Tag Archives: legal immigration

US Immigration Reform: Dream Act 2.0 – Is It Worth It?

Immigration News, , , , , , ,

The DREAM Act is one of the many controversial and politically charged US Immigration debates that exist today and even moreso during 2012 being a Presidential Election year. Read the link to get more in depth information about the proposed legislation but in short it a bill designed to give children born in the US to illegal immigrant parents (some refer to these kids as anchor babies) to have a legal path to US citizenship. In short this will allow these kids;

– to go to College legally
– access student loans and in state tuition rates
– apply for a social security number
– work legally
– access social support benefits
– and of course after becoming a citizen, vote in state and federal elections

In general, Democrats have been supportive of the most well known and proposed legislation that has existed as pending legislation in various forms for over 10 years. From a political standpoint this has largely lined up with their base being more supportive of the Hispanic demographic, the poor, minorities, being more supportive of a social safety nets and otherwise more all encompassing immigration policies.

However with Hispanic voters being both the largest minority voting block and the fast growing by far of all ethnic groups in the US, Republican politically candidates across the US including the Presidential candidates like Mitt Romney are acutely aware of not alienating this large bloc. It has profound consequences for many both many states today in deciding the Presidency in 2012 but also for future elections. Aware how as a party after the Civil Rights movements in the 60s, when Republicans lost the majority of the African American vote to Democrats, never to return to date, they desperately do not want to lose the majority of another ethinic group predicted to be 40% of the entire US population in 2050.

Enter Dream Act 2.0 as it has been dubbed by many, authored by Republican Florida Senator and Cuban American, Marco Rubio. This takes the original intention of the Dream Act and scales it back without criminalizing these kids of illegal immigrant parents. Essentially instead of providing a direct path to US citizenship, it provides an indirect and uncertain path to US citizenship for all groups except for ones who join the military who will receive a green card after serving.

All others will essentially be eligible for non-immigrant status which is really a fancy (and many say demeaning) way of saying they are eligible for work visas like the H-1B and student visas like F-1 which are the same visas that foreigners can apply for to come to the US. Then from that point via either relevant employer based applications, marriage to a US citizen or legal resident family sponsorship they could get access to a green card albeit with no guarantees and waits of up to 10 years or more.

So is it a good thing if you are a child of illegal immigrant parents?

Well the reality is anything is better than the current situation where they can’t attend college, work legally, travel outside the US, get legal IDs, access to many forms of private healthcare or have any path to normal sort of life with a constant threat of deportation. However you only have to talk to current foreigners to realize how bad and unfair the current Immigration System, Green Card opportunities and Wait Times are.

For example Mexican nationals after going through the 12-18 month green card application process under a status like EB-3 (which is common for professionals with a Bachelors Degree and less than 5 years of experience) will have a waiting period of over 10 years by current wait times before being eligible for a Green Card. (to note; the H-1B length is 6 years for regular maximum).

Ultimately while Democrats have for years for political reasons pandered to the Hispanic voting bloc, the so-called Dream Act 2.0 is a poor imitation of the original designed to curry a little favor to Republicans from the same group. However make no mistake, non-immigration status in many ways is only a small notch above illegal status with constant uncertainty and no clear path to permanency. Additionally adding a whole new bloc of people to the already long waiting queues for Green Card status will only increase wait times for everybody.

Cj

The Anchor Baby Myth

Guest Posts, Immigration News, , , , , , ,

Immigration has become a hotly contested issue with strong feeling on each side. Unfortunately, we have allowed our emotions to get the best of us, at the expense of an honest debate. No where is this more clear than with the recent coining of the phrase anchor babies. The term anchor baby refers to a mother who takes advantage of our countries long-standing belief in birth right citizenship by sneaking across the border and having her child here. Birth right citizenship is the Constitutional guarantee that when a person is born within the US they are automatically a citizen, even if their parents entered illegally.

The term anchor baby was created to infer that illegal immigrants have found a way around our immigration laws by having a baby here, who is now a citizen. As a citizen it is falsely claimed that this anchor baby subsequently petitions to bring the rest of the family here. It is implied that once here this family will now take jobs from US citizens or go on welfare and take our tax dollars. The term anchor baby is simply a myth, created to stir up anti immigrant ideology for political gain. The truth is a US citizen baby cannot help an illegal parent’s immigration. This is because no one can petition for another family member’s green card until they are 21 years old.

Because a so-called anchor baby cannot gain a legal status even for their mother until they have turned 21 years old there is little truth in the terminology anchor baby, if anything it should be called anchor young adult. But this is also misleading, if the mother somehow remains in the US illegally without being caught and deported until the child is 21 that child cannot petition for the mother unless the mother leaves the country. Once the mother leaves the country a 10 year bar from reentering is triggered as punishment for her unlawful presence. This means the anchor baby would be 31 years of age when they were able to get their mother or any other family member a green card to the US. Thus, the premise that there is such thing as an anchor baby is patently false.

Moreover, birth right citizenship has been a staple of our country for many decades and it is clearly and explicitly stated in the Constitution. It is entirely possible without it our country would be completely different and many individuals here now would not be. In addition, there would be serious humanitarian issues if ICE was rounding up infants and young children and deporting them to a country they have never been.

In sum, the term anchor baby was created to stir human passions and to make our citizenry feel that our system of laws is being exploited. There is no question that our country has serious immigration problems and that something needs to be done to fix this but creating false terminology is not the answer.


Guest Post Author

Nicklaus J. Misiti