ACHIEVE Act proposed by Republicans
It seems that the Republicans don’t ever want the Latino vote. Ever. Why? Because they don’t ever want to give millions of undocumented Latinos the chance to vote for them… Obama got 71% of the Latino vote this past month, it SEEMED like the Republicans had learned something from these numbers.
This week the Republicans presented the ACHIEVE Act, their version of the DREAM Act. The requirements are much more stringent than the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) implemented by the Obama administration in August and it is clear that the Republicans do not plan to incorporate even childhood immigrants into the fibers of our nation.
ACHIEVE (the name really gets me!) requires the child to have entered before turning 14 years old (DACA is under 16). While I had a hard time accepting that a child that was brought here at 16 has no possibility of legalizing his or her status, this new proposal asks me to accept punishing 14 year olds for something they had no control over. The new proposal also brings down the maximum age of the applicant to 29 (at time of implementation, so 27ish now?) from 30. While I understand most things in life have a cutoff and someone is going to lose, how does it make any sense to tell someone that, though they were brought here as a child at the age of 5, they have simply been in the United States too long and dug their roots too deep to be granted any sort of recourse. Try explaining that one to a 32 year old who came here in her early teens, paid for college out of pocket, and graduated in 8 years because they she to work 2 jobs – but she graduated and now owns a home, has US Citizen kids, is married to a US Citizen, pays her taxes and has no trace of an accent. Nonetheless, according to both of these proposals, she has just been here too long to be able to be a part of us.
Furthermore, in addition to a high school diploma, the Act requires either higher education or military service. Considering that undocumented youth cannot get access to in state tuition or financial aid, this is a catch 22 as many of them NEED status in order to attend University yet status is being kept from them unless they are in University. Moreover, are we comfortable with pushing kids into our volunteer military in exchange for immigration status? While many immigrants wish to pursue military service as they are highly patriotic to the United States and are willing to sacrifice to protect our way of life, do we need to apply this kind of pressure to recruit military men and women?
Most importantly, ACHIEVE would grant “permanent non immigrant status”, whatever that means. The only thing that is clear about this term is that it is not a pathway to residency and/or citizenship. This means that these youth will forever be second class citizens without the right to vote, equal access to higher education, protection from harm when abroad, and of course, the feeling of belonging somewhere that is their only home.
Just like with civil rights and gay marriage there is a right and wrong side to history on immigration reform and especially when dealing with those who were brought here as minors. Over time, more or less time, the right side will prevail because it is inevitable. Which side do you want to be on?
Ben Jackson
4:06 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
The difficulty is that they buried the truth of this bill in doublespeak and a marketing plan. Now they'll come out and say "We have a path for illegals to serve the country and change their status,' and most people will just say "oh, ok" without looking into or caring about the details. It's disheartening.
VivaLaMigra
9:44 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Ben, what's "disheartening" is that this Nation was built upon the Rule of Law and SELF-government. Now, foreign nationals demand the right to determine which laws are to be obeyed and which THEY can violate. That goes against a basic tenant of international law which provides for SELF DETERMINATION of sovereign nations' own people. Do YOU demand to make laws for Mexico or some other country? Do you expect they'd allow you to interfere in their internal affairs? ay-Dis that the
Mark Cain
8:19 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Good! These illegals should be sent back to the land of their birth. They are destroying the country my relatives have died protecting!!! Author of this rag article should be ashamed of themselves.
Mark Cain
8:23 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Hey Kagarin, illegal aliens NOT immigrants.
VivaLaMigra
9:10 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Right on; "immigrants" are foreign nationals who entered this Nation in accordance with IMMIGRATION laws...Get It? ILLEGAL ALIIENS are foreign natioinals [hence: aliens] who entered or remained in DEFIANCE of those laws [hence, their presence is ILLEGAL].
Kira Gagarin
10:31 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Like I said, you are just on the wrong side of history. You can grumble and spew hatred all you want, the world will still turn and immigrants will still come to the US as they have ever since our history began. You will just be angrier and angrier about it...
JR14
9:36 pm on Saturday, December 15, 2012
Mark is right! They are not immigrants they are illegal aliens. get rid of them!
VivaLaMigra
9:08 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
No, "Republicans" didn't propose this act; RINO's [Republicans in Name Only] did. One Q to those who are apologizing for illegal aliens, including the author of this piece: If you want to claim that some "children" are innocent of being here ILLEGALLY, then WHO is RESPONSIBLE for that situation? IOW, what happens to the parents who committed HUMAN SMUGGLING? [OK, that's TWO related Q's if you must!] But, the point is that illegal alien apologists don't want ANYONE held accountable for breaking the law; they want a complete AMNESTY for EVERYONE. That can't fly; sorry.
VivaLaMigra
9:15 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Ms. Gagarin: If YOU happen to be one of those young people who are here ILLEGALLY, I urge you to first ask your PARENTS why they broke the law by smuggling you into the United States of America. If they committed that act, are you proud of them for doing so? Do they routinely violate other laws, such as using someone else's Social Security Number or other identity characteristics? Do they possess stolen, fraudulent, or counterfeit documents? Do you? Did they LIE when they signed I-9 forms to work here? Are you getting the general idea? We already HAD an amnesty for illegal aliens in 1986. That was before you were born, and many conditions were imposed on employers in an attempt to avoid a repeat of the illegal alien invasion. Americans supported those laws. Why did your parents break them, and what makes them think they have the right?
Kira Gagarin
10:18 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Not quite before I was born, but before I came to America, yes... Not sure why you are talking about my parents, but uh, ok. I am proud of them (and eternally grateful) for bringing me to the US, but that has nothing to do with today's immigration problem.
VivaLaMigra
9:44 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Oh, upon reading the piece I come across this, referring to a woman we should allow to remain in the country because she "...has no trace of an accent." What language a person originally spoke, and whether one now speaks with or without an "accent" has NOTHING whatever to do with this whole argument, unless you're trying to play the RACE CARD! We judge people based on their character, not language, race, skin color, or national origin. If you are breaking the law, you're a criminal. There's no way to sugar coat that. Any adult who's here illegally MUST return home and apply for legal residency through the proper channels. I'm not about to enter Mexico or any other country illegally, and I wouldn't expect any sympathy if I did.
Kira Gagarin
10:18 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
Did you create this account just to comment on my blog? I am honored...
Yondertree
4:53 pm on Sunday, December 9, 2012
We can't even take care of all the people who were born here in America, why do we owe ANTYHING to at least 20 MILLION ( conservative estimate ) who broke the law and don't even belong here. It's as simple as that.
Ed Bertorelli
6:16 pm on Sunday, December 9, 2012
Yondertree- read the Boston Globe today and read that we cannot even deport illegals who commit murder in the USA- system is broken and little sign it will be repaired.
VivaLaMigra
3:54 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
No, we have thousands of violent criminals walking the streets who should be in their homelands. The problem is that we allow outlaw nations like Vietnam to simply "refuse" to take their citizens back. We should cut off all foreign aid and TRADE DEALS until they take this scum off our hands. It's THEIR problem, not ours. Of course, Ms. Gagarin would insist that they're all fine, upstanding types who make this a better country.
Kira Gagarin
10:41 am on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/12/11/secret-courts-confused-and-isolated-many-immigrants-are-assembly-line-deportation-detention-centers/2qon3LVfLUQyzcIU6Enk7L/story.html
This is a good Boston Globe article as well (I'm not sure which one you were referring to) about how our deportation process denies due process of law. I guess you would say undocumented people aren't entitled to due process but you would be very wrong.
Yondertree: I never said we "owed" anyone anything. I do think that the right thing to do is to allow those who have been here their whole lives an education and a voice instead of creating a second class of persons. I don't think they need any "taking care of", on the contrary, they will be a huge boost and contribution to our economy and our/their country.
VivaLaMigra
11:51 am on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Our deportation system "denies due process?" Surely you must be joking. First of all, there is no real PUNISHMENT rendered to the alien; only REMOVAL from a country of which he is NOT a citizen. We're not imprisoning these people, taking their property, or executing them. Therefore, "due process" doesn't even apply, constitutionally. But, because we're the fairest and most generous nation on Earth, we give these people a opportunity to plead their cases. And, a "judge" in these hearings doesn't even have to have the LAW on the plaintiff's side; a good SOB STORY often works.
On your other point, to assert that an entire group will be a "huge boost" to our nation is just as wrong as to assert that an entire group would be a detriment. But, once again we're asked...no, being ordered...to act based on ethnic identity instead of judging each person on one's merits. Maybe that's how things were done where you came from, but the United States cannot long endure if that becomes the American model.
Kira Gagarin
1:05 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
If you believe that deporting a person to country XXX when she has been here for 8, 10, 15 years, has her whole family here and maybe doesn't speak the language of where she is a citizen of isn't a "punishment" nor a deprivation of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, then you are entitled to that opinion. We are imprisoning them though and we are confiscating their property (cars, houses...). And I am also entitled to mine where I believe that those in removal proceedings require the protection of our constitution because it certainly is taking away all of those things our constitution protects. Agree to disagree.
I wasn't talking about any entire group. The DREAM Act is very specific about who qualifies. And I am confident that all those who meet the requirements will be indeed be a huge boost. Again, agree to disagree.
There are also no plaintiffs in immigration and they aren't sob stories, they are horror stories of what people have gone through in their lifetimes that those born here (I wasn't, but I came young enough to only tell my parents' stories) are hopefully lucky enough not to have to tell.
VivaLaMigra
3:53 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Ms. Gagarin: There are by definition TWO types, or classes, of "persons" here: United States citizens, and aliens [foreign nationals]. Now, as for the CITIZENS, there is only one "class"..all citizens, either natural-born or naturalized are the SAME under the law with the rather minor exception that naturalized citizens can't hold the office of President. There will ALWAYS be a second class of "persons" unless you insist that all SEVEN BILLION "persons" on Earth have the same right to occupy US sovereign territory. They don't, and we certainly won't allow it. We have over 20,000,000 such persons occupying it illegally now. The question is: at what number, and at what time, will the citizenry DO something about it? Fifty million? One hundred million? Half a BILLION? There will be a breaking point. How many "immigrants" do overpopulated nations like China and India admit? Do you know that in just a few short decades, we'll be staring at those kinds of population figures if current trends continue? Lifeboat America will be full. We'll ultimately stop taking new passengers aboard or we'll all sink together.
Kira Gagarin
6:59 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Ms/r. VivaLaMigra: You are missing my point... I am not debating immigration and inhabitants of the world nor overpopulated nations. Though we can, I think that would take more time than either of use have to dedicate to this forum. Lets take this in pieces, no? (Though I don't think the US will ever be "full", but as an immigrant I am biased, I suppose). I am talking here strictly about the republican proposal to create an immigration category for these DREAMERS (ACHIEVERS?) called "Permanent Non Immigrant". I think that is unacceptable and creates second class persons. I am confident that the law enacted will agree with me and will give these bright, motivated, organized, young people a path to citizenship. I guess we can re discuss in a year or so?
VivaLaMigra
3:54 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Sorry, Kira, no foreign national is guaranteed "the pursuit of happiness" by the US Constitution. At least, they have no inherent right to pursue happiness HERE! Foreign nationals are our guests; we can allow them to stay or ask them to leave. In fact, we can do more than "ask"...we are within the bounds of International Law to REQUIRE them to leave...ie. deport or repatriate them. As for property being confiscated, show me some examples of that. If the person has to be removed, the ALIEN should pay for transportation and if we liquidate property to cover those costs rather than saddling law-abiding taxpayers, I'm all for that. But, that is happening rarely, if ever; most "confiscation" involves motor vehicles that are on the road...you guessed it!...ILLEGALLY...no registration or insurance in effect. But, if citizens are killed, injured, or put at a financial loss due to illegal aliens' failure to comply with our laws I guess that's our fault, eh?