icon__search

Hope for DACA recipients

The DREAM Act Has Been Reintroduced And It May Have A Winning Chance This Time

Mitu -Carlos Adolfo Gonzalez Sierra • Great chances of becoming real!!

In a year marked by increased raids, travel bans, and repeated threats to DACA, the bipartisan reintroduction of the DREAM Act stands as a small victory for immigrant rights groups. While its passage is not certain, its chances are far from hopeless if immigrant communities continue to engage allies. Senator Dick Durbin first introduced the DREAM Act in 2001 to create a multi-step path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who, like me, arrived as minors. It would allow long-term residents who entered the country as minors to apply for conditional permanent residency and eventually citizenship if they first meet certain educational, military, or employment requirements. Opponents of the DREAM Act argue that it would inspire a wave of illegal border crossings. This is a myth. Only those who can prove that they entered before the age 18 and had been continuously present in the United States for at least four years prior to the date of enactment would be eligible for conditional residency. The DREAM Act is also not amnesty. The path to citizenship would take at least thirteen years. I would be 40 years old when I could naturalize. In 2010, the DREAM Act passed the House of Representatives but failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to clear the Senate. This time we can get it through. Assuming full Democratic support, we need at least nine additional Republican votes to avoid a filibuster. That number is not out of reach if we consider that seven current Republican Senators voted for comprehensive immigration reform in 2013, and two others support legislation protecting DACA recipients from deportation. Its prospects in the House of Representatives are dire than in the Senate, but not hopeless. A major obstacle in the House is that many congressional districts lack sufficient immigrant presence, making it easier for representatives to vote against the bill. Although Latino and Asian Americans tend to have a more recent connection to immigration, a poll conducted by Global Strategy Group shows that a majority of Americans support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Dreamers alone cannot push Congress to act. We also need allies to do so, especially in states like Pennsylvania where immigrants do not comprise a significant electorate. Allies add financial resources and electoral power to our movement. I have been encouraged by the support I have encountered across the state from people not directly impacted by the failures of our immigration system. It is our responsibility to educate and mobilize them. Failing to do so is tantamount to malpractice. What about President Trump, the man who built his political career on promises of merciless enforcement? Despite opposition from his base, Trump has softened his stance on DREAMers and has yet to end DACA, a discretionary policy allowing DREAM Act eligible youth to temporarily live and work in the United States. DACA made it possible for me to complete two graduate degrees, to pursue opportunities abroad, and find employment that I am passionate about. Its full impact, however, is more subtle. I feel it every time I drive past a police car knowing I am licensed to drive, or when I don’t stress about what to put on under Social Security in an application, or when I confidently advocate for the rights of my community. Now DACA is once again under threat. Passing the DREAM Act would provide us a path to citizenship and with it a level of security that DACA cannot. Our futures will no longer be at the mercy of the courts or whoever occupies the White House. Our community won DACA because we organized and fearlessly shared our stories with America. As we continue to build our power, let us reject language that denigrates our parents for doing their best for us. They have in many cases sacrificed their dreams and well being so that we may realize ours. Accepting a rhetoric that absolves us while convicting our parents for bringing us to this country makes us accomplices in their continued marginalization. Let us move forward without exploiting their struggle for our benefit. Carlos Adolfo Gonzalez Sierra is a graduate of Amherst and Cambridge Universities and currently works for the Pennsylvania Immigration & Citizenship Coalition (PICC).

More from DACA Scholars

How to buy a home with DACA

HomeForDreamers

DREAMER and Realtor Diego Corzo explains to us, how we as DACA recipients can qualify to buy a home. Many banks deny loans, simply because they fear that we will get deported under DACA and wont be able to keep paying the house, but Diego found a way to give dreamers loans in all the 50 states!!! Watch the very short video to learn more!!

The Science Ambassador Scholarship

Full Scholarship • Deadline: December 11, 2018

Requirements: The Science Ambassador Scholarship is a full-tuition scholarship for a woman seeking an undergraduate degree in science, technology, engineering, or math. The scholarship is open to graduating high school seniors and current undergraduate students. STEM must be your major field of study (not your minor).

Trump no puede cancelar el programa

Corte de Apelaciones falla a favor de DACA • 801-413-0124 Abogado Jonathan Shaw

Se trata de un nuevo golpe a la Administración, que ha intentado acabar con este beneficio que protege de la deportación a unos 700,000 jóvenes. La Corte de Apelaciones del Noveno Circuito dictaminó este jueves que el gobierno de Donald Trump no puede cancelar la Acción Diferida de 2012 (DACA), que protege de la deportación a unos 700,000 jóvenes que llegaron al país antes de los 16 años y se les conoce como dreamers. Un panel de tres jueces decidió mantener en vigor un fallo emitido por una corte federal de California el pasado 9 de enero, que ordenó al gobierno restituir el programa en los mismos términos en que se encontraba el 5 de septiembre de 2017, cuando fue cancelado por el entonces fiscal general, Jeff Sessions. En el dictamen, el panel concluyó que la decisión del gobierno era "arbitraria, caprichosa y no estaba apegada a la ley". El fallo de este jueves ocurre tres días después que el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) le pidió a la Corte Suprema de Justicia que revisara el programa sin tomar en cuenta las acciones legales que estén en manos de tribunales inferiores y un día después del despido de Sessions, uno de los principales opositores del programa. La decisión de este jueves solo implica que el programa se mantiene en vigencia, mas no que pueden ser admitidas nuevas aplicaciones. La pelea judicial Luego de que Sessions cancelara el programa en 2017, el gobierno de Trump le dio 30 días a los dreamers para que renovaran por última vez sus amparos. El presidente pidió además al Congreso que debatiera una legislación para dar una solución permanente a estos jóvenes en un plazo de seis meses. Ese tiempo pasó, pero los demócratas, los republicanos y la Casa Blanca no se pusieron de acuerdo. La fecha de cancelación fue determinada dos meses antes por Texas, cuando dijo que demandaría al gobierno si no eliminaba el programa. Pero cuatro meses después de la cancelación, el 9 de enero, una corte de California declaró ilegal la decisión de cancelarlo y ordenó que se restituyera, algo que fue ratificado por una segunda corte en Nueva York. Entonces fue puesto nuevamente en vigencia en los mismos términos en que se encontraba antes de la cancelación del fiscal general. Pero el 24 de abril, una tercera corte federal, esta vez en Columbia, restituyó por completo la Acción Diferida y le dio 90 días al gobierno para que presentara evidencias adicionales que respaldaran su argumento para eliminar DACA. Advirtieron entonces que de no ampliar sus explicaciones, serían aceptadas nuevas aplicaciones. El 17 de agosto, la misma corte eximió al gobierno de aceptar nuevas solicitudes después de que los demandantes —encabezados por la dreamer mexicana María Perales y Microsoft— decidieron no oponerse a la decisión anunciada por el Departamento de Justicia de no aceptar a nuevos inscritos. El último fallo que se conoció sobre DACA ocurrió en Texas, en respuesta a una demanda entablada por el fiscal general del estado, Ken Paxton. El 30 de agosto el juez John Bates rechazó la petición para cancelar el programa y mantuvo vigente los fallos favorables a DACA. Permitió así que continuaran los procesos jurídicos entablados en otros tribunales. Bates reconoció en su sentencia que los argumentos de Texas eran buenos, pero consideró que los estados se tomaron demasiado tiempo en presentar una demanda, por lo que decidió no bloquear el programa. Además, sugirió que sea la Corte Suprema la que determine en última instancia la legalidad de DACA y su constitucionalidad.