DACA, DREAM Act, and Legal Immigration

Once again, I've delved into a "news" story to find I'm not being told the whole truth.  DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was enacted by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano as an exercise in prosecutorial discretion, providing temporary relief from deportation and work authorization to certain young undocumented (illegal) immigrants brought to the United States as children (under the age of 15). They also must be under 31 as of June 15th 2012 and be in the Unites States since that date and lived here continually since then. The application must be renewed every 2 years. Sept 5, 2017 the new acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke rescinded DACA and announced a wind down.  No new applications would be accepted and current applicants who's status is due to expire before March 5, 2018 will be allowed to renew for an additional 2 years if they apply by Oct 5, 2017. Those that expire as of March 6, 2018 will no longer, at that point, have relief from deportation or employment authorization. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act

So unlike the statements made in the news, Pres. Trump did not rescind an executive order by Pres. Obama.

One article I found while googling, implied these Young adults didn't know they weren't legal immigrants. So how can they be held responsible.  If they thought they were legal then they wouldn't fear deportation and wouldn't be applying for DACA anyway.

Another misdirection is that without DACA they have no other recourse. This is only half true.  The full statement should be they have no other recourse that doesn't require them to apply for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver and then leave the United States and apply for a visa from a US Embassy or consulate to come back in. (https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens/provisional-waiver/provisional-unlawful-presence)  So once they were old enough to do something about it, they could have worked to obtain legal status.

The rhetoric wants us to think this isn't fair and there is a bill called the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) act that was introduced into Congress in 2001 and has been reintroduced in July 2017, with the purpose of providing a different path for this group of illegal immigrants to change their illegal status to a legal status. This essentially moves them to the front of the immigration line.

The name of the bill was deliberately done to enable that segment of illegal immigrants to be labeled "Dreamers" so we would emotionally bond with them and feel that to go against them or the bill was an unfair thing to do. "Aren't we all dreamers and how can we deny these Young Adults their dream." 

Well what about the thousands of people who are trying to immigrate to this country legally? Is it fair to deny them their dream because they chose to take the legal route instead of the illegal one? 

But maybe that is what this is about.  Those who are using this language want unfettered immigration.  They want to throw the borders wide and let anyone and everyone who wants to come in, come in.  This would only lead to chaos and most likely an overwhelming of our infrastructure.

Besides, life isn't fair and the adult thing to do is realize that and then work to do the things needed to obey the law.

If we really felt for these Young Adults how about figuring out ways to help them obey the law.  Some ideas just off the top of my head:

• Immigration Attorneys volunteer their time or reduce their fees to help with the applications for the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver and Visa.
• People donate money for transportation to and facilities near the Embassy or consulate for them to live while they are waiting for their Visa application to be reviewed.
• Have colleges where they are enrolled offer on line courses so they can continue their education while they are waiting for their visas. 
• Provide help to find or keep employment while they are waiting for visas.  

We are pretty ingenious and generous people, for the most part, so I think we could figure this out without having to change the law or rely on government to come up with a solution.

Best laid plans

It has been 8 years since my friend and I created this blog with the best of intentions.  On my part I found the research needed to figure out the convoluted state that is this country's financial situation to be a full time job which unfortunately doesn't pay the bills.  On my friend's part she ran into medical issues that meant she had to simplify her life.  So to the 3 current followers of this blog I apologize for the lapse.  I hope you will find the change in focus interesting.

As I was looking at some posts on my Facebook account I ran across an article from a conservative website that talked about another person's Facebook post.  One of the comments intrigued me.  It said essentially that the article was misconstruing the post in order to stir up emotions.  I do find that to be the case in a lot of reporting these days, so generally if I find or hear something upsetting, I then try to find out the whole story.  So I did that with this article and what I found has prompted me to speak out.

The article was about what a local Black Lives Matter leader posted to her Facebook account in reaction to what happened in Charlottesville, VA recently.  She posted 10 suggestions she felt rich white people could do to help.  Now the conservative article reported them as mandates from Black Lives Matter but from what I could find out, the lady who posted them did not mean them to be a statement from Black Lives Matter.  They are just her opinion on what might help our country.  So it was incorrect for the article to report this as a mandate from Black Lives Matter.

I reviewed her suggestions and most of them hinge on "white people who can" giving housing or land to "black or brown people" or building housing and letting "black or brown people" live there for free.  I use "black or brown people" in quotes because that is the term she used in her post.

There are several questions I have about this approach to the problem of generational poverty which seems to be the focus of her suggestions.

1. What is the racial breakdown of generational poverty in the United States? 
I'm pretty sure it isn't just "black and brown people". They may represent a greater number but it isn't exclusive to them.

2. If historical racism is the cause for "black and brown people's" generational poverty, then why do we have so many successful "black and brown people"? 
Unlike other countries, the United States has a fairly mobile population.  The circumstances you are born into, do not determine where you can go or what you can do.  There are stories every day of people rising above their circumstances to become successful in whatever they endeavor to do. 

History has also shown that most immigrants to this country have racist difficulties in their history, it isn't something that just "black and brown people" have claim to. 

In my own history, my ancestors where chased off their land by angry mobs and a governor of the state made a law that they were to be driven from the state or killed (which wasn't rescinded until this century).  Some say this was because they were against owning slaves and the rest of the state was concerned how they would vote.  Regardless of why it happened, it happened and my people were chased out of the country into a inhospitable place, until by their hard work and perseverance, they made it hospitable. Eventually through land purchases it became part of the country again.  So then because of rumors and other issues with the religion they practiced, the government sent an army to this new place to put down a rebellion.  It was even threatened, they would disenfranchise our church and take all of it's assets.  So being oppressed isn't just the purview of "black and brown people".

3. If handouts to reduce poverty were the answer, then why isn't the current welfare system working to get people out of poverty? 
Free housing has already been tried and in most places that housing is not being taken care of by the people who live there. Programs like Habitat for Humanity, which require the recipient to help construct the home, work much better because they provide the recipient with a sense of ownership and pride in the housing they are getting. Working for something brings a sense of accomplishment which goes farther in reducing poverty than anything else.  Handouts only create dependency.

The idea that we each determine our own destiny is what makes this country great.  It is this idea that makes it possible for all of us to succeed regardless of what has happened in the past.  Instead of weakening people by assuming they can't take care of themselves.  Let's empower them by assuming they are capable and figure out what they need to help themselves.

At the same time, we need to understand that we can not force people to succeed.  Ultimately it is their choice, whether they take advantage of their opportunities or not.  If we force an equal outcome it will stifle ambition and creativity.  Whereas, if we provide an equal opportunity, we encourage ambition and creativity and we are all enriched by it.  The communities that are thriving are the ones where people are working together to better themselves and are not waiting around for someone to do or provide it for them.