Civic Register
| 9.5.17

Congress Takes Up the Cause of the Dreamers

Join us and tell your reps how you feel!

What’s the story?

President Trump has ended DACA, but provided Congress with a six-month window to pass legislation to address those covered by DACA. Anticipating the administration’s move, members of Congress have already begun work on legislation to permanently address the issue. But will they be able to get enough bipartisan support to pass anything?

Why does it matter?

Congress has been trying to pass comprehensive immigration reform since the administration of George W. Bush, but they’ve never been able to manage it. After years of congressional wrangling President Obama chose to use his executive authority to protect those illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as minors. The DACA program protected those young people from deportation and provided them with legal residency status.

Now that DACA has been rescinded these young people will be treated like any other immigrant who came to the United States as an adult, despite the fact that many of them have been in the U.S. from such a young age that they have no clear memories of any other home.

Protecting the Dreamers, as they’re called, has become a political issue that many members of Congress from both sides of the aisle agree on. Now they have a finite window of time to legislate that agreement. Currently there are a few different legislative options being floated in Congress.

The Dream Act has been introduced and tinkered with many times over the years. Currently it is co-sponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who reintroduced it in July as the Dream Act of 2017. It would give roughly 1 million young people temporary legal status and a path to citizenship if they passed background checks and met requirements to retain employment, enlist in the military or go to college.

In the Dream Act, those previously covered by DACA, who entered the U.S. prior to Jan. 1, 2012 when under the age of 18, would receive Conditional Permanent Residency (CPR) status, which they would have to maintain for 8 years. After 8 years, an applicant could then apply for Legal Permanent Residency. After 5 years of qualified Legal Permanent Residency, the applicant could apply for citizenship.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) is crafting a more conservative version of the legislation. This version covers those who entered the U.S. under the age of 16 prior to Jan. 1, 2012. It shortens the CPR coverage time to 5 years, as opposed to 8.

Tillis’s plan appears to be a companion proposal to a House bill introduced by Miami Republican Carlos Curbelo, called the "Recognizing America’s Children Act".

Of the 7 co-sponsors to the DREAM Act introduced by Sen. Graham, 5 are Democrats. Democrats have not been organizing any other legislative alternatives to the bipartisan proposal.

Additionally, there has been discussion of attaching border wall funding to the legislation to court more conservative support. That is likely to alienate more progressive Democrats, and co-sponsor Durbin has insisted the idea is a "non-starter".

What do you think?

Do you support Congress passing the DREAM Act or something similar to protect those previously covered by DACA? Do you support the more conservative approach being crafted by Sen. Tillis? Do you think all undocumented immigrants, regardless of the age they entered the country, should be treated the same way?

Use the Take Action button to tell your reps what you think!

— Asha Sanaker

(Photo Credit: Korean Resource Center via Flickr / Creative Commons)

Related Reading: