Posted on 12/13/2010 6:07:47 AM PST by southernnorthcarolina
When House Democrats last week passed the DREAM Act before the Senate had staged its vote, the timing was no accident.
Instead, the chronology was part of a carefully designed strategy — orchestrated, with some tension, between the two chambers — to grant the proposal its greatest shot at success. The fast-evolving process required behind-the-scenes scheduling changes; an 11th hour hearing; constant lobbying from supporters; and a risky-but-successful show of procedural gymnastics in the Senate — all aimed at lending momentum to the hot-button bill in hopes of enacting it by month's end.
In short, supporters say, the process has infused life into the policy.
"It actually gives us a chance to win," said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, an advocacy group lobbying for the bill.
Adey Fisseha, policy attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, echoed that message. "It makes it real, and it increases the pressure," Fisseha said. "They thought they had the votes. They wanted to lock it in. And they did."
Indeed, had the Senate voted first, the bill likely would have failed, and the House would have lost its appetite to stage a vote at all, according to both supporters and critics of the proposal.
"If it's not going to pass the Senate, then why should I vote for it?" said a senior House Democratic aide, explaining how any number of centrists likely would have felt had the bill failed the Senate. "It would just give them another reason to vote against it."
Instead, with the help of many of those centrists, the House passed the bill Wednesday night 216 to 198, setting the stage for a Senate vote later in the month. For supporters, the result was even better than they'd hoped. Eight Republicans voted yes.
The surprising tally goes a long way to explain why Democratic supporters went to such pains to delay the Senate vote while at the same time pushing to expedite floor time in the House.
"We thought it could win, and we thought it would gain momentum," Sharry said. "And both came true."
But it didn't happen easily.
On Monday night, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed for cloture on the bill, he set in motion a series of events — most choreographed out of the public's view — that few would have anticipated at the start of the week.
Though the plan all along was to stage the House vote first, it remained unclear if there was enough lower-chamber support to pass the bill. When House members returned to Washington on Tuesday, about 20 of the most ardent DREAM Act supporters gathered that evening in a small room in the Rayburn office building near the Capitol, according to a Democratic staffer familiar with the meeting. The group poured over lists of on-the-fence lawmakers, searching for discrepancies between statements from those members to leadership versus commitments they'd made to proponents lobbying the bill.
Because the DREAM Act is a tough vote for members representing conservative-leaning districts, there was a sense among supporters that some centrists were telling Democratic leadership they'd oppose the bill — in hopes a poor whip count would dissuade a floor vote — while indicating otherwise to proponents.
The DREAM Act's informal whip team has included a number of members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) — notably Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) — as well as a long list of Democrats not affiliated with the group. Among them are Reps. Anthony Weiner (N.Y.), Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Jared Polis (Colo.), and Howard Berman (Calif.), the lead sponsor of the bill.
On Wednesday morning, Gutierrez, Berman and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), sponsor of the upper chamber bill, held a press conference to make a final public plea for support. They still didn't know if they had the votes, in either chamber, but were whipping hard behind the scenes.
"We picked up votes this morning in the House gym," Gutierrez told reporters.
At that point, the House was expected to vote Wednesday afternoon, with the Senate to follow. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had yet to release its cost estimate for the House bill, and the Rules Committee had yet to consider it. Complicating matters, Vice President Joe Biden was scheduled to meet with the entire caucus that afternoon to lobby for the administration's proposal to extend Bush-era tax cuts — a plan many Democrats are revolting against.
Reid's cloture motion was also a reason for concern through much of Wednesday. That's because once cloture is filed on a bill, the Senate must act on it — even if only to agree not to vote on it. Upper-chamber leaders were stalling in hopes the House would act, but the calendar was filling quickly — like "planes stacking up on the tarmac," the senior Democratic aide said — and there was talk the House vote might be pushed to later in the week.
If the Senate was forced to vote first "then the House probably wouldn't have voted," said Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which supports tougher immigration enforcement. "Because what's the point?"
Then things picked up. The CBO released its score, energizing supporters by estimating $2.2 billion in taxpayer savings over the next decade. Just after 2 p.m,, the Rules Committee announced it would meet at 3 to consider a rule governing the bill (it passed). And at 4:35, the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) shot out a statement indicating the House would vote later in the day.
"I have assurances that the Senate will wait for the House to act today," Hoyer added.
Six minutes later, Reid took to the Senate floor to deliver a similar message. "I need to have them finish their vote before we vote over here," Reid said. The reason was political, not technical. The Senate, after all, was set to consider a separate version of the DREAM Act.
Shortly after 7 p.m., Reid announced the cloture vote on the Durbin bill would be delayed until the following morning.
In the eyes of House DREAM Act supporters, Reid's decision brought a sigh of relief: They could now focus on rallying support instead of worrying about the Senate preempting them with a vote of their own.
"That was the real source of drama on this," said the senior Democratic aide.
Hoyer wasted no time, using Biden's appearance as an opportunity to urge the entire caucus to support the DREAM Act, a plea he made immediately following the discussion on tax cuts. The White House has also lobbied hard in recent weeks for Congress to pass the bill.
A few hours later, the DREAM Act came to the House floor, where it was approved at 9:01 p.m. — the first major immigration-related bill to reach the House floor in five years, and the first time the lower chamber had ever passed the nine-year-old DREAM Act.
The saga was hardly over. After House passage — are recognizing the margin exceeded supporters' expectations — Senate leaders raced to scrap the vote on the Durbin bill and replace it with a vote on the House-passed version.
For Democrats, the advantages to that strategy are several. First, the bill would go directly to the president's desk if the Senate managed to pass it. And second, because the House proposal is attached to shell legislation that's already passed the Senate, Reid can stage a cloture vote at any time on the actual bill, skipping the procedural step of first proceeding to the bill.
Voting on the policy instead of a procedure, supporters say, will put more pressure on fence-sitting senators to back the bill — particular at a time when both parties are courting the ever-growing Hispanic vote.
"This is a hard vote for a Republican who has aspirations for a higher office," Sharry said.
On Thursday morning, Reid asked for unanimous consent to scrap the Durbin vote and go directly to the House bill. "It having passed the House," he said, "gives us more energy to move forward."
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) objected.
The objection forced Democrats to vote on tabling the Durbin bill — a delicate process because of concerns such a move could later be interpreted as opposition to the underlying policy. Sharry described the environment as "tense."
Still, the motion passed 59 to 40, leaving Reid the option to bring the House bill to a vote at anytime — and upsetting Republicans anxious to kill the bill.
"It appears that the Democrat leadership lacked the votes for passage, and is now using this maneuver in a last-ditch effort to line up more votes in the remaining hours of this lame-duck session," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).
Supporters are quick to concede that's the strategy. Sharry said advocates bombarded Senate leaders after the House vote with the simple message: "Please give us more time."
The bill faces a tough road in the upper chamber. Republicans will filibuster the measure, and a similar bill failed in the Senate in 2007. Since then, party polarization has grown only more severe.
Complicating the vote, Senate Republicans have threatened to kill any proposal that reaches the floor before a resolution is reached on how to extend Bush-era tax cuts and fund the federal government. Proving they were serious, several Republicans critical of the the Pentagon's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy voted Thursday against a measure repealing it.
"That was a clear message," said Melanie Nezer, senior advocacy director at the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, an immigrant rights group supporting the DREAM Act.
Senate Democrats seem to have heeded it, vowing to finalize the tax-cut and budget issues before bringing anything else to the floor — including the DREAM Act.
Camarota, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said all the wrangling up to now has done little more than put Democrats right back where they started: Namely, wondering how to push the bill through the upper chamber.
"It was always assumed it would pass in the House," Camarota said. "The tough battle is in the Senate."
He also questioned why, if House passage of the DREAM Act marks a political victory for Democrats, they didn't bring it up before the elections. "They obviously see that this is not a political winner for them," he said, "or else they would have passed it months ago."
The DREAM Act offers a pathway to permanent residency — and eventually citizenship — for illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children if they meet certain requirements. They must have been in the country for at least five years; have earned a high school diploma, or its equivalent; and enter an institution of higher education or the military.
Supporters say the bill would empower motivated young people to develop the best of their skills for the betterment of the entire country.
"We're talking about a group of people who didn't do anything wrong — they didn't posses the intention to commit a crime or cross the border illegally," Berman said prior to Wednesday's vote. "This is a universe of people who deserve special consideration because the absence of wrongdoing is so clear."
Opponents argue the bill rewards people who broke the law the moment they arrived in the country.
"To grant amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime," Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said during the floor debate. "This legislation seeks to reward those who are, under the law, eligible for being sent back to their home countries."
Whatever happens, observers of the DREAM Act debate expect the unconventional process, exacerbated by all the urgencies of the lame-duck session, to remain that way.
"Nothing has moved in a predictable fashion [on the DREAM Act]," said ACLU Legislative Counsel Joanne Lin, who supports the bill. "I suspect that will continue to be the case in the Senate."
No to the NIGHTMARE Act!!
I worry that Voinovich might cave in since he’s a lame duck. Isn’t his buddy, DICK Lugar for it?
TEN THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT
THE DREAM ACT
1. THE DREAM ACT IS NOT LIMITED TO CHILDREN, AND IT WILL BE FUNDED ON
THE BACKS OF HARD WORKING, LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS
Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only
to illegal alien “children.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM
Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied
the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent
resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, two versions of
the DREAM Act include a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35
on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this
cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full
LPR status under the Act—hardly the “children” the Act’s advocates keep
talking about. The third version of the bill still allows 30 year old
“children” to be eligible for LPR status.
The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications
(applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication)
without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This mandate
would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for
USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of
immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the cost of
administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and
petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for
amnesty. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits
the DREAM Act seeks to offer to illegal aliens, including student loans
and grants.
2. THE DREAM ACT PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, INCLUDING
CRIMINALS, FROM BEING REMOVED OR DEPORTED IF THEY SIMPLY SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION
Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet
certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the Act
protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no
matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland
Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for
conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or criminal
record—providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This loophole
will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for
many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal
aliens’ removal from the United States. The provision will further erode
any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing
system.
3. CERTAIN CRIMINAL ALIENS WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR AMNESTY UNDER THE DREAM ACT
Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act
amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor
convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of
the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders
(aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have
engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely
claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas,
and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal
aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently
barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to
become a public charge are also eligible.
4. ESTIMATES SUGGEST THAT EITHER 1.3 OR 2.1 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS WILL
BE IMMEDIATELY ELIGIBLE FOR THE DREAM ACT AMNESTY, DEPENDING ON WHICH
AGE CAP IS APPLIED. HOWEVER, THE BILL IMPOSES NO LIMIT ON FUTURE
APPLICANTS, SO THE NUMBERS ARE LIKELY TO GROW FAR HIGHER.
Section 4(d) of the DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green
cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens
eligible for amnesty under its provisions. The Migration Policy
Institute estimates that the DREAM Act will make approximately
1.3–2.1[1] million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty, depending on
whether eligibility is capped at the age of 30 or 35. It is highly
likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the
DREAM Act will be much higher than the estimated 1.3–2.1 million due to
fraud and our inherent inability to accurately estimate the illegal
alien population. Clearly, the message sent by the DREAM Act will be
that if any young person can enter the country illegally, within 5
years, they will be placed on a path to citizenship.
5. ILLEGAL ALIENS COULD GET IN-STATE TUITION BENEFITS
Under the original version of the DREAM Act introduced on the Senate
calendar, S.3827, illegal aliens would qualify for in-state tuition,
even when it is not being offered to U.S. citizens and legally present
aliens living just across state lines. Section 3 of S.3827 repeals
Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) which prohibits giving
education benefits to an unlawfully present individual unless that same
benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens.
6. THE DREAM ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT AN ILLEGAL ALIEN FINISH ANY TYPE
OF DEGREE (VOCATIONAL, TWO-YEAR, OR BACHELOR’S DEGREE) AS A CONDITION OF
AMNESTY
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that the bill is intended to
benefit illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are
on their way to earning college degrees. However, the bill is careful to
ensure that illegal alien high school drop-outs will also be put on a
pathway to citizenship – they simply have to get a GED and be admitted
to “an institution of higher education,” defined by the Higher Education
Act of 1965.
Under the Higher Education Act, an “institution of higher education”
includes institutions that provide 2-year programs (community colleges)
and any “school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training
to prepare students for gainful employment” (a vocational school).
Within 8 years of the initial grant of status, the alien must prove only
that they finished 2 years of a bachelor’s degree program, not that they
completed any program or earned any degree.
If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can
demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or
their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the education
requirement can be waived altogether.
7. THE DREAM ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT AN ILLEGAL ALIEN SERVE IN THE
MILITARY AS A CONDITION FOR AMNESTY, AND THERE IS ALREADY A LEGAL
PROCESS IN PLACE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS TO OBTAIN U.S. CITIZENSHIP THROUGH
MILITARY SERVICE
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that illegal aliens who
don’t go to college will earn their citizenship through service in the
U.S. Armed Forces. However, the bill does not require aliens to join the
U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast
Guard); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services.” This
means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get
U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the
“uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would
result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse,
child, or parent, the military service requirement can be waived
altogether. Such claims will likely engender much litigation and place a
huge burden on DHS.
Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense
can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the
U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become
naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S.
citizenship in six months.
8. DESPITE THEIR CURRENT ILLEGAL STATUS, DREAM ACT ALIENS WILL BE GIVEN
ALL THE RIGHTS THAT LEGAL IMMIGRANTS RECEIVE—INCLUDING THE LEGAL RIGHT
TO SPONSOR THEIR PARENTS AND EXTENDED FAMILY MEMBERS FOR IMMIGRATION
Under current federal law, U.S. citizens have the right to immigrate
their “immediate relatives” to the U.S. without regard to numerical
caps. Similarly, lawful permanent residents can immigrate their spouses
and children to the U.S. as long as they retain their status. This means
illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the DREAM Act will have the
right to immigrate their family members—including the parents who sent
for or brought them to the U.S. illegally in the first place—in
unlimited numbers as soon as they become U.S. citizens (6 to 8 years
after enactment) and are 21 years of age.
Additionally, amnestied aliens who become U.S. citizens will be able to
petition for their adult siblings living abroad to immigrate to the
U.S., further incentivizing chain migration and potentially illegal
entry into the United States (for those who don’t want to wait for the
petition process overseas). When an adult brother or sister receives a
green card, the family (spouse and children) of the adult sibling
receive green cards as well.
9. CURRENT ILLEGAL ALIENS WILL GET FEDERAL STUDENT LOANS, FEDERAL WORK
STUDY PROGRAMS, AND OTHER FORMS OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL AID
Section 10 of the DREAM Act allows illegal aliens amnestied under the
bill’s provisions to qualify for federal student assistance under Title
IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) in the
form of federal student loans (Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans, Federal
Direct Stafford/Ford Loans), federal work-study programs, and other
federal education services such as tutoring and counseling.
10. DHS IS PROHIBITED FROM USING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY ILLEGAL
ALIENS WHOSE DREAM ACT AMNESTY APPLICATIONS ARE DENIED TO INITIATE THEIR
REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS OR INVESTIGATE OR PROSECUTE FRAUD IN THE APPLICATION
PROCESS
When an illegal alien’s DREAM Act amnesty application is denied, the
bill states that the alien will revert to their “previous immigration
status,” which is likely illegal or deportable. The bill, however,
prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty
application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien
admits to, etc.) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or
prosecute fraud in the application process. Thus, it will be extremely
hard for DHS to remove aliens who they now know are illegally present in
the U.S., because illegal aliens will be able to claim that the legal
action is a product of the amnesty application, and DHS will have the
nearly impossible task of proving a negative.
The Democrats and their lame duck Nightmare Amnesty are pushing the U.S. to the edge.
College students all over America should take to the streets & protest.
Yoyu left out that the illegal must vote Democrat at least once in all elections.
Let’s sacrifice the education of American children during this recession in order to educate the children of people who broke our laws. Great idea, after all Americans don’t matter, our whole purpose in life is to work and make money so idiots in Washington can give it away to everyone else in the world.
“College students all over America should take to the streets & protest.”
....yes they should...unfortunately many have been so brainwashed with Leftist thought that they’re afraid of being called “racist” if they protest.
Can anyone suggest an amendment to do this, while allowing for a response to Pearl Harbor?
This is the most important issue in lame-duck senate. Everything else, including tax issues, can always be changed in the next Senate session.
Amnesty is permanent (and it will extended by activist courts to cover every s*x predator and drug mule they can find).
How did this supposedly objective agency come up with the conclusion that this was a money saving bill? Maybe their assumptions are so limited (like in the ObamaCare analysi) that it's garbage in... garbage out.
I would love to see our Congress actually do something good for our country.
And look who is behind this,George Soros.
Soros,ACORN & Obama the Liberal money machine working to force taxpayers to fund FREE college tuition for ILLEGAL ALIENS http://is.gd/iDrF6
There was another post on here about the possible need for America to invade Mexico. If this becomes law, Mexico will invade America.
Lugar is absolutely gaga for the DREAM Act. Wouldnt surprise me if he is the only Republican to vote for it.
He did sign the letter sent by the GOP saying he would oppose all other measures till the tax cut/govt funding issues are settled, however.
Lugar needs to be primaried. This needs to be a top priority.
P.S. Reid will need more than Lugar and Voinovich to pass this turkey. There will probably be a half dozen RATS voting no.
Lugar and Bennett (R-Utah) have stated they will support it.
The “undecided” Republicans are Murkowski, Collins, Brownback.
Supposedly, Snowe, Voinovich and Kirk are opposed but their statements could have been more clear. Michelle Malkin has also urged letters of support to Hutchinson and Brown who are under local media attacks for their opposition.
“There will probably be a half dozen RATS voting no.”
Only Ben Nelson has stated his clear opposition. There are about 9 undeclared Democrats who have given Harry Reid their Christmas lists and waiting for him to deliver.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.