US Politics Correspondent Lee Haddigan writes for EA:
Last Saturday, by a vote of 55-41, the Senate failed to pass a motion for cloture to allow a final vote on the DREAM Act. Three Republicans joined 50 Democrats and the two Independent senators in the move for a decision. This was short of the 60 votes needed for cloture, as five Democrats joined 36 Republicans in opposition. And that may be the end of The DREAM Act for the immediate future.
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act would have provided an opportunity for children who arrived in the US illegally to establish permanent residency through military service or higher education. Many Republicans, however, vowed to prevent the DREAM Act from getting through Congress before the 2012 elections.
President Obama still retains options to address the issue of immigration reform, including possible use of his executive order powers, but he appears to be caught between a rock and a hard place: declare an amnesty for the children of illegal aliens, risking a political backlash, or accept the suspension of the legislation. Onn one side, he faces a resurgent opposition committed to tougher controls to stop more immigrants entering America and to laws, like Arizona’s SB 1070, encouraging illegal aliens to leave the country. On the other side, there is a growing demographic of Hispanic voters –-- who some analysts are now crediting with providing the votes that helped Democrats retain a majority in the Senate --- whose top priority is an easing of the requirements for undocumented aliens to gain legal status.
The DREAM Act was first introduced more than nine years ago, trying tries to end the uncertainty for immigrant children over their future by offering a pathway to American citizenship. The requirements for the estimated 1-2 million minors are lengthy. They must have entered the United States before the age of 16, have graduated from high school or passed GED (General Educational Development) tests, and lived in the country for five continuous years. Having met those stipulations, the applicant must then serve in the military for at least two years, receiving no less than an honorable discharge, or attend a higher education institution for at least two years and be in good standing.
To answer criticisms of previous versions. the 2010 DREAM Act abandoned an attempt to repeal the ban on in-state tuition for illegal aliens. The 2010 bill also reaffirmed the prohibition on undocumented students receiving federal aid (Pell Grants) to attend college. These measures were added to try and dispel the myth that undocumented students were given preferential treatment in pursuit of a university degree. But with many states, including Texas and California, passing laws that circumvent the federal ban on in-state tuition, the 2010 DREAM Act did little to win over opponents.
Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina, which does not offer illegal students in-state tuition rates, was one of the five Democrats who effectively blocked the DREAM Act. Hagan opposed the bill because she favours comprehensive immigration reform rather than a piecemeal approach. Her decision came as a bitter blow to two "Dream-ers" in the state who would have benefitted from the act.
The DREAM Act also sought to end the myth that, once illegal minors become citizens, they can sponsor other family members and begin "chain migration". Their parents, and most likely their siblings, would need to leave America for at least 10 years before becoming eligible for citizenship. And DREAM Act beneficiaries, like all other legalised immigrants, are not allowed by federal law to sponsor extended family like aunts, uncles, or cousins.
Still, The Washington Post reported that, in the last few days before the vote, chain migration was “the main argument used by Dream act opponents.” It quoted a letter from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) to a constituent: “Once they become U.S. citizens, these individuals would by law be able to petition for family members to also gain citizenship. This would therefore expand citizenship beyond the intended students.”
President Obama described the decision to reject the DREAM Act “incredibly disappointing”. The failure to pass the policy elicited predictable reactions from most political websites. One exception was the response of veteran political commentator Joe Klein in his "Swampland" column for Time magazine.
Writing on Saturday night, an angry Klein called the rejection of the DREAM Act “a cold, cold abomination”, criticising the 41 Senators who blocked final debate for “a vote of staggering cynicism and ugliness on the part of most Republicans and five morally-deficient Democrats”. Klein continued with an attack on the personal character of John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee for President. Noting that McCain was an original co-sponsor of the bill, and was under no pressure to appease extremists in his party given that he is not due for re-election soon, Klein wondered why the Senator needed to act like a “troglodyte". Klein then proceeded to tar McCain as "flagrantly cynical", "cowardly", "puerile", "feckless", "trigger-happy gambler" before ending by accusing the Senator of “demonstrating his petulance and lack of grace”y.
So what now for immigration reform? The angry voices on both sides are not going to dissipate over the next two years, and a way forward looks problematic for both Republicans and Democrats.
Perhaps the answer lies in a list of recommendations prepared in a report by the academic non-partisan Migration Policy Institute, "Immigration and America’s Future: A New Chapter". The 16 suggestions offer a common-sense approach, although many Democrats will not like the section that deals with strengthening border security and most Republicans will splutter their coffee when they read, “The Task Force recommends an earned path to permanent legal status for unauthorized immigrants currently in the United States as an essential element of policies to address current illegal immigration.”
What I will be looking for in the next Congress is a DREAM Act, proposed by some Republicans in the Senate, which once and for all specifically addresses concerns over "chain migration". Though that may not be enough by itself to convince the newly Republican-controlled House of Representatives, the new bill may become a bargaining chip for compromise along the line of citizenship for "Dream-ers" in exchange for tougher border control and reduction of illegal aliens through enforcement policies. But that is a whimsical notion, not a prediction.
Tomorrow: Congress Repeals the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Restriction