If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31]

Zyphlin said:

For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?

Click to expand...

Cigar said:

... but this won't change the color of their skin.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?

Click to expand...

Praxas said:

I would not be comfortable with the federal government defining for someone what "good and moral character" means. If it means no convictions, fine. But including good and moral as a character trait seems to be something that can be way to manipulated to mean whatever someone wants it to. Oh you're pro-choice? Then you're not of good and moral character. Oh you're for gay marriage? Nope, not of good moral character. That sort of thing. I'm good with the no convictions thing, but just think the federal government defining what good and moral is makes it too subjective.

Also, I wouldn't remove the college thing but I would still add the mandatory federal service but just tack on 2 years extra for college. So if you're going to college, then you do 4 years total instead of 2.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

I would not support compulsory military or other service.

I could only support a plan that has a path to full citizenship within a reasonable time for all.

Click to expand...

Praxas said:

I would not be comfortable with the federal government defining for someone what "good and moral character" means. If it means no convictions, fine. But including good and moral as a character trait seems to be something that can be way to manipulated to mean whatever someone wants it to. Oh you're pro-choice? Then you're not of good and moral character. Oh you're for gay marriage? Nope, not of good moral character. That sort of thing. I'm good with the no convictions thing, but just think the federal government defining what good and moral is makes it too subjective.

Also, I wouldn't remove the college thing but I would still add the mandatory federal service but just tack on 2 years extra for college. So if you're going to college, then you do 4 years total instead of 2.

Click to expand...

VanceMack said:

Id say this is a great start. Id probably alter "- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16" to age 12.

In addition, I would impose a total immigration reform that would resolve pretty much ALL of this. EVERY illegal immigrant MUST in the span of 1 year register as either a guest worker or a legal immigrant. If you pass a background check and pass health and safety metrics already in place, you begin the immigration process. No requirement for anyone to leave the country, no automatic amnesty, but a realistic pathway to citizenship. Additionally...employers would have 1 yer to comply with the laws regarding guest workers and E-verify. Also...illegal immigration would become a criminal act as would facilitation of illegal immigration. Finally...border security would be fully implemented.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

And say you couldn't get all of those things and you were forced to either vote for or against THIS proposed bill that was in the OP....

Would it be a Yes or a No?

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

Care to actually answer the topic?

Click to expand...

Cigar said:

... but this won't change the color of their skin.

Click to expand...

Cigar said:

... but this won't change the color of their skin.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

The moral character thing is an interesting take on it. And that's something that's been present in almost all versions of the DREAM act I believe.

I understand your thoughts on the college thing. However, if you were presented with the compromised bill present in the OP, the question is simply would you support it or not? If I'm understanding your posts implication/tone right, the answer would be "I would not support/vote in favor of that"? Or am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Nap said:

The term permanent residency, this implies second class citizen in my opinion

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

One things for sure, it certainly wont change devisive agendas that exploit the color of peoples skin for political gain

Newp, after 8 years of Obama, thats all the Democrats have to work with

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

Actually, it's not any kind of citizen, second, first, or anything else. The Dream Act is, and never has, been a direct pathway to citizenship.

However, Permanent Residents are a long standing category of immigrants in this country. It's not some vague made up term simply for the Dream Act. If you've heard of someone being here on a "green card", that person is a Permanent Resident. Permanent Residents have the ability to apply for citizenship after 5 years of legal permanent residency within the country (or 3 if married to a citizen).

Click to expand...

Nap said:

Outside of the far left and far right, no one cares about the color of a person's skin.

Click to expand...

Praxas said:

Right, because before Obama there were no agendas or affirmative action or racial tensions or issues with police brutality. Those only started with Obama right? :roll:

Click to expand...

Nap said:

Outside of the far left and far right, no one cares about the color of a person's skin.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

Actually, it's not any kind of citizen, second, first, or anything else. The Dream Act is, and never has, been a direct pathway to citizenship.

However, Permanent Residents are a long standing category of immigrants in this country. It's not some vague made up term simply for the Dream Act. If you've heard of someone being here on a "green card", that person is a Permanent Resident. Permanent Residents have the ability to apply for citizenship after 5 years of legal permanent residency within the country (or 3 if married to a citizen).

Click to expand...