJobs bill to provide temporary permits for farmworkers that Feinstein had hoped to push through this year.
It also hampers recent efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, to respond to a rising clamor from farms, resorts, high-tech companies, nursing homes and dozens of other industries that say they need workers, and immigrant rights groups who say illegal immigrants are being targeted by federal agents and local and state governments.
The moderate New Democrat Coalition, chaired by Rep. Ellen Tauscher of Walnut Creek, wrote Pelosi on Monday urging action on visas for scientists, mathematicians and engineers, warning that U.S. competitiveness is at stake. But objections arose from other Democrats wanting relief for illegal immigrants.
At the same time, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., one of Pelosi's top political lieutenants, was quoted as saying immigration "has emerged as the third rail of American politics, and anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people."
Technology lobbyists pointed with alarm at the decision this week by the European Union to offer legal status to educated immigrants in information technology and other skilled fields with a new blue card explicitly designed to divert such workers to Europe from the United States.
"The EU is saying, 'We're coming for your students. We know the U.S. produces the best math and science students coming out of college. And we're going to come get them,' " said Robert Hoffman, vice president for government and public affairs at Oracle, the Redwood Shores software giant.
Behind the scenes, business and immigrant rights groups blamed each other for the meltdown - and are refusing to back each other's legislation if they can't attach their own.
Durbin made an impassioned plea for young illegal immigrants who were raised in this country and know no other home yet cannot get permission to work or go to college. He said there is sentiment among Democrats that business groups should not come asking for more workers if they refuse to support such strivers who are already here.
"If we're going to tell these children to leave, that we don't need them, we don't need their talent, we don't need their education, how can you make an argument that we need to bring in more foreign talent to America?" Durbin said.
Technology lobbyists said they have never opposed the DREAM Act and accused Durbin of trying to kill expanded immigration benefits for high skilled legal immigrants at every turn.
"We've always believed we have anywhere from 80 to 90 votes in the U.S. Senate for high skilled immigration," and an equally overwhelming majority in the House, said Ralph Hellman, a top lobbyist with the Information Technology Industry Council. Hellman drew a sharp distinction between expansion of visas for legal immigrants, such as skilled workers on H-1B visas, and illegal immigrants.
"People have always used our issue in legal immigration as sweeteners to get their issue across the finish line. ...We have been a political football for three years on immigration, and we're tired of it," Hellman said. "Given what has happened in the EU, our competitors are going to lap us."
H-1B temporary visas for skilled workers are now running out the first day they are issued, and tech companies say they need them to attract foreign students who have earned math, science and engineering degrees from U.S. universities. Skilled H-1B workers who wish to remain in the United States also face a growing backlog for green cards that grant permanent resident status.
California farmers say the crackdown on the border with Mexico is preventing workers from coming north, and they face the prospect of rotting crops or moving their operations to Mexico.
Doris Meissner, chief of the federal immigration service under President Bill Clinton, who is now at the Migration Policy Institute, said the failure of the DREAM Act "certainly says the piecemeal approach is failing. Whether it means nothing will happen on something like H-1Bs, I don't know. H-1B has a very well organized lobby and it deals with changes in the legal immigration system. The DREAM Act and AgJobs and other things that fall into the realm of being branded amnesty are the ones that really just don't have any legs right now."
E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.
Japan Joining the Crowd With Attitude Toward Foreigners
It no surprise that Japan would be requesting fingerprints of all entering non- resident foriegners. The country has been known for its nativism for centuries. Recently it was found that the genealogical line of the Japanese Emporer had roots in Korea. Of course this has been mostly kept a secret. (Info. from Marilyn Ivy's- "Discourses of the Vanishing," University of Chicago Press)
We could blame terrorists for this xenophobic move, but I think its much more complicated than just the activities of Osama Bin Laden and his cohort. There are many other reasons people are afraid.
----
October 26, 2007
Japan to Fingerprint Foreign Visitors
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:57 a.m. ET
TOKYO (AP) -- Japan hopes to thwart potential terrorists from entering the country by fingerprinting and photographing all foreigners aged 16 or over on entry starting next month, an official said Friday.
Only some permanent residents, diplomatic visitors, and children under 16 will be exempt from the measures after the system goes into effect Nov. 20, Immigration Bureau official Takumi Sato said.
Under the new system, all adults will be photographed and fingerprinted on arrival in Japan. Incoming aircraft and ship operators also will be obliged to provide passenger and crew lists before they arrive.
Resident foreigners will be required to go through the procedure every time they re-enter Japan.
Immigration officials will run the images and data through a database of international terror and crime suspects as well as against domestic crime records. People matching the data on file will be denied entry and deported.
''We hope the system will help keep terrorists out of the country, and also put at ease the minds of both the Japanese people and the foreigners who come here,'' Sato said.
The bureau plans to store the data for ''a long time,'' Sato said, while refusing to disclose how long due to security concerns.
It is unclear how many people will be affected; Japan saw 8.11 million foreign entries in 2006, Sato said.
Opponents of the new system say the measures amount to discrimination against foreigners and a violation of their right to privacy.
Tokyo's staunch support of the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and dispatch of forces to each region have raised concerns that Japan could become the target of deadly terror attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Japan-Fingerprinting-Foreigners.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
We could blame terrorists for this xenophobic move, but I think its much more complicated than just the activities of Osama Bin Laden and his cohort. There are many other reasons people are afraid.
----
October 26, 2007
Japan to Fingerprint Foreign Visitors
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:57 a.m. ET
TOKYO (AP) -- Japan hopes to thwart potential terrorists from entering the country by fingerprinting and photographing all foreigners aged 16 or over on entry starting next month, an official said Friday.
Only some permanent residents, diplomatic visitors, and children under 16 will be exempt from the measures after the system goes into effect Nov. 20, Immigration Bureau official Takumi Sato said.
Under the new system, all adults will be photographed and fingerprinted on arrival in Japan. Incoming aircraft and ship operators also will be obliged to provide passenger and crew lists before they arrive.
Resident foreigners will be required to go through the procedure every time they re-enter Japan.
Immigration officials will run the images and data through a database of international terror and crime suspects as well as against domestic crime records. People matching the data on file will be denied entry and deported.
''We hope the system will help keep terrorists out of the country, and also put at ease the minds of both the Japanese people and the foreigners who come here,'' Sato said.
The bureau plans to store the data for ''a long time,'' Sato said, while refusing to disclose how long due to security concerns.
It is unclear how many people will be affected; Japan saw 8.11 million foreign entries in 2006, Sato said.
Opponents of the new system say the measures amount to discrimination against foreigners and a violation of their right to privacy.
Tokyo's staunch support of the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and dispatch of forces to each region have raised concerns that Japan could become the target of deadly terror attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Japan-Fingerprinting-Foreigners.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
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
Getting Correct Information on the DREAM ACT
For concernedmom who responded to my posting "Wrong Information From Lou Dobbs"
For a certain number of the population, anything written in a blog such as DREAM ACT TEXAS would be suspicious. However, I will provide you information on my research and credentials.
To answer your questions:
1. And where exactly did you get your information about these kids?
I have been interviewing them, traveling with them, eating meals with them, going on retreats with them for the past 18 months. This work is part of an officially sanctioned research project at the University of Houston.
2.Do you know them?
Yes, I know them very very well -
3. Did they publish their names and life story?
No. The university does not allow me to use their names or disclose their identities. Its part of something called "Human Subjects" requirements that all universities have.
4. Or are you just passing on some La Raza propaganda?
If you mean propaganda as "misteaching or misinformation" - no. I believe that one person from the organization introduced themselves to me when I was at a congressional committee hearing in May 2007 in Washington, D.C, but we did not have a conversation. I'm sure many of the ideas I write about are also of interest to NCLR. But I have never read any of their documents.
5. You know? The old let's make Lou Dobbs look like a racist idiot stance?
I find it absolutely necessary to clarify mis-information. If that creates a certain perception of Mr. Dobbs, then he needs to be more judicious about how and what information he disseminates.
6. Why don't you get the correct information and then get back to all of us with it?
You have it in this blog.
If you have further questions about my qualifications for providing "correct information." I have a PhD in Cultural Anthropology from Rice University. In 2002 the University of Texas published my book on the social and culture history of northern Mexico. In a couple of months, my second book will be released, its about a social history of southeast Texas, published by Texas A&M Press. This research is part of my job as a tenured college professor.
For a certain number of the population, anything written in a blog such as DREAM ACT TEXAS would be suspicious. However, I will provide you information on my research and credentials.
To answer your questions:
1. And where exactly did you get your information about these kids?
I have been interviewing them, traveling with them, eating meals with them, going on retreats with them for the past 18 months. This work is part of an officially sanctioned research project at the University of Houston.
2.Do you know them?
Yes, I know them very very well -
3. Did they publish their names and life story?
No. The university does not allow me to use their names or disclose their identities. Its part of something called "Human Subjects" requirements that all universities have.
4. Or are you just passing on some La Raza propaganda?
If you mean propaganda as "misteaching or misinformation" - no. I believe that one person from the organization introduced themselves to me when I was at a congressional committee hearing in May 2007 in Washington, D.C, but we did not have a conversation. I'm sure many of the ideas I write about are also of interest to NCLR. But I have never read any of their documents.
5. You know? The old let's make Lou Dobbs look like a racist idiot stance?
I find it absolutely necessary to clarify mis-information. If that creates a certain perception of Mr. Dobbs, then he needs to be more judicious about how and what information he disseminates.
6. Why don't you get the correct information and then get back to all of us with it?
You have it in this blog.
If you have further questions about my qualifications for providing "correct information." I have a PhD in Cultural Anthropology from Rice University. In 2002 the University of Texas published my book on the social and culture history of northern Mexico. In a couple of months, my second book will be released, its about a social history of southeast Texas, published by Texas A&M Press. This research is part of my job as a tenured college professor.
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.
Houston Chronicle on DREAM ACT 10 24 2007
Oct. 24, 2007, 9:04PM
Senate kills bill to help illegal immigrants' kids
By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Copyright 2007 Houston Chroncle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — The Senate today rebuffed a measure that would grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants if they attend college or join the military.
Supporters of the DREAM Act fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to keep the legislation alive, with Texas GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn splitting over the bill. Cornyn voted against the measure on a key test vote while Hutchison worked behind the scenes with the legislation's chief sponsor to find ways to make it more palatable to Republicans.
"I don't want to hold out false hope," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said when asked if he'd try to bring his legislation up again this year. "We did our best today."
After the implosion in the Senate last June of a sweeping immigration bill backed by the Bush administration, advocates decided to offer smaller measures in hopes of limiting the opposition that derailed legalization for most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.
The DREAM Act was first out of the chute, presented by supporters as a targeted bill designed to help children who played no part in their parents' decision to come here illegally.
"What good does it do anybody to prevent these young people from having a future?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It harms children who have done no wrong, and in the long run greatly harms our country."
But opponents insisted the legislation was nothing more than an amnesty program which they claimed could open the door to citizenship for the students' parents and other relatives. The White House also opposed the measure.
"I do not believe we should reward illegal behavior," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "It is our duty to promote respect for America's immigration laws."
The legislation, officially known as the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, would allow hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who came here under age 16, and have lived here at least five years, to attain legal status, and eventually citizenship, if they complete two years of college or serve in the military for at least two years.
Cornyn complained that the legislation contained "gaping loopholes," including not requiring that illegal immigrants graduate from college, granting them access to federal student loans and limiting investigation of possible application fraud.
"If my colleagues who support this measure are committed to solving America's immigration crisis and the plight of illegal immigrants, then the focus of this Congress should be on passing a comprehensive reform bill that addresses all of our pressing immigration matters, including securing our broken borders and the needs of American businesses for more workers," Cornyn said.
The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan immigration research organization, has estimated that the DREAM Act could provide immediate conditional legal status to 360,000 high school graduates under the age of 24 and help 715,000 currently in school.
michelle.mittelstadt@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/5241897.html
Senate kills bill to help illegal immigrants' kids
By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Copyright 2007 Houston Chroncle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — The Senate today rebuffed a measure that would grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants if they attend college or join the military.
Supporters of the DREAM Act fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to keep the legislation alive, with Texas GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn splitting over the bill. Cornyn voted against the measure on a key test vote while Hutchison worked behind the scenes with the legislation's chief sponsor to find ways to make it more palatable to Republicans.
"I don't want to hold out false hope," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said when asked if he'd try to bring his legislation up again this year. "We did our best today."
After the implosion in the Senate last June of a sweeping immigration bill backed by the Bush administration, advocates decided to offer smaller measures in hopes of limiting the opposition that derailed legalization for most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.
The DREAM Act was first out of the chute, presented by supporters as a targeted bill designed to help children who played no part in their parents' decision to come here illegally.
"What good does it do anybody to prevent these young people from having a future?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It harms children who have done no wrong, and in the long run greatly harms our country."
But opponents insisted the legislation was nothing more than an amnesty program which they claimed could open the door to citizenship for the students' parents and other relatives. The White House also opposed the measure.
"I do not believe we should reward illegal behavior," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "It is our duty to promote respect for America's immigration laws."
The legislation, officially known as the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, would allow hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who came here under age 16, and have lived here at least five years, to attain legal status, and eventually citizenship, if they complete two years of college or serve in the military for at least two years.
Cornyn complained that the legislation contained "gaping loopholes," including not requiring that illegal immigrants graduate from college, granting them access to federal student loans and limiting investigation of possible application fraud.
"If my colleagues who support this measure are committed to solving America's immigration crisis and the plight of illegal immigrants, then the focus of this Congress should be on passing a comprehensive reform bill that addresses all of our pressing immigration matters, including securing our broken borders and the needs of American businesses for more workers," Cornyn said.
The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan immigration research organization, has estimated that the DREAM Act could provide immediate conditional legal status to 360,000 high school graduates under the age of 24 and help 715,000 currently in school.
michelle.mittelstadt@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/5241897.html
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
Howard Dean and DMC: DREAM ACT and White House
Wednesday, October 24
Dean: Bush Republicans Blocking the American Dream
by Radio Left Review on Wed 24 Oct 2007 09:42 PM CDT
Democratic National Committee:
Washington, DC - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement today after the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing the DREAM Act and Bush Republicans blocked consideration of the bill in the Senate: [White House Statement of Administration Policy, 10/24/07]
"Senator Reid and the Democrats in Congress deserve a lot of credit for working toward solutions for border security and immigration reform. Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves for continuing to stand in the way of both. Children who came to our country with their families in hope of a better life, often in their infancy and through no fault of their own, and who call America home deserve a shot at the American Dream. These kids want to serve in the military and go to college, hoping to succeed and give back to our country. What could be more American? Republicans' actions today, denying immigrant children an education after they denied 10 million American children health care, do not represent the values our country was founded on."
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/Democrats
Dean: Bush Republicans Blocking the American Dream
by Radio Left Review on Wed 24 Oct 2007 09:42 PM CDT
Democratic National Committee:
Washington, DC - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement today after the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing the DREAM Act and Bush Republicans blocked consideration of the bill in the Senate: [White House Statement of Administration Policy, 10/24/07]
"Senator Reid and the Democrats in Congress deserve a lot of credit for working toward solutions for border security and immigration reform. Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves for continuing to stand in the way of both. Children who came to our country with their families in hope of a better life, often in their infancy and through no fault of their own, and who call America home deserve a shot at the American Dream. These kids want to serve in the military and go to college, hoping to succeed and give back to our country. What could be more American? Republicans' actions today, denying immigrant children an education after they denied 10 million American children health care, do not represent the values our country was founded on."
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/Democrats
LA Times on DREAM ACT 10 25 2007
Senate rejects kids citizenship measure
Opponents call the Dream Act 'amnesty' for immigrant children.
By Nicole Gaouette and Johanna Neuman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bill offering the children of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they serve in the military or complete two years of higher education. The defeat of the measure, which had attracted bipartisan support, underscored the difficulty of enacting even a narrowly tailored proposal in the polarizing atmosphere surrounding immigration reform.
The vote on the proposal was 52 to 44, short of the 60-vote margin needed to prevent a filibuster and begin debate. It was one small piece of a comprehensive immigration bill that collapsed in the Senate earlier this year, and it sparked a brief but heated debate.
Opponents called the bill a form of amnesty and argued that it would create incentives for illegal immigrants to cross the border with their children. But Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who supported the measure, said 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."
His remarks were directed at Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who on Tuesday suggested that immigrants who had attended a meeting in Durbin's office were illegal and should have been arrested.
Tancredo, a presidential candidate who has staked his campaign on tough immigration enforcement, dismissed Durbin's understanding of the issue: "I don't expect Dick Durbin to be able to tell the difference between legal residents and illegal aliens."
The debate on Capitol Hill suggested that the public outrage kicked up last summer when the Senate considered comprehensive immigration reform was still driving the political agenda.
Proponents of the Dream Act -- the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act -- had hoped it would be one of several less-ambitious changes to the nation's immigration law to pass this year.
But Wednesday's defeat signaled that any further attempts to help illegal immigrants might have to be balanced with action to increase border security or enforcement.
"All of America's awake on this one," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), suggesting amnesty was the end game of the measure that failed Wednesday. "They know exactly what we're doing."
The environment has become so poisonous that Durbin, in a news conference after the vote, thanked not only the Republicans who joined his effort but also the Democrats who he said "stood by me on this."
He noted that some Democrats voted for the bill "with pain in their eyes," knowing that their action would provoke anger from voters.
The Dream Act would give conditional legal status to illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States at least five years and entered the country before age 16. They must graduate from high school, have no criminal record and have a "good moral character."
If these immigrants serve in the military or complete two years of higher education, the conditional status would be lifted. After five years, they could apply for citizenship.
Estimates vary as to the number of young illegal immigrants the bill would affect. The Congressional Budget Office has put it at fewer than 100,000, while the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute has estimated it at closer to 500,000.
Some proponents tried to cast the vote in a positive light. They noted that the four absent senators, including Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), had all vowed to support the measure, meaning it was closer to the needed 60 votes.
And, they said, the 2008 elections might send a message to vocal opponents that opposing immigration reform is not the winning issue they think it is.
"We're going through a period of time when there is a sense of panic among politicians," said Josh Bernstein, federal policy director for the Los Angeles-based National Immigration Law Center. "When the election comes, politicians will be surprised. Immigration was supposed to be the savior of Republicans in the last election, but that didn't happen. I don't think it will happen again."
Some signs of bipartisanship were evident Wednesday. Twelve Republicans defied their party by voting to begin debate. And Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) announced that she and Durbin were working on an approach that might attract more GOP support -- requiring, in addition to military service or attendance in college, a longer wait for citizenship.
But the White House played hardball on the issue, releasing a statement outlining its objections. "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," said a statement from the White House Office of Management and Budget. "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."
Democrats argued that there was a moral imperative to pass the bill, saying that skilled graduates would benefit American business and that the young people who enlisted would provide a much-needed boost to a military struggling to meet recruitment goals.
"Children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "Many of the children this bill addresses came here when they were very young. Many don't even remember their home countries or speak the language of their home countries. They are just as loyal and devoted to our country as any American."
Republicans objected to the timing of the debate as well as the bill's substance. Some complained that the Senate still had overdue spending bills to pass.
"We've yet to send a single appropriations bill," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), pointing out that none of the 12 annual bills had made it to the president's desk.
He said that the Internet tax moratorium expired in "exactly one week," and that 50 million taxpayers could become ensnared in a confusing and costly tangle if Congress did not address the alternative minimum tax. "We have an enormous amount of work, and we're running out of time," he said.
Others, like Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), said the immigration bill was flawed, complaining that its beneficiaries would not be required to earn a college degree.
Some who had been supportive of the measure when Durbin brought it up on previous occasions were unenthusiastic. "Even though there's merit in the goal of the Dream Act, I feel this should be part of a comprehensive approach," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
Durbin countered that those affected by the bill would have very limited ability to sponsor family members to come to the U.S. and would not qualify for in-state tuition or federal aid.
And he implored the Senate not to ignore the talents and patriotism of children whose only crime was to pack their suitcases when their parents told them to.
"Don't turn around and tell me tomorrow you need H-1B immigration visas to bring in talented people to America because we don't have enough," Durbin said. "Don't take your anger on illegal immigration out on children who have nothing to say about this. They were brought to this country. . . . They've beaten the odds. We need them."
nicole.gaouette@latimes.com
johanna.neuman@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig25oct25,1,7837133,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Opponents call the Dream Act 'amnesty' for immigrant children.
By Nicole Gaouette and Johanna Neuman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bill offering the children of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they serve in the military or complete two years of higher education. The defeat of the measure, which had attracted bipartisan support, underscored the difficulty of enacting even a narrowly tailored proposal in the polarizing atmosphere surrounding immigration reform.
The vote on the proposal was 52 to 44, short of the 60-vote margin needed to prevent a filibuster and begin debate. It was one small piece of a comprehensive immigration bill that collapsed in the Senate earlier this year, and it sparked a brief but heated debate.
Opponents called the bill a form of amnesty and argued that it would create incentives for illegal immigrants to cross the border with their children. But Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who supported the measure, said 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."
His remarks were directed at Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who on Tuesday suggested that immigrants who had attended a meeting in Durbin's office were illegal and should have been arrested.
Tancredo, a presidential candidate who has staked his campaign on tough immigration enforcement, dismissed Durbin's understanding of the issue: "I don't expect Dick Durbin to be able to tell the difference between legal residents and illegal aliens."
The debate on Capitol Hill suggested that the public outrage kicked up last summer when the Senate considered comprehensive immigration reform was still driving the political agenda.
Proponents of the Dream Act -- the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act -- had hoped it would be one of several less-ambitious changes to the nation's immigration law to pass this year.
But Wednesday's defeat signaled that any further attempts to help illegal immigrants might have to be balanced with action to increase border security or enforcement.
"All of America's awake on this one," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), suggesting amnesty was the end game of the measure that failed Wednesday. "They know exactly what we're doing."
The environment has become so poisonous that Durbin, in a news conference after the vote, thanked not only the Republicans who joined his effort but also the Democrats who he said "stood by me on this."
He noted that some Democrats voted for the bill "with pain in their eyes," knowing that their action would provoke anger from voters.
The Dream Act would give conditional legal status to illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States at least five years and entered the country before age 16. They must graduate from high school, have no criminal record and have a "good moral character."
If these immigrants serve in the military or complete two years of higher education, the conditional status would be lifted. After five years, they could apply for citizenship.
Estimates vary as to the number of young illegal immigrants the bill would affect. The Congressional Budget Office has put it at fewer than 100,000, while the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute has estimated it at closer to 500,000.
Some proponents tried to cast the vote in a positive light. They noted that the four absent senators, including Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), had all vowed to support the measure, meaning it was closer to the needed 60 votes.
And, they said, the 2008 elections might send a message to vocal opponents that opposing immigration reform is not the winning issue they think it is.
"We're going through a period of time when there is a sense of panic among politicians," said Josh Bernstein, federal policy director for the Los Angeles-based National Immigration Law Center. "When the election comes, politicians will be surprised. Immigration was supposed to be the savior of Republicans in the last election, but that didn't happen. I don't think it will happen again."
Some signs of bipartisanship were evident Wednesday. Twelve Republicans defied their party by voting to begin debate. And Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) announced that she and Durbin were working on an approach that might attract more GOP support -- requiring, in addition to military service or attendance in college, a longer wait for citizenship.
But the White House played hardball on the issue, releasing a statement outlining its objections. "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," said a statement from the White House Office of Management and Budget. "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."
Democrats argued that there was a moral imperative to pass the bill, saying that skilled graduates would benefit American business and that the young people who enlisted would provide a much-needed boost to a military struggling to meet recruitment goals.
"Children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "Many of the children this bill addresses came here when they were very young. Many don't even remember their home countries or speak the language of their home countries. They are just as loyal and devoted to our country as any American."
Republicans objected to the timing of the debate as well as the bill's substance. Some complained that the Senate still had overdue spending bills to pass.
"We've yet to send a single appropriations bill," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), pointing out that none of the 12 annual bills had made it to the president's desk.
He said that the Internet tax moratorium expired in "exactly one week," and that 50 million taxpayers could become ensnared in a confusing and costly tangle if Congress did not address the alternative minimum tax. "We have an enormous amount of work, and we're running out of time," he said.
Others, like Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), said the immigration bill was flawed, complaining that its beneficiaries would not be required to earn a college degree.
Some who had been supportive of the measure when Durbin brought it up on previous occasions were unenthusiastic. "Even though there's merit in the goal of the Dream Act, I feel this should be part of a comprehensive approach," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
Durbin countered that those affected by the bill would have very limited ability to sponsor family members to come to the U.S. and would not qualify for in-state tuition or federal aid.
And he implored the Senate not to ignore the talents and patriotism of children whose only crime was to pack their suitcases when their parents told them to.
"Don't turn around and tell me tomorrow you need H-1B immigration visas to bring in talented people to America because we don't have enough," Durbin said. "Don't take your anger on illegal immigration out on children who have nothing to say about this. They were brought to this country. . . . They've beaten the odds. We need them."
nicole.gaouette@latimes.com
johanna.neuman@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig25oct25,1,7837133,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Persecución policiaca deja un indocumentado muerto en Texas
Persecución policiaca deja un indocumentado muerto en Texas
Agencias / La Jornada On Line
25 octubre 2007
El vocero del Departamento de Policía de Mission, Martín Garza, señaló que en la camioneta viajaban unos 18 migrantes. Varios resultaron heridos.
Dallas. Al menos un indocumentado murió al volcarsela camioneta en que viajaban durante una persecución policiaca en el oeste de la comunidad de Mission, en el sur de Texas.
Martín Garza, vocero del Departamento de Policía de Mission, informó que en la camioneta viajaban unos 18 indocumentados, varios de los cuales resultaron con heridas graves por lo que están siendo atendidos en hospitales en Mission y McAllen, Texas.
Garza explicó vía telefónica que agentes de varias corporaciones seguían la camioneta por sospechas de que transportaba droga, luego de haber sido vista en la margen norte del río Bravo a unos metros de la frontera.
Durante la persecución el vehículo chocó con una de las patrullas y se volcó, dijo el vocero policial.
El incidente se registró alrededor de las 16:30 horas locales (21:30 GMT) en una carretera de la población de Palmview, muy cerca de donde la víspera otro accidente provocó la muerte de siete ancianos.
Garza informó que el conductor de la camioneta fue detenido en espera de que se le finquen cargos.
En tanto, el consulado de México en McAllen colabora en las investigaciones para identificar a la víctima y ayudar a los demás lesionados.
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2007/10/24/persecucion-policiaca-deja-un-indocumentado-muerto-en-texas
Agencias / La Jornada On Line
25 octubre 2007
El vocero del Departamento de Policía de Mission, Martín Garza, señaló que en la camioneta viajaban unos 18 migrantes. Varios resultaron heridos.
Dallas. Al menos un indocumentado murió al volcarsela camioneta en que viajaban durante una persecución policiaca en el oeste de la comunidad de Mission, en el sur de Texas.
Martín Garza, vocero del Departamento de Policía de Mission, informó que en la camioneta viajaban unos 18 indocumentados, varios de los cuales resultaron con heridas graves por lo que están siendo atendidos en hospitales en Mission y McAllen, Texas.
Garza explicó vía telefónica que agentes de varias corporaciones seguían la camioneta por sospechas de que transportaba droga, luego de haber sido vista en la margen norte del río Bravo a unos metros de la frontera.
Durante la persecución el vehículo chocó con una de las patrullas y se volcó, dijo el vocero policial.
El incidente se registró alrededor de las 16:30 horas locales (21:30 GMT) en una carretera de la población de Palmview, muy cerca de donde la víspera otro accidente provocó la muerte de siete ancianos.
Garza informó que el conductor de la camioneta fue detenido en espera de que se le finquen cargos.
En tanto, el consulado de México en McAllen colabora en las investigaciones para identificar a la víctima y ayudar a los demás lesionados.
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2007/10/24/persecucion-policiaca-deja-un-indocumentado-muerto-en-texas
Chicago Tribune on DREAM ACT Loss 10 25 2007
chicagotribune.com
Divide on immigration issue dooms Dream Act in Senate
By Jill Zuckman
Washington Bureau
October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON — Demonstrating yet again the potency of the immigration issue, the Senate fell short Wednesday of the 60 votes necessary to debate the Dream Act, a bill that would give young undocumented immigrants the possibility of citizenship if they were brought illegally to the U.S. as children.
The brainchild of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the measure would have required these young people to have graduated from a U.S. high school and either enroll in college or enlist in the military to qualify eventually for citizenship.
But the political repercussions sparked by the immigration debate have clearly not abated, resulting in a politically scrambled 52-44 vote in favor—eight short of the 60 necessary to proceed. Eight Democrats joined 36 Republicans to block the measure from moving forward, while 12 Republicans joined 38 Democrats and two Independents to vote in favor.
Many Democrats feared the wrath of anti-immigration forces, while a dozen Republicans worried about immigrant children in their home states, as well as the loss of potential workers there.
"I'm not going to quit on this," Durbin vowed. "This is an idea whose time will come, because it's an idea based on justice and fairness."
Opponents, however, said Durbin's plan would provide more incentives for illegal immigrants to flood the country.
"I can assure you, all of America is awake on this one, and they know exactly what we're doing," warned Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
The Senate failed over the summer to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was backed by President Bush. Opponents complained the federal government needed to focus on securing the borders and enforcing the law before figuring out how to address the millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally.
"And yet even after that clear, compelling message from the American people, a message so overwhelming it shut down the Senate phone system the morning of the last vote which killed that bill, apparently a whole bunch of folks here still don't get it," said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).
This is the second time in recent weeks that Durbin has been unable to get his legislation to a final vote. He withdrew it last month as an amendment to a defense bill, after intense criticism from all sides. Even traditionally pro-immigration groups opposed Durbin's measure, saying the military service option in the bill could entice desperate young men and women into uniform and possibly death during a time of war.
With Congress focused on finishing its annual spending bills before leaving for the year, Durbin acknowledged he is unlikely to be able to bring the measure up for consideration again this year or next.
"I pleaded with [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] for a chance to bring up this bill now because I think it will be very difficult if not impossible to bring up any immigration bills between now and the next election," he said. "They are too volatile and divisive."
Given that volatility, some analysts saw the Dream Act as the last chance for any immigration reform to pass before the 2008 election.
The Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan immigration think tank, has estimated the Dream Act would allow about 279,000 currently undocumented residents to attend college or join the military. About 715,000 illegal immigrants between the ages of 5 and 17 who are now in the country would become eligible, according to the research group.
Although Bush supported the comprehensive immigration measure that included the Dream Act, he now opposes Durbin's plan, according to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Sessions said the White House believes the bill would provide an incentive for continued illegal immigration and provide a path to citizenship unavailable to other prospective immigrants who are following the law.
Still, the reasoning behind the senators' votes seemed to vary greatly.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he likes the Dream Act and believes it should be enacted, yet he voted against allowing the Senate to proceed.
"I do not think we ought to cherry-pick here," Specter said. "I have grave reservations about seeing a part of comprehensive immigration reform go forward, because it weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill."
Others argued that the situation is urgent for high school and college students facing deportation from the only country they have ever known, and that Congress should help them out of compassion.
"There are young people who have been brought to this country as minors, not of their own doing, who have gone to American high schools, graduated and want to go to American colleges, and they are in a limbo situation," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who supported the bill.
jzuckman@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/chi-dream_25oct25,0,6282600,print.story?coll=chi-ed_opinion_publiced-utl
Divide on immigration issue dooms Dream Act in Senate
By Jill Zuckman
Washington Bureau
October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON — Demonstrating yet again the potency of the immigration issue, the Senate fell short Wednesday of the 60 votes necessary to debate the Dream Act, a bill that would give young undocumented immigrants the possibility of citizenship if they were brought illegally to the U.S. as children.
The brainchild of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the measure would have required these young people to have graduated from a U.S. high school and either enroll in college or enlist in the military to qualify eventually for citizenship.
But the political repercussions sparked by the immigration debate have clearly not abated, resulting in a politically scrambled 52-44 vote in favor—eight short of the 60 necessary to proceed. Eight Democrats joined 36 Republicans to block the measure from moving forward, while 12 Republicans joined 38 Democrats and two Independents to vote in favor.
Many Democrats feared the wrath of anti-immigration forces, while a dozen Republicans worried about immigrant children in their home states, as well as the loss of potential workers there.
"I'm not going to quit on this," Durbin vowed. "This is an idea whose time will come, because it's an idea based on justice and fairness."
Opponents, however, said Durbin's plan would provide more incentives for illegal immigrants to flood the country.
"I can assure you, all of America is awake on this one, and they know exactly what we're doing," warned Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
The Senate failed over the summer to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was backed by President Bush. Opponents complained the federal government needed to focus on securing the borders and enforcing the law before figuring out how to address the millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally.
"And yet even after that clear, compelling message from the American people, a message so overwhelming it shut down the Senate phone system the morning of the last vote which killed that bill, apparently a whole bunch of folks here still don't get it," said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).
This is the second time in recent weeks that Durbin has been unable to get his legislation to a final vote. He withdrew it last month as an amendment to a defense bill, after intense criticism from all sides. Even traditionally pro-immigration groups opposed Durbin's measure, saying the military service option in the bill could entice desperate young men and women into uniform and possibly death during a time of war.
With Congress focused on finishing its annual spending bills before leaving for the year, Durbin acknowledged he is unlikely to be able to bring the measure up for consideration again this year or next.
"I pleaded with [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] for a chance to bring up this bill now because I think it will be very difficult if not impossible to bring up any immigration bills between now and the next election," he said. "They are too volatile and divisive."
Given that volatility, some analysts saw the Dream Act as the last chance for any immigration reform to pass before the 2008 election.
The Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan immigration think tank, has estimated the Dream Act would allow about 279,000 currently undocumented residents to attend college or join the military. About 715,000 illegal immigrants between the ages of 5 and 17 who are now in the country would become eligible, according to the research group.
Although Bush supported the comprehensive immigration measure that included the Dream Act, he now opposes Durbin's plan, according to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Sessions said the White House believes the bill would provide an incentive for continued illegal immigration and provide a path to citizenship unavailable to other prospective immigrants who are following the law.
Still, the reasoning behind the senators' votes seemed to vary greatly.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he likes the Dream Act and believes it should be enacted, yet he voted against allowing the Senate to proceed.
"I do not think we ought to cherry-pick here," Specter said. "I have grave reservations about seeing a part of comprehensive immigration reform go forward, because it weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill."
Others argued that the situation is urgent for high school and college students facing deportation from the only country they have ever known, and that Congress should help them out of compassion.
"There are young people who have been brought to this country as minors, not of their own doing, who have gone to American high schools, graduated and want to go to American colleges, and they are in a limbo situation," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who supported the bill.
jzuckman@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/chi-dream_25oct25,0,6282600,print.story?coll=chi-ed_opinion_publiced-utl
NY Times on DREAM ACT 10 25 2007
Bill for Immigrant Students Fails Test Vote in Senate
New York Times
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — A bill to grant legal status to illegal immigrants who are high school graduates was defeated Wednesday in a test vote in the Senate, significantly dimming the prospects for any major immigration legislation this year.
By a vote of 52 to 44, the bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to proceed to a debate on the Senate floor. The bill, sponsored by Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, would have given provisional legal status to illegal immigrant students who completed high school if they either attended college or served in the military for two years.
Lawmakers said Mr. Durbin’s bill was a litmus test for the immigration issue because it was the most politically palatable piece of the broad immigration legislation backed by President Bush that failed last summer in the Senate.
Mr. Durbin’s measure, called the Dream Act by its supporters, was tailored to benefit young, successful students whose immigration status was the result of decisions by their parents to come to the United States illegally, in many cases when the children were small.
Republican sponsors of the bill included Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana.
The vote showed that Republican opposition remained resolute to any effort to give legal status to illegal immigrants. It also eroded the support of some Democrats for other immigration measures under discussion. Those include a bill known as AgJobs that would give legal status to illegal immigrant farmworkers and overhaul a guest worker program for agriculture. Employers are also asking Congress to expand and streamline visa programs to bring in highly skilled legal immigrant workers.
“They’ll all be hard, every one of them,” Mr. Durbin said of the other immigration initiatives after the vote on his bill. He expressed frustration that business groups backing the other measures had not rallied behind the student bill.
Conservative Republicans voted against the bill on the same ground that they opposed the legislation in June, maintaining that it rewarded immigrant lawbreakers. But negative votes also came from Republicans and some Democrats who were reluctant to reopen the bitterly divisive debate over immigration for what they called a narrow piece of legislation.
The White House rejected Mr. Durbin’s bill in a statement just before the vote, saying it should not be adopted without strong enforcement measures against illegal immigration. The administration said the bill would open a path to citizenship for such students that other immigrants, including many here legally, would not enjoy.
Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who strongly supported the broader immigration legislation, voted no, saying the stand-alone Durbin measure “weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill.”
By scheduling the vote for Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the majority leader, fulfilled a promise he made last month after Republicans blocked Mr. Durbin from attaching his bill to Defense Department spending legislation. But Mr. Reid appeared pessimistic about the student measure’s chances, since he called the vote on short notice.
Mr. Durbin said he had pruned the bill to reduce its beneficiaries. To be eligible for legal status, illegal immigrant students would have had to arrive in the United States before they were 16 years old, have lived in this country for at least five years and be under 30 on the date of passage. Still, conservatives called the measure a “backdoor amnesty,” saying it could benefit more than one million illegal immigrants.
Eleven Republicans voted for the bill. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong supporter, did not vote because he was recovering at home from surgery on a blocked artery.
Among the least disappointed in the vote were several immigrant students who would have benefited under the bill, who met in Mr. Durbin’s office after the vote.
“We’re still really hopeful, and maybe even more excited even though this might have been a temporary block in the road,” said Tam Tran, a 24-year-old immigrant born in Germany to Vietnamese parents, who recently graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles.
“We’re excited that it’s gotten this far,” said Ms. Tran, who is here on a temporary legal status. She said knowing of the possibility of the measure had motivated her to finish college.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/washington/25immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
New York Times
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — A bill to grant legal status to illegal immigrants who are high school graduates was defeated Wednesday in a test vote in the Senate, significantly dimming the prospects for any major immigration legislation this year.
By a vote of 52 to 44, the bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to proceed to a debate on the Senate floor. The bill, sponsored by Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, would have given provisional legal status to illegal immigrant students who completed high school if they either attended college or served in the military for two years.
Lawmakers said Mr. Durbin’s bill was a litmus test for the immigration issue because it was the most politically palatable piece of the broad immigration legislation backed by President Bush that failed last summer in the Senate.
Mr. Durbin’s measure, called the Dream Act by its supporters, was tailored to benefit young, successful students whose immigration status was the result of decisions by their parents to come to the United States illegally, in many cases when the children were small.
Republican sponsors of the bill included Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana.
The vote showed that Republican opposition remained resolute to any effort to give legal status to illegal immigrants. It also eroded the support of some Democrats for other immigration measures under discussion. Those include a bill known as AgJobs that would give legal status to illegal immigrant farmworkers and overhaul a guest worker program for agriculture. Employers are also asking Congress to expand and streamline visa programs to bring in highly skilled legal immigrant workers.
“They’ll all be hard, every one of them,” Mr. Durbin said of the other immigration initiatives after the vote on his bill. He expressed frustration that business groups backing the other measures had not rallied behind the student bill.
Conservative Republicans voted against the bill on the same ground that they opposed the legislation in June, maintaining that it rewarded immigrant lawbreakers. But negative votes also came from Republicans and some Democrats who were reluctant to reopen the bitterly divisive debate over immigration for what they called a narrow piece of legislation.
The White House rejected Mr. Durbin’s bill in a statement just before the vote, saying it should not be adopted without strong enforcement measures against illegal immigration. The administration said the bill would open a path to citizenship for such students that other immigrants, including many here legally, would not enjoy.
Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who strongly supported the broader immigration legislation, voted no, saying the stand-alone Durbin measure “weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill.”
By scheduling the vote for Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the majority leader, fulfilled a promise he made last month after Republicans blocked Mr. Durbin from attaching his bill to Defense Department spending legislation. But Mr. Reid appeared pessimistic about the student measure’s chances, since he called the vote on short notice.
Mr. Durbin said he had pruned the bill to reduce its beneficiaries. To be eligible for legal status, illegal immigrant students would have had to arrive in the United States before they were 16 years old, have lived in this country for at least five years and be under 30 on the date of passage. Still, conservatives called the measure a “backdoor amnesty,” saying it could benefit more than one million illegal immigrants.
Eleven Republicans voted for the bill. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong supporter, did not vote because he was recovering at home from surgery on a blocked artery.
Among the least disappointed in the vote were several immigrant students who would have benefited under the bill, who met in Mr. Durbin’s office after the vote.
“We’re still really hopeful, and maybe even more excited even though this might have been a temporary block in the road,” said Tam Tran, a 24-year-old immigrant born in Germany to Vietnamese parents, who recently graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles.
“We’re excited that it’s gotten this far,” said Ms. Tran, who is here on a temporary legal status. She said knowing of the possibility of the measure had motivated her to finish college.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/washington/25immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The Bush Administration Crushes a Dream
Dreams Crushed
The Bush administration vs. young immigrants
Washington Post
Thursday, October 25, 2007; Page A24
IT WAS always a long shot for supporters of an immigration measure known as the Dream Act to round up the 60 votes needed to advance the bill in the Senate. But it didn't help matters yesterday when the Bush administration, having supported a comprehensive immigration reform bill containing essentially the same provision, came out against the bill on the morning of the vote. This helped quash the hopes of tens of thousands of promising young people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in this country illegally. The failure of the Dream Act -- it got just 52 votes -- leaves them no realistic hope of achieving legal status.
The Dream Act, sponsored by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), would have addressed a small but especially deserving fraction of the estimated 12 million people in this country illegally. Those who entered the country before age 16, lived here for at least five years and graduated from high school with unblemished records could obtain conditional legal status for six years. During that period, they would have to spend at least two years in college or the military. Only then would they qualify to become legal permanent residents.
In its policy statement yesterday, the administration asserted that it was "sympathetic" to the plight of these young people but insisted that the measure "falls short" because it would create "a special path to citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective immigrants -- including young people whose parents respected the nation's immigration laws." Of course, the administration-backed comprehensive immigration reform measure, which failed earlier this year, also provided for special, expedited treatment of young people in this category. The administration had no problem with the provision then, and its complaints now seem as cowardly as they are unpersuasive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402333.html
The Bush administration vs. young immigrants
Washington Post
Thursday, October 25, 2007; Page A24
IT WAS always a long shot for supporters of an immigration measure known as the Dream Act to round up the 60 votes needed to advance the bill in the Senate. But it didn't help matters yesterday when the Bush administration, having supported a comprehensive immigration reform bill containing essentially the same provision, came out against the bill on the morning of the vote. This helped quash the hopes of tens of thousands of promising young people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in this country illegally. The failure of the Dream Act -- it got just 52 votes -- leaves them no realistic hope of achieving legal status.
The Dream Act, sponsored by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), would have addressed a small but especially deserving fraction of the estimated 12 million people in this country illegally. Those who entered the country before age 16, lived here for at least five years and graduated from high school with unblemished records could obtain conditional legal status for six years. During that period, they would have to spend at least two years in college or the military. Only then would they qualify to become legal permanent residents.
In its policy statement yesterday, the administration asserted that it was "sympathetic" to the plight of these young people but insisted that the measure "falls short" because it would create "a special path to citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective immigrants -- including young people whose parents respected the nation's immigration laws." Of course, the administration-backed comprehensive immigration reform measure, which failed earlier this year, also provided for special, expedited treatment of young people in this category. The administration had no problem with the provision then, and its complaints now seem as cowardly as they are unpersuasive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402333.html
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Lou Dobbs and NY Gov. Spitzer
Andrea Batista Schlesinger
Don't Give Lou Dobbs a License to Kill Spitzer's Drivers License Bill
Huffington Post
Posted October 23, 2007 | 04:11 PM (EST)
Lou Dobbs is at it again. His target this time? Governor Eliot Spitzer and his plan to provide drivers licenses to New Yorkers regardless of their citizenship.
In developing your own opinion on the Governor's proposal consider this: If, like Lou Dobbs, you believe political pandering that exploits fear should be used to stall a much-needed conversation about immigration policy, you should join his knee-jerk opposition to Governor Spitzer's plan. But if you want a common-sense approach that follows the lead of eight other states and would make New York's people and streets safer, go with the Governor.
Washington's failure to achieve consensus on an immigration bill should not obscure the fact that commonsense immigration laws have strong majority support. Americans believe it is neither feasible nor desirable to deport the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently here. Instead, there is consensus in favor of providing a path to citizenship for immigrants of all kinds who learn English, work hard, and participate in the American system. Unfortunately, the anti-immigrant sentiment fostered by Dobbs and his ilk kept Washington from pursuing it.
Some local political leaders have followed Lou Dobbs' lead in trying to harness anti-immigrant sentiments to increase their popularity. As was reported recently in The New York Times, towns like Riverside, New Jersey, who have chosen this anti-immigrant path, now stare at their empty main streets and wonder who exactly their policies were designed to benefit and how they went so terribly wrong.
Governor Spitzer, on the other hand, knows that the country needs real solutions that will bring immigrants into our system. To that end, he proposed reviving a pre-2004 policy that offered licenses to competent drivers regardless of their immigration status. In so doing, he is following the lead of numerous other states that issue driver's licenses based on ability to drive - not immigration status. Governor Spitzer's proposal will keep our streets and communities safer by reducing the number of unlicensed, untrained drivers on our roads and dramatically lowering the number of people who lack verifiable ID. This policy will, not insignificantly, enable the immigrants of New York State to live normal lives by being able to drive to work, pick up their groceries, take their children to school, and do all of the other things we take for granted.
Unfortunately, Lou Dobbs, ever in search of higher ratings, went on the attack, exploiting New Yorkers' understandable fears about terrorism by presenting immigrants as a security risk. The truth is that New Yorkers and all Americans have a stake in the implementation of practical immigration policies because the American middle class relies on the economic contributions of immigrants -- be they legal or illegal. Immigrants are consumers and taxpayers. They are entrepreneurs. They provide the services that native-born Americans rely on from morning until night. They resuscitate struggling neighborhoods. They keep our Social Security system solvent. They are not terrorists.
It is not xenophobic for Americans to worry about the impact of illegal immigration on their livelihoods and communities, but the best way to address that is to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows. When immigrants are treated as if they are beneath the law, everyone suffers. This is especially true in the workforce, where the presence of workers without any rights brings down the wages and workplace conditions of American workers and makes it difficult for law-abiding business to compete.
We also need to protect Americans on the roads. We want drivers who have demonstrated their ability to drive to the State. We want drivers with insurance. Even so, it is understandable that some questions and concerns would arise from Spitzer's proposal. What impact does this plan have on our security as a nation? Will this policy render drivers licenses null and void? How will this policy impact the ability of native-born Americans to do things like board a plane and enter office buildings? These are precisely the questions responsible political leaders should be asking and debating.
But not all have. Instead, some elected officials like James N. Tedisco, the minority leader of the New York State Assembly, are making provocative pronouncements like this one: "Osama bin Laden is somewhere in a cave with his den of thieves and terrorists, and he's probably sabering the cork on some Champagne right now, saying 'Hey, that governor's really assisting us.'" Assemblyman Tedisco strains credibility when he insinuates that somehow the 12 million illegal immigrants living in America are terrorists working for Al Qaeda. But he did get his name in the papers, and the New York State Senate has just passed legislation that would overturn the Governor's policy.
When I hear misguided sentiments like that Assemblyman Tedisco's, I know that it is Lou Dobbs who is actually swilling the Champagne. This kind of talk may boost ratings for him and his junior varsity imitators, but if we let it be a substitute for real debate, the joke will be on all Americans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-batista-schlesinger/dont-give-lou-dobbs-a-li_b_69585.html?view=print
Don't Give Lou Dobbs a License to Kill Spitzer's Drivers License Bill
Huffington Post
Posted October 23, 2007 | 04:11 PM (EST)
Lou Dobbs is at it again. His target this time? Governor Eliot Spitzer and his plan to provide drivers licenses to New Yorkers regardless of their citizenship.
In developing your own opinion on the Governor's proposal consider this: If, like Lou Dobbs, you believe political pandering that exploits fear should be used to stall a much-needed conversation about immigration policy, you should join his knee-jerk opposition to Governor Spitzer's plan. But if you want a common-sense approach that follows the lead of eight other states and would make New York's people and streets safer, go with the Governor.
Washington's failure to achieve consensus on an immigration bill should not obscure the fact that commonsense immigration laws have strong majority support. Americans believe it is neither feasible nor desirable to deport the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently here. Instead, there is consensus in favor of providing a path to citizenship for immigrants of all kinds who learn English, work hard, and participate in the American system. Unfortunately, the anti-immigrant sentiment fostered by Dobbs and his ilk kept Washington from pursuing it.
Some local political leaders have followed Lou Dobbs' lead in trying to harness anti-immigrant sentiments to increase their popularity. As was reported recently in The New York Times, towns like Riverside, New Jersey, who have chosen this anti-immigrant path, now stare at their empty main streets and wonder who exactly their policies were designed to benefit and how they went so terribly wrong.
Governor Spitzer, on the other hand, knows that the country needs real solutions that will bring immigrants into our system. To that end, he proposed reviving a pre-2004 policy that offered licenses to competent drivers regardless of their immigration status. In so doing, he is following the lead of numerous other states that issue driver's licenses based on ability to drive - not immigration status. Governor Spitzer's proposal will keep our streets and communities safer by reducing the number of unlicensed, untrained drivers on our roads and dramatically lowering the number of people who lack verifiable ID. This policy will, not insignificantly, enable the immigrants of New York State to live normal lives by being able to drive to work, pick up their groceries, take their children to school, and do all of the other things we take for granted.
Unfortunately, Lou Dobbs, ever in search of higher ratings, went on the attack, exploiting New Yorkers' understandable fears about terrorism by presenting immigrants as a security risk. The truth is that New Yorkers and all Americans have a stake in the implementation of practical immigration policies because the American middle class relies on the economic contributions of immigrants -- be they legal or illegal. Immigrants are consumers and taxpayers. They are entrepreneurs. They provide the services that native-born Americans rely on from morning until night. They resuscitate struggling neighborhoods. They keep our Social Security system solvent. They are not terrorists.
It is not xenophobic for Americans to worry about the impact of illegal immigration on their livelihoods and communities, but the best way to address that is to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows. When immigrants are treated as if they are beneath the law, everyone suffers. This is especially true in the workforce, where the presence of workers without any rights brings down the wages and workplace conditions of American workers and makes it difficult for law-abiding business to compete.
We also need to protect Americans on the roads. We want drivers who have demonstrated their ability to drive to the State. We want drivers with insurance. Even so, it is understandable that some questions and concerns would arise from Spitzer's proposal. What impact does this plan have on our security as a nation? Will this policy render drivers licenses null and void? How will this policy impact the ability of native-born Americans to do things like board a plane and enter office buildings? These are precisely the questions responsible political leaders should be asking and debating.
But not all have. Instead, some elected officials like James N. Tedisco, the minority leader of the New York State Assembly, are making provocative pronouncements like this one: "Osama bin Laden is somewhere in a cave with his den of thieves and terrorists, and he's probably sabering the cork on some Champagne right now, saying 'Hey, that governor's really assisting us.'" Assemblyman Tedisco strains credibility when he insinuates that somehow the 12 million illegal immigrants living in America are terrorists working for Al Qaeda. But he did get his name in the papers, and the New York State Senate has just passed legislation that would overturn the Governor's policy.
When I hear misguided sentiments like that Assemblyman Tedisco's, I know that it is Lou Dobbs who is actually swilling the Champagne. This kind of talk may boost ratings for him and his junior varsity imitators, but if we let it be a substitute for real debate, the joke will be on all Americans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-batista-schlesinger/dont-give-lou-dobbs-a-li_b_69585.html?view=print
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)