A new debate is beginning though,
amongst and between advocates for immigration reform. While all are still pushing for full comprehensive
change and relief, some in the advocacy committee are saying that reform may
have a better chance for success if the bill is separated out and the
individual immigration issues are dealt with on a one-by-one basis. The idea is that some parts of immigration
reform may be easier to pass through the House than others, and it would be
better to get some reform than nothing altogether. For example, the population of people who
would be eligible for benefits if there was a new Dream Act passed would be
far less than the total population of undocumented individuals in the U.S. Additionally, the Dreamers are more sympathetic than their
parents, in that in order to be a Dreamer, among other requirements, a person
had to come over to the United States as a child, live and be raised in the
United States, and go to school or have graduated from school or earned a
GED in the U.S. Most of these children
came over when they were very young and did not have any “mens rea” or criminal
intent when they crossed the border without proper documentation. They also cannot have a criminal record. The lack of guilt on their part makes reform
for this group easier to accept for some legislators rather than, for example,
their parent’s who knew what they were doing when coming over here. In fact, Republican law makers considered
passing a Dreamers Bill this past July.[3]
As an advocate for immigrant
children, I help abused and neglected children receive immigration benefits
through Special Immigration Juvenile Status (SIJS) and older children and young
adults in the “Dreamers” category through President Obama’s administrative order
allowing for a partial “Dream” through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA). Therefore, with this background
in helping children, my first reaction is that some reform, especially reform
that would help underrepresented children, who had no part in creating their
current legal predicament, should be welcomed and celebrated with open
arms.
There is hefty push back on this,
however. Most surprisingly, the
push-back is coming from the Dreamer’s population itself, the very group that would
gain the most from a new Dreamers Act being passed.[4] Their argument is that family preservation is
paramount and nothing less than full reform for all undocumented individuals is
acceptable. Their parents risked
everything for them to have a better life here in the U.S., and now they are
taking a similar risk for their parents in opposing a new Dream Act.
Last week, an Ohio family’s
struggle made the national press because of the threat of deportation to the
undocumented father, when his children need him here to help them, especially
the special needs child who requires around-the-clock care by his parents.[5] This is a fairly typically family with a mix
of both documented and undocumented members residing in the U.S. within one nuclear
family. The push back from the children
is that simply focusing on the children is not enough; because they need their parents
here in the U.S. with them to thrive and grow into contributing members of
society. As an adoption and immigration professional,
I agree and make this argument on a regular basis when the situation is turned
around and the adopted child is undocumented and the parents are US citizens. In other words, an adoption is only strong if
the family can get the child immigration benefits as well as a finalized adoption so
that the family can remain and live together as a unit. If a child is at risk of getting deported,
then the adoption also fails because the unity meant to be created by the
adoption would be ripped apart. The same
reasoning should hold true even in non-adoptive families when the tables are turned and the children already have
citizenship either through birth right or a new Dreamers Act but their parents
are undocumented.
Is it better to have some reform, especially
for children, if that means that they could potentially stay here, but their
parents might still face deportation? Or
should all advocates of immigration reform hold out and not promote anything
less than comprehensive reform?
[1]
Dreamers are immigrants who entered the country undocumented as children
[2]
The Senate Bill passed on June 26, 2013 after much debate. It passed 68 to 32, with all Democrats and 14
Republicans in support of the comprehensive bill. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/senate-immigration-reform-bill_n_3511664.html
[3] House Majority Leader Eric
Cantor and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., worked to unveil the
Kids Act to give Dreamers the same path to citizenship that they voted against
in 2010.
[4] See Fox, Lauren, GOP DREAM Act Not Enough For Dreamers,
GOP’s piecemeal approach gets blasted by dreamers, US News, July 22, 2013, available at http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/22/gop-dream-act-not-enough-for-dreamers.
[5] See Sarlin, Benjy, Ohio Family’s Struggle
Defines Deportation Debate, MSNBC, August 16, 2013, available at http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/16/how-one-familys-immigration-struggle-defines-the-deporation-debate/
