https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/opinion/joe-biden-america.html
From the NYT Editorial Board:
. . . .
Even in the hot-button area of immigration, most Americans agree on the need to address the plight of so-called Dreamers, the undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. A Pew poll this summer showed that around three-quarters of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, favor granting them permanent legal status. If lawmakers could stop demagoguing long enough to pass a version of the Dream Act, iterations of which have been circulating for a while, the majority of Americans would be grateful.
Consider all of this a starting point — with other, even more promising avenues out there to explore. As always, the details matter. So does the degree to which lawmakers in both parties decide that it’s in their political interest to gum up the works. Mr. Biden and, perhaps more important, American voters will need to make clear their expectations for action and bring the necessary pressure to bear. There is common ground to be found in a host of policy areas. Political leaders should be pressed to cultivate it.
***************
Read the rest of the NYT Editorial Board’s suggestions at the link.
Sounds like a good starting point for moving forward with humanitarian actions that will benefit the common good.
In the past, the problem has been in the details of exactly what “relief” is (e.g., will it include a “path to citizenship,” and , if so, how arduous?) and who qualifies (the DACA program had a June 15, 2102 “cutoff” date, and not all of those eligible actually registered, some for fear that the information would be used to deport them). But, without Stephen Miller fouling up the works, the chances of success should be vastly improved
Let’s hope it gets done and in a fittingly generous and inclusive manner ASAP! That’s particularly true in light of the contributions that many in the DACA program have made as “essential workers” during the pandemic!
PWS
12-14-20
A proposal I favor and have suggested to the Biden transition team, would be to advance the registry date. It hasn’t been advanced in 35 years, unlike the prior times it has been advanced, much more frequently. If the date chosen were in the range of 10 years ago or less, it would cover all the dreamers and a large portion of the estimated 11 million here undocumented. I think it would be relatively less controversial that trying to pass an amnesty. It would also be simpler to administer than the typical amnesty style two step system of temporary/conditional LPR status for a couple years and then another application for permanent status.
Section 249 currently provides for adjustment of status to permanent resident, with some exceptions, for non citizens of good moral character who have maintained a continuous residence in the US since 1-1-1972, irrespective of immigration status. It does not require a visa petition.
Originally enacted in 1929, the qualifying date has been periodically advanced:
• In 1940, 11 years later, the qualifying date was advanced to 1924 (a date 16 years earlier.)
• In 1965, 25 years later, the date was advanced to 1948 (a date 17 years earlier
• In 1986, 21 years later, the date was advanced in IRCA to 1-1-72 (a date 14 years earlier).
Alternatively, instead of fixing a specific qualifying past date, an idea advanced by the Cato Institute would be to amend the Registry date to a rolling date, such as 10 years of presence in the U.S.
Thanks, Joan!
I also have a recollection that Nolan Rappaport put forth similar ideas in The Hill at some point.
What you both seem to be saying is that folks are actually “overthinking” this. The tools are already out there, we just have to use them.
That, in turn, ties in with something I say often: It’s not rocket science. We just need the right expert “practical scholars/problem solvers” from our NDPA in the right positions at the right time to get the train back on track!
Due Process Forever!
P