This is a crying shame. My friend Paul Parsons, an excellent immigration lawyer in Austin, shared this exchange with me last night:
From: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison [mailto:senator@hutchison.senate.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:50 PM To: Paul Parsons Subject: Constituent Response From Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 3992, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.
On November 30, 2010, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced this bill, which would allow for a 10-year conditional non-immigrant visa that would lead to eventual citizenship. 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. Because of this, I am unable to support the current version of the DREAM Act.
I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.
Sincerely, Kay Bailey Hutchison
As I noted yesterday, parents are looking at 25+ years before they could enter on green cards and if this is chain migration, it's a pretty brittle chain.
Here is Paul's response to Senator Hutchison:
Senator Hutchison -
I am so disappointed that you intend to vote against the current (already watered down) version of the DREAM Act. You indicate that they could later petition for some of their relatives to immigrate. Please read why your objection is misguided.
These kids were brought here by their parents, and most of them do not even remember life in another country. They have been our neighbors, coworkers, friends, and classmates in our communities for ten, twenty, and in some cases thirty years.
The DREAM Act would allow them to proudly serve in our country's armed services (which really needs them) or to attend college for at least two years (which would also benefit our country). They would only be granted a ten YEAR conditional non-immigrant (i.e. temporary status). After ten long years, they could then apply for permanent resident ("green card") status. Only then could they wait three additional years before beginning the naturalization process (which is by no means automatic).
What happens if they earn naturalization after waiting for over thirteen long years? If they have a mother or father who unlawfully entered the U.S, that parent would then be required under our immigration laws to return to his/her home country and face a TEN YEAR BAR for having been unlawfully present in the U.S. There is no waiver available for an unlawful presence bar for a parent of a U.S. citizen. That parent would need to wait outside the U.S. for a full ten full years before applying to lawfully return to the U.S. I didn't make this up... these ten year bars were passed by our Congress in the Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The result is that if the DREAM Act student qualifies over thirteen years later for U.S. citizenship, his/her parent would then need to leave the U.S. for another ten years before qualifying to immigrate as the parent of a naturalized citizen.
What if after over thirteen years a DREAM Act student becomes a U.S. citizen and files a petition for a brother or sister? Right now if a naturalized U.S. citizen from Mexico had filed a petition for a sibling prior to December 22, 1995, (over 15 YEARS ago), a visa number would only be available today for that brother/sister to apply for a "green card." If in the U.S. without permission, that applicant would then be required under our restrictive immigration laws to depart from the U.S. for ten more YEARS prior to seeking to any visa or "green card." The waiting lists for siblings of U.S. citizens are incredibly backlogged, and do not advance one year each year. Filing today, it would probably take more than thirty YEARS before a sibling's turn would be reached on the waiting list.
A U.S. citizen CANNOT petition at all for a grandparent, niece, nephew, uncle, aunt, or cousin under our immigration laws.
Please reconsider your position. You have spoken with many of these courageous DREAM Act students, and you know in your heart that they should be given this opportunity to serve our country. You know they would become wonderful U.S. citizens and they are already willing to defend our proud country at home and abroad.
I respectfully request that you do what's right and vote in favor of the DREAM Act.
Here's the link. Bad news in the family categories as much of the advancement of the last two years has been reversed with major retrogressions. The only good news was a ten month jump for Mexico EB-3 cases.
Family 1st- 13 month retrogression for most countries to January 2005; six month advance for Dominican Republic to January 2005; one week advance for Mexico.
Family 2A - world numbers retrogress 20 months to January 2008; Mexico retrogresses five years to April 2005.
Family 2B - world numbers retrogress more than two years to April 2003; Dominican Republic advances two months to March 2002; Mexico stalled at June 1992. Philippines numbers retrogress ten months to May 1999.
Family 3rd - Most countries retrogress a year and half to January 2001. Philippines retrogresses nine more months to October 1991.
Family 4th - Most countries stalled at January 2002. Mexico stalled at 22 December 1995. The Philippines stalled at January 1988.
Employment 1st - still current in all categories.
Employment 2nd - weak movement for India and China; just a two week improvement for China (22 June 2006) and stalled again for India (8 May 2006).
Employment 3rd - modest movement; one month advance for most countries to 22 March 2005; one week advance for China to 15 December 2003; India moves up one week to 1 February 2002. Mexico jumps 10 months to 15 April 2003 and the Philippines jumps a month to 22 March 2005.
Employment 3rd Other Workers – most countries remain stalled at 22 April 2003; India moves up one week to 1 February 2002; Mexico jumps 10 months to 15 April 2003.
Mr. Speaker, if this act passes, if an illegal immigrant happens to be of a racial or ethnic minority, which the vast majority of illegal immigrants are, that individual, as soon as legal status is granted, will be entitled to all the education, employment, job training, government contracts, and other minority preferences that are written into our Federal and State laws. As a result, the DREAM Act would not only put illegal immigrants on par with American citizens, but would in many cases put them ahead of most American citizens and legal immigrants.
So those voting for this so-called DREAM Act are voting to relegate the position of nonminority American citizens to behind those who are now in this country illegally.
This doesn’t just give young illegal immigrants in-State tuition; it provides them preference in admission.
This is a betrayal of our law-abiding citizens and their families in order to help people who have come here illegally.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this affirmative action amnesty. I urge my colleagues to oppose this horrible example of misplaced loyalties and concerns that will help illegals at the expense of our citizens and legal immigrants.
It is not being coldhearted to acknowledge that every dollar spent on illegal immigrants is $1 less that’s spent on our own children, our own senior citizens, and for all those in our society who have played by the rules, who have paid their taxes and expect their government to watch out for their needs before it bestows privileges and scarce resources on illegals who have not played by the rules.
This legislation not only increases the burden on our hard-pressed government programs and services, but will give foreigners who are here illegally preference over nonminority citizens, U.S. citizens. It doesn’t get much worse than that.
One of the bigger myths floating around regarding DREAM is that it will lead to chain migration. The thought is that DREAMers will get citizenship and then quickly sponsor their parents for green cards. Not quite. DREAM Act recipients must wait ten years in a non-immigrant conditional status to apply for a green card. The adjustment of status will probably take a year or so to get and then a person must wait three more years for citizenship (which could take a year to get). So we're talking about 15 years to citizenship in all likelihood. Then they FILE for green cards for their parents. But because the parents are very likely subject to reentry bars, they'll then have to exit the country and wait TEN years before they are allowed to step foot in the US with permanent residency.
My good friend DAN LUNGREN says these people, once we give them this status, will be able to petition for their adult siblings. We have taken away petition rights for adult siblings, young siblings, grandparents, grandchildren; and it will be 25 years before any person whose status is adjusted under this legislation will be able to petition for the parent that brought that kid here, because we never undid my friend LAMAR SMITH’s provision that required 10-year absence after the petition is filed for anyone who came to this country without authorization. The chain migration argument is another bogus argument, just like the amnesty argument.
The CBO report DREAM Act advocates have been touting reflects a net plus of $2.3 billion against the federal deficit. But that's the SENATE version that was analyzed. If the antis are right and 2,000,000 people will benefit from DREAM, the House version's new $2525 in filing fees will mean an additional $5 billion will be raised. Why, it would be fiscally irresponsible NOT to vote for DREAM!
The Senate voted 59-40 this morning to table Senator Durbin's latest version of the DREAM Act and will instead take up the House version passed last night probably early next week. That's important for a couple of reasons (and probably good news overall). First, the bill will not need to be sent back to the House to reconcile differences between the two bills. Second, the tax bill that has given some on the fence Republicans the excuse to filibuster the DREAM Act may be dealt with by then. Finally, there is some additional time to round up a couple of extra votes. Complaints about not having time to adequately review the House language will also not be an excuse. The fact that 59 Senators voted to allow this to happen this morning means we're close - very, very close.
