Please visit our YouTube, Twitter and Facebook pages.

1. House passes DREAM Act
2. SCOTUS appears divided
3. State officials defend AZ
4. CT considers DREAM Act
5. Students highlight debate

1.
House OKs path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants
By Susan Ferrechio
The Washington Examiner, December 8, 2010

The House passed a bill Tuesday that would speed the path to citizenship for people brought to this country illegally as children.

The measure passed 216-198 but now faces a nearly impossible hurdle in the Senate on Thursday, where it is unlikely to garner the 60 votes needed to block a GOP filibuster.

The bill, known as the DREAM Act, would allow people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16 to be granted conditional resident status if they have earned a GED or been admitted to college. Excluded would be those with three or more misdemeanors.

Those admitted into the program could gain citizenship if they complete two years of college or military service.

Analysts believe more than 2 million people here illegally could be eligible for the program. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would cut the deficit by $1.3 billion but ultimately cost $5 billion as those enrolled in the program begin using entitlement programs like Medicare. A group opposed to the measure, The Center for Immigration Studies, said if the DREAM Act becomes law, it would cost $6.2 billion per year as immigrants in the program take advantage of in-state college tuition rates.

Democrats argued that the measure is the only fair and practical way of dealing with young people who have spent their whole lives in the United States but are not allowed the benefits of citizenship because their parents brought them here illegally.

"The choice tonight is between allowing those young people to live their lives in the shadow of America, [and ensuring] those who want to serve our country and contribute to our economy can stay in the country that is their home, " said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Republicans said the bill would award amnesty to every illegal immigrant in the country younger than 30, even those with criminal records. They also argued the DREAM Act would raise unemployment by adding potentially millions of immigrants to the workforce and said it would encourage more illegal immigration by parents who want their children to benefit from the DREAM Act.

"It puts the interest of illegals ahead of those of law-abiding Americans," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.
. . .
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress/2010/12/house-oks-path-c...

********
********

2.
Supreme Court appears divided over state laws against illegal immigration
By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times, December 9, 2010

The Supreme Court's showdown over whether states can aggressively enforce laws against illegal immigrants may have ended in a draw Wednesday.

If so, Arizona's 3-year-old law that cracks down on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers will stand. It could serve as a model for other states and cities that seek to adopt stricter enforcement measures.

But if Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joins with his more liberal colleagues, as he did for part of Wednesday's argument, it could signal trouble in the future for other laws targeting illegal immigrants. They include Arizona's law that requires police to check the immigration status of suspicious people who are lawfully stopped, which could reach the court during its next term.

At issue Wednesday was the fate of the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which imposes the so-called business death penalty on employers who are caught twice knowingly hiring illegal workers.

Lower courts upheld the law, but the Obama administration and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined in arguing that the state law should be voided because it conflicts with the federal government's authority over immigration.

But those challenging the law were at a disadvantage Wednesday because new Justice Elena Kagan, who came from the Obama administration, announced she would not participate in the decision. That set the stage for a possible 4-4 split, which would uphold Arizona's law but set no legal precedent.

The stakes were high, as it has been more than 30 years since the Supreme Court ruled on a clash between a state and the federal government over immigration. Such clashes have become common in recent years as states and cities consider new enforcement measures to target illegal immigrants.
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-immigration-2...

********
********

3.
Arizona employer sanctions law defended by state officials
By Craig Harris
The Arizona Republic, December 9, 2010

An unlikely Arizona political trio stood outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday and expressed confidence that the nation's high court would uphold an Arizona law that punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and Democratic Attorney General Terry Goddard, who last month were running against each other for Brewer's job, joined Republican state Senate President-elect Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, in praising the state's efforts to defend the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act.

"Arizona presented a great case," Brewer said outside the Supreme Court after an hourlong hearing Wednesday at which the constitutionality of the state's employer-sanctions law was considered. "Our presentation in the end will cause us to prevail."

Some legal observers suggested the court might deadlock in a 4-4 vote if justices split as typical political blocs because Justice Elena Kagan recused herself due to a possible conflict of interest.

Pearce also predicted that outcome, at worst, for the state, a result that would uphold lower-court decisions that found Arizona's law constitutional.

Arizona's law punishes companies for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants by suspending or revoking their business licenses. It also requires Arizona employers to use a federal electronic system, called E-Verify, to validate Social Security numbers and immigration status of new hires.

The statute, among the first in which a state tried to assume control of what previously had been strictly a federal function, is being challenged by the federal government, a coalition of 11 business groups, and several civil-rights organizations, all claiming it is an unconstitutional assault on federal prerogatives.

Since the challenge was launched, the law has been upheld as constitutional by a U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The state successfully convinced lower courts that the Legal Arizona Workers Act relies on an exemption in the 1986 federal Immigration Reform and Control Act allowing local and state governments to take civil action when it comes to licensing businesses.

Lower courts also have ruled there is nothing in federal law that prohibits a state from mandating that employers use E-Verify.

Although each side was confident of victory after Wednesday's arguments, each also said it was possible the high court could give them partial victory by upholding the sanctions provision but striking down the E-Verify requirement.

Both sides also agreed that whatever the court's decision, expected next year, it will provide guidance to local and state governments that have passed hundreds of anti-illegal-immigration laws during the past few years.

It may also offer an indicator about whether the justices might later uphold Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, which makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. A federal judge has blocked parts of that law from taking effect, and debate over its constitutionality is expected to reach the Supreme Court.

Early in Wednesday's hearing, Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted Carter Phillips, a Washington, D.C., lawyer representing the plaintiff groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to say Arizona and other states have had to take action against illegal immigration because Congress has failed to do so.

"What Arizona says has occurred here is that the scheme in place has not been enforced, and Arizona and other states are in serious trouble financially and for other reasons because of unrestrained immigration," Scalia said. "Expectations change when the federal government has simply not enforced the immigration restrictions."
. . .
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/12/09/201012...

********
********

4.
How would the DREAM Act help Connecticut?
By Betsy Yagla
New Haven Advocate, December 8, 2010

The DREAM Act has been a dream for years. It’s come up again and again on Capitol Hill and a version of it has been debated in Connecticut (where it passed in 2007 and was vetoed by Gov. Jodi Rell).

At the federal level, the DREAM Act — or the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act — has not passed either the House or the Senate, though it has been debated often.

Now, with a Democrat entering the governor’s office and only weeks remaining on a Democrat-controlled Congress, does the DREAM Act have a chance of passing?

What would the DREAM Act do?

There are two DREAM Acts: One in Connecticut and one in Washington, D.C.

The act in Connecticut is less expansive than the federal one. The federal one would give some young undocumented immigrants a good chance at becoming U.S. citizens after completing two years in college (with in-state tuition) or the military.

The federal bill would apply only to immigrants who were age 15 or younger when they came to the U.S., have been in the country for at least five consecutive years before the bill passes and have a U.S. high school diploma or its equivalent and have “good moral character,” which is widely interpreted to mean a clean arrest record. The bill would only help immigrants up to age 35.

The bill is designed to help immigrants who came to this country with their parents, since many undocumented children didn’t have a say in the decision to move here.

Because Connecticut can’t offer citizenship to anyone, Connecticut’s version of the DREAM Act is stripped down. Here, the bill would give in-state tuition rates at colleges and universities to all Connecticut residents who graduate from high schools in the state, regardless of their immigration status. Eleven states already do this.

Undocumented immigrants must currently pay out-of-state tuition, which is significantly higher and acts as a barrier to higher eduction.

In-state tuition at the University of Connecticut, for instance, is $8,000. Out-of-state tuition is more than $24,000. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for state or federal loans, which usually help defray those costs.
. . .
Would this impact the budget deficit?

The right-leaning Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates that roughly 1 million undocumented immigrants could enter universities and community colleges if the DREAM Act passes. That would cost the nation about $6.2 billion, CIS claims.

Since the DREAM Act would not provide funding to cover tuition costs, CIS estimates, “the act’s passage will require some combination of tuition increases, tax increases to expand enrollment or a reduction in spaces available for American citizens at these schools,” according to a recently released CIS memo on the subject.

Sen. Looney disagrees. He thinks it may even increase revenue in Connecticut.

“They will be paying tuition,” he says. “You can argue it will increase revenue because you’ll have more people going [to school] without [financial] aid.”
. . .
http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/featured-news/hot-topic-dream-act-037365

********
********

5.
Miami students at forefront of immigration debate
By Aryanne Schommer
United Press International, December 9, 2010

To check out a book from the library system in Miami-Dade County, someone must prove that he or she has a local address. Most often, that's done by showing a driver's license.

Felipe Matos, an undocumented college student, didn't expect to be asked for a government-issued ID.

“I remember feeling so embarrassed,” Matos said. “I had my application ready, my books ready, and at the front desk, the librarian asked for my driver’s license. I had to walk out of the library empty-handed.”

Matos, 24, has lived in the United States for 10 years. In 2005, he graduated from Michael Krop High School -- one of 65,000 undocumented students to graduate from high school nationwide each year, according to estimates by a UCLA Labor and Education study.

The U.S. House of Representatives this week approved legislation that would offer undocumented students the opportunity to earn legal residency. The Senate is next to consider the legislation.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act has requirements for undocumented students who want to qualify for residency. The student must have graduated from a U.S. high school, must show good moral character, must have arrived in the United States as a minor, and must have been in the country for at least five years before the bill’s passing. With those requirements met, the student would have to complete two years in the military or two years at a four-year institution of higher learning.

Matos would qualify for the DREAM Act. He said he thinks the bill’s passage would bring to closure the time he has spent in the country as an undocumented student.

“In high school I was petrified of not having a future and a feeling of shame,” Matos said. “I was scared of not only immigration but of a fruitless life in which the only options open to me were to cut grass or clean.”

He said he was accepted to Duke University but didn't qualify for loans or grants to meet the high tuition due to his immigration status. Instead, he enrolled in Miami-Dade College, where he earned an associate's degree.

“It was at Miami-Dade that I came out of the shadows,” Matos said. “I believe strongly in social justice and if it had only been happening to me, it would have been my problem -- but it was happening to thousands and I felt a calling to help.”

But Matos, who says he hopes to work in the social justice field, knew he needed more education. He heard from a friend that St. Thomas University has an open policy regarding undocumented students. The school doesn't offer special assistance to undocumented students but doesn't turn them away. Matos enrolled and is now a year away from completing his bachelor's degree.

Maria Garavito, 22, is also at student at St. Thomas University. She said she arrived in the United States when she was 3 years old but didn't find out that she was here illegally until, at age 15, she applied for a learner's permit at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

“It was a slap in the face to find out I was ‘illegal’," Garavito said.

To Garavito and others, the term "illegal" is inhumane.

“Since then it’s been a cycle of hope for change, but other barriers always seemed to appear," she said.

Garavito said she graduated from high school in 2006 with her hopes dashed for higher education. With no other prospects, she turned to Miami-Dade College and was swept up in the Students Working for Equal Rights movement. In the two years she was at Miami-Dade, Garavito said she worked with other members, including Matos, to bring forward awareness of her and fellow students’ status.

“A professor sat me down in high school and told me to not let my status make me another statistic, to not waste my potential,” Garavito said. “From then on, I strove to always be the best student, just in case, my dream would be accepted by this country.”

Since then, she's earned a bachelor's degree in psychology from St. Thomas, and is working on a master's degree in mental health. She said she dreams to someday work in a correctional facility.

Since 2001, political wrangling has been an integral part of the DREAM Act. Advocates and opponents have drawn a deep line in the political sand and have not been able to come to agreements over revisions.

“I feel like the government is playing political games with my life and the lives of those I love,” said Matos. “They have used their political power coldly, and it is me, my family and friends that are suffering.”

Opponents paint the bill as having major flaws that would need to be revised before passage in Congress. John Feere, a legal policy analyst at Center for Immigration Studies, said he believes the bill couldn't be passed in its current form.

“The bill is sniffing at amnesty,” Feere states. “There are major flaws that directly stop the bill from gathering support.”

Two flaws, Feere said, are the bill’s focus on not only young immigrants, but on adults as well, and that it doesn't provide any additional enforcement acts to stop illegal immigration.
. . .
http://www.upi.com/Features/Culture_Society/2010/12/09/Miami-students-at...