Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
A DREAM Act do-over?

A DREAM Act do-over?

Last updated on: September 4, 2017 at 8:47 am by Jane the Actuary

A DREAM Act do-over? 2017-09-04T08:47:07-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

800px-US-border-notice

Let’s review DREAM Act history, shall we?

(And, by the way, I reject the terminology that calls these teens and young adults “Dreamers” because it’s so loaded and propagandistic. The journalists tend to say, “they’re called Dreamers because of the bill that would have given them legal residency.” But the bill itself was given that name, one of those appalling acronyms invented by creating goofy bill titles that had the sole purpose of creating an acronym, in order to call these individuals “Dreamers,” not the reverse. Why don’t we call them Dacans, instead?)

Back in 2009 – 2010, Democrats had a supermajority.

They had a DREAM Act, providing residency for individuals brought to the U.S. as minors.

They could have passed it.

But they lost their chance.

The act was introduced in 2009, but didn’t come up for a vote until December 2010, in the lame-duck session before Democrats in the House handed over control to the GOP, when it was unable to move past a filibuster in the Senate, despite Democrats and allied Republicans having a 61 vote majority, because Democrats Max Baucus, Kay Hagen, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Jon Tester voting against it.

I had remembered the Democrats being unable to pass it because too many of them demanded the whole enchilada, but I can’t find any indicator of that; perhaps this demand what what stalled the vote on the bill until the very last minute, perhaps they could have gotten those remaining votes if they’d offered more concessions but were unwilling to. I can’t find any details any longer on the negotiating process.

In 2011, Obama demanded that Congress pass such a bill, then, in 2012, claiming justification by the fact that Congress was unwilling to do what he believed was their obligation, he declared the “DREAM Act” into existence, in the form of the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) executive order.

And in 2017, “DREAM Act” supporters are acting as if it had passed, that is, as if what Obama did had at least the moral force of legislation, rather than being a temporary measure with no basis for continuation once the Obama administration left office.

In the meantime, Trump is, according to Politico, poised to end DACA with a 6 month grace period. And, in the meantime, Paul Ryan and other enforcement-indifferent Republicans are announcing that Trump should wait, to give them time for a “legislative fix.”

Now, as it happens, there are even immigration hardliners who are willing to accept a legislative DACA program, so long as it is part of a larger bill. Mark Krikorian proposes that DACA be rolled up into a bill with the RAISE Act (reduces immigration, preferences skilled workers, and eliminates green card eligibility for non-immediate family, such as adult siblings), the Davis-Oliver Act (strengthens enforcement), and mandatory E-Verify.

But, CNN reports, there are updated “DREAM Act” bills, such as one introduced by Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, and Chuck Shumer, which is more generous than the existing DACA, and contains no compromise enforcement provisions. (A summary is available on Durbin’s website; note that it seems to have dispensed with the need for “Dream” to be an acronym for anything; it’s just the “Dream Act.”) According to the National Immigration Law Center, a pro-amnesty group, and the bill summary, the bill is more generous than DACA or the original DREAM Act, in that it does not appear to have any date cut-off (that is, there is no requirement to have been brought into the U.S. before a given date; as far as I can see, future arrivals will also be eligible, so that it’s an ongoing promise to give legal residency to anyone arriving as a minor — maybe the actual legislation restricts eligibility to those present as of the law’s enactment?), it requires only 4 years of residency, individuals who arrived even at age 17 are eligible, they need only be in high school or a GED program to be initially eligible, and must have minimally worked 3 years afterwards, or be exempt due to the need to care for a child (that is, girls who get pregnant before ever having worked, need not ever work to receive these benefits).

So are there enough Republicans willing to pass an unconditional “DREAM Act” for the Durbin plan to pass? And if so, will Trump sign it into law?

In a way, this seems like the 2017 equivalent to the sequester. Trump is, if these reports are correct, setting a deadline. In the same way as the sequester was supposed to produce unpleasant enough consequences to force Congress to produce a budget deal, the elimination of DACA should function as a deadline by which Congress must work out a legislative solution.

Is Trump, in doing so, doing something gravely immoral, hideously evil, as countless people on my twitter and facebook feeds are proclaiming? All he’s doing is saying, “the fate of these individuals is something that must be decided by the legislature,” and giving them a deadline.

So what are the possible outcomes? Here are potential scenarios:

1. Congress fails to act, because it’s just incompetent and, frankly, would rather complain about the president than do anything. (See: ACA/Obamacare.)

2. Congress doesn’t act because the majority are perfectly fine with current DACA-recipients losing their work permits and returning to the status quo of false IDs, under-the-table work, and half-hearted indifferent enforcement.

3. Alternately, the majority in Congress are perfectly fine with DACA (or afraid of being called “immoral” if not) so they pass a simple equivalent to the current program. (Let’s assume the expansiveness of the Durbin bill makes it a nonstarter.)

4. Or, enough in Congress are only willing to vote for legislative DACA if paired with some Democratic concessions on immigration, such as a wider implementation of E-Verify.

5. Or, Democrats refuse to make those concessions, demanding a “clean bill” and calling their opponents inhumane for placing any conditions on its passage — either because they genuinely are convinced it’s simply too monstrous to accept any restrictions, or whether they’re OK with allowing it to fail, then treating its failure as a “win” because it gives them the opportunity to case their opponents as fundamentally evil people.

So what do you think? My money’s on number three – Congress lining up to say, “well, we had to, because of the high school valedictorians and all.”

Image from wikimedia commons.

Previous Post

September 3, 2017

Thought experiment: on Kindergarten

Next Post

September 6, 2017 Why "Dream"-ing isn't enough

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Hebrews, what was the veil in the temple?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The separation from God The law of Moses Christ's flesh The old covenant