A Final Spit in the Face from Bush

It's only fitting that in the closing moments of the most lawless administration in our nation's history, President Bush chose as his final act, to grant clemency to two rogue Border Patrol agents who shot an unarmed man in the back, then attempted to cover up their crime. From its inception, this administration has always been based on the assumption that those in positions of authority are beyond the constraints law and that cover-ups, secrecy, and lies are acceptable means to an end.

In a move aimed to appease the anti-immigrant base of his party, Bush commuted the sentences of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were convicted of shooting suspected marijuana smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, in the back as he fled back across the Mexican border. The agents then attempted to cover-up their actions by filing false reports and hiding evidence.

Their case became a proxy for the greater debate over immigration and border security and a cause celebre for every far-right blowhard from Rush Limbaugh to Lou Dobbs who used it to rally the anti-immigrant right.

Appeals for leniency were generally based on the premise that "these brave men were only doing their job to protect our borders." And that their punishment far outweighed their crimes. Dobbs often called the case "an outright travesty of American justice."

But what was lacking in much of the hyperbolic rhetoric and grandstanding surrounding this case was any regard for the truth.

In their zeal to paint Ramos and Compean as heroes, and use them as pawns in the bigger immigration battle, many of their supporters neglected to explain exactly what the two agents did to eventually be convicted of a crime.

There is a reason a jury found these two men guilty, and it has nothing to do with the politics of immigration reform or the fight against "our broken borders." It has to do with two rogue cops who overstepped the boundaries, then tried to cover up their crime.

It's a story no different than that of Rodney King, Amadou Diallo, or more recently Sean Bell where law enforcement officers have used undue and unnecessary force resulting in injury or death. The fact that these particular officers patrolled the border rather than the Bronx or Compton doesn't make their actions any less odious, and it certainly doesn't make them heroes.

When the story first broke, it was presented to the American public as the story of two innocent men persecuted by a government run amuck. The agents claimed that while pursuing a suspected drug smuggler a "scuffle" ensued and the "suspect ... made a motion as if to fire a gun". The agents then fired in self defense in the line of duty. The story as presented by Ramos and Compean and their supporters then became the definitive narrative accepted as fact by the vast majority of the American people

But a statement about the case from the US Attorney for the Western District of Texas, Johnny Sutton, presented a VERY different picture.

According to evidence presented by the Justice Department, Ramos and Compean were far from the innocent victims of an out of control government set on prosecuting innocent law enforcement agents for simply doing their job.

In response to misstatements and misinformation being reported in the media regarding the prosecution of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, relating to a shooting that occurred while they were on duty as U.S. Border Patrol agents on February 17, 2005, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas releases this advisory summarizing the evidence presented at defendants’ trial.

As will be demonstrated by the summary below, the defendants were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender by holding his open hands in the air, at which time Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of Compean’s shotgun, causing the man to run in fear of what the agents would do to him next. Although both agents saw that the man was not armed, the agents fired at least 15 rounds at him while he was running away from them, hitting him once.

On February 17, 2005, Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were on duty along the U.S./Mexico border, working out of the Fabens Border Patrol Station. At approximately one o’clock in the afternoon, Agent Compean observed a van near the border about two and a half miles west of Fabens. According to the testimony, the driver of the van, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, failed to yield to Agent Ramos’ attempt to stop him, jumped out of his vehicle and attempted to run back to Mexico. After Ramos told Aldrete-Davila to stop, Ramos drew his service revolver and pointed it at Aldrete-Davila. Aldrete-Davila jumped into a steep ditch filled with dirty water and when he tried to climb the steep incline out of the ditch, he was confronted by defendant Compean, waiting for him with a shotgun pointed directly at him.

During his testimony, Compean acknowledged that at that time Aldrete-Davila held his hands up, as if to surrender, with his palms open, and no weapon was in either hand, or evident on his person. Another agent, who had arrived by this time and observed the scene, heard someone yell “hit him.” Aldrete-Davila, who was at one time a legal resident alien of the United States and speaks some English, also heard someone yell “hit him, hit him,” and specifically heard Compean yell: “Parate, parate, Mexicano de mierda.” (“Stop, stop you Mexican shit.”) According to testimony, Compean swung his shotgun around in an attempt to hit Aldrete-Davila with the butt of his weapon, but lost his footing and fell face down into the dirt and brush. Aldrete-Davila began to run to the river and did not look back. Agent Ramos also testified that when he saw Aldrete-Davila in the ditch, he had an opportunity to look at Aldrete-Davila’s hands, which he is trained to do for self defense and defense of another, and did not see any weapons in either of Aldrete-Davila’s hands. When Aldrete-Davila almost reached the river, but while he was still out in the open vega area, he heard numerous gun shots. Compean fired at Aldrete-Davila at least fourteen times and Ramos fired at Aldrete-Davila once.
…snip…

At the time of the shooting, neither agent Compean nor agent Ramos knew that the van driven by Aldrete-Davila contained 743 pounds of marijuana. The evidence was un-controverted that, at the time the victim was shot, neither agent knew whether the driver was illegally in the United States or whether a crime had been committed. The only information they had was that the driver had failed to pull over to be identified.

DOJ, Western District Texas

Then the crime was followed by attempts by the agents to cover it up.

At the scene, Ramos told a supervisor that as the suspect fled from the vehicle, agent Compean was on the levee attempting to apprehend him. Defendant Ramos said that as the suspect tried to flee Compean either tried to grab the suspect, or did a “side to side” movement, but fell to the ground and got dirt in his eyes. Ramos did not mention the shooting, and said nothing about the suspect having a weapon. At the scene, when asked why he was so excited, Ramos told another agent that it was just the adrenalin that had him all pumped up.

An agent who encountered defendant Compean sometime later, away from the scene of the incident, testified that Compean told him, “That little bitch took me to the ground and threw dirt in my face.” Compean did not indicate that he felt threatened, that his life was in danger, or that the driver had a weapon at any time. Compean did show the agent nine shell casings that he had collected at the scene and indicated he was “probably missing five more casings.” Compean told the agent he had “fired some rounds...did a magazine exchange and fired some more rounds,” and asked the agent to look for the additional casings. The agent proceeded to the scene of the shooting, located the additional five casings, threw them into the drainage ditch and called defendant Compean, using his cellular telephone, to tell him he had found five rounds and threw them away.The removal of the shell casings from the scene made it impossible to do a complete investigation of the shooting.

Testimony elicited at trial clearly established that, until an investigation initiated at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General began on March 4, 2005, no written report had been filed, no oral report had been made, and no person in any official capacity was cognizant of the fact that a shooting had occurred or a firearm had been discharged by any Border Patrol Agent in the direction of an individual fleeing into Mexico after having failed to stop for immigration status identification on February 17, 2005. The only report of any law enforcement activity on file for the Fabens Border Patrol Station on that date was an Immigration and Naturalization form I-44, Report of Apprehension or Seizure, authored by both defendants and signed by Jose Alonso Compean.

DOJ, Western District Texas

Obviously the US Attorney painted a very different picture of the "hero" Border Patrol agents. It's a picture of bad cops abusing their power.

Had they not found Aldrete-Davila's marijuana after the fact, this would have been a clear-cut case of excessive force that even Lou Dobbs could not spin otherwise. Yet the right-wing has used the fact that Aldrete-Davila later turned out to be a criminal as a way to try to justify the agents action.

But it must be remembered that at the time, Alderte-Davis's only crime as far as the agents were concerned was that he tried to run away back over the border.

The facts clearly showed that neither agent had any reason to believe that Aldrete-Davila was any more than your garden variety economic migrant crossing the border to find work.

It is that fact that the jury chose to take into consideration when they convicted the two agents.

Based on all of the evidence admitted at the two week trial, including the lengthy testimony of both of the defendants, the jury of twelve citizens heard all of the testimony, judged the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and unanimously found both defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of eleven of the twelve counts alleged in the indictment, including assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with serious bodily injury, discharge of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence and willfully violating Aldrete-Davila’s Constitutional, Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure, as well as obstructing justice by intentionally defacing the crime scene, lying about the incident, and failing to report the truth.

DOJ, Western District Texas

At the end of the day, this case and the publicity it garnered was never really a referendum on border security or immigration; it was just another case of the right-wing allowing their political goals to trump the law and respect for Constitutional rights.

Now with his clemency for Ramos and Compean, Bush has once again demonstrated his disregard for the law.

Just as he's been willing to defend the treatment of those in Guantanamo or illegal wire-taps for political reasons, or allow the incarceration of American citizens in detention centers because of the immigration status of their parents, his choosing as his final act to commute the sentences of these two Border Patrol demonstrates that even as he is shutting the lights and closing the door he remains just as contemptuous of the true rule of law as he's ever been.

Digg This Story

Read More...

Summary only...

2009 Call Out To All Pro-Migrant Bloggers

It's a time of great change.

After eight miserable years of The Decider, and Republican reign in Washington, a breath of fresh air is on it's way.

For the first time in years, those who fight for human-rights, civil-rights, and the oppressed can finally see some light at the end of the tunnel.

The struggle will not be easy. But years in the political and social wilderness have only strengthened and hardened us for the battle ahead.

In the last few years our numbers have grown exponentially and we have organized on a scale not seen in decades.

But things have moved quickly and many new allies and friends have sprung up in the last year.

So, if you have, or know of a pro-migrant blog or website, write about migrant and/or immigration issues, human rights, or other issues of concern to the broader immigrant community - leave a link in the comments, or e-mail me and give me some info on your site so I can add you to the blogroll

I'd eventually like to have as complete a listing as possible of the pro-migrant blogsphere.

Thanks
Duke

Read More...

Summary only...

Maybe FOX should show this video on the new Sheriff Joe Arpaio Show

Sheriff Joe Arpaio loves his new reality show, "Smile ... You're Under Arrest!" He claims it's "a great merge of entertainment along with law enforcement." … a humorous cross between "Punked" and "Cops."

Perhaps Fox would like to show this really hysterical clip from a recent episode of the real-life Sheriff Joe show.

VIDEO LINK

What could be more entertaining than watching two small children cry as their mother is taken away forever because she has a broken headlight and an un-paid traffic ticket?

What could be funnier than watching them clutch the stuffed animals that sheriff's trade for their mother in an attempt to quite them down?

What could be more humorous than the fear and horror on their faces as they plead to be returned to her?

Come on FOX, this is the real "reality" of Joe Arpaio. This is what goes on day after day for those who are forced to live in Joe's reality.

Show this video to the American public. Let them see the true face of "America's toughest sheriff"

Come on, don't you think they'd be rolling in the aisles over the funny antics of this modern day Bull Connor.

Get the facts of Sheriff Joe

Learn about the costs of Sheriff Joe's antics

Sign a petition demanding a Justice Department investigation into Joe's tactics

DIGG THIS STORY

hat tip to The Indigenous Xicano

Read More...

Summary only...

Mark Krikorian attempts to put lipstick on a pig.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the right-wing Center for Immigration Studies, has taken to the pages of the National Review to outline what he claims is a new GOP approach to immigration.

Pointing out that for too long Republicans have argued about immigration in terms of "lawbreaking" and illegality, Krikorian suggests instead that a new framing is needed … a framing he views as a more welcoming and in line with public opinion.

Taking a page from the same playbook that brought us the great Bush oxymoron: "Compassionate Conservatism "... Krikorian does The Decider one better and frames out a new right-wing paradox for mass consumption: "Anti-immigration but Pro-immigrant"

With Republicans shut out of power, now is the time to take a new look at their approach to immigration, to develop a new and distinctive alternative to the majority party. In other areas, such as health care or the environment, such a reassessment might conceivably yield different policies than in the past. But on immigration, what is needed is not so much a reversal in specifics but a different framework within which to fit the specifics.

For too long the Republican story line has been “Too Much Lawbreaking,” when instead the real problem is “Too Much Immigration” — only one part of which involves lawbreaking. This exclusive focus on illegal immigration — opposing amnesty and pushing for more enforcement — is both incomplete and counterproductive. Incomplete because the effects of illegal immigration aren’t that different from those of legal immigration — an illiterate Central American farmer with a green card is just as unsuited for a 21st-century economy as an illiterate Central American farmer without a green card. And it’s counterproductive because the focus on criminality can seem punitive and serve to polarize the debate, potentially aliening not just immigrant voters, who really aren’t that numerous, but the native-born, who want less immigration but don’t want to feel bad about themselves for holding such a view.

A new approach would retain the widely popular, and morally compelling, support for more consistent application of immigration laws and opposition to legalization — but make them part of a broader push for a more moderate level of future immigration overall. If the debate focuses solely on legality, ultimately there’s no real argument against amnesty and open borders. You just legalize the whole thing and the issue goes away — no illegals, no problem. In the appropriately larger context, amnesty is bad not only because it rewards lawbreaking (which it does), but also for the same reason that the Visa lottery is bad: it leads to excessive immigration.

A new GOP approach to immigration would also recognize that there are two components to the debate — immigration policy and immigrant policy, the first governing who and how many we take, the second how we treat people once they’re here.

Krikorian, realizing that the blatantly hateful and racist rhetoric of the anti-immigrant movement has turned off so many to his message, and cost Republicans dearly, he now tries to re-frame his message with kinder and gentler rhetoric that sounds more reasonable and rational for public consumption ... that is if you don't actually THINK about what he's saying of more than a nanosecond.

But if you actually get past the touchy-feely buzz words about wanting to be more "welcoming", you realize that it's just a clever re-packaging of the same old message.

One must remember the Krikorian has been a chief architect and vocal proponent of the "deportation through attrition" policy of the far-right that looks to force the 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the US to "self deport" by making their lives so miserable in this country they will simply pack their bags and go. The policy has led to increased raids, local legislation restricting housing and employment opportunities, attempts to revoke the 14th amendment, and a myriad of other punitive measures.

The bottom-line is he's still arguing for less immigration, less legal-immigration, fewer green cards, less family reunification, tighter borders, expulsion of the undocumented, etc. ...but he masks it in a "welcoming" message.

The final option is the one most Americans (of whatever party) intuitively support — a pro-immigrant policy of low immigration, one that seeks a smaller number of future admissions but extends a warmer welcome to those admitted.

Ironically, such reductions in immigration could actually drain away some of the venom from the immigration debate by allowing a more relaxed approach to those immigrants we do let in. For instance, something called “cancellation of removal” can be used by a judge to allow a legal immigrant to stay despite a deportation order, because of hardship to his family. Because of mass immigration, causing the system to be a sieve, Congress raised the bar in 1996, from “extreme hardship” to “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” A lower level of immigration, allowing us to reestablish control, would permit Congress to trim back a couple of adjectives, because the problem wouldn’t be as acute. The same could apply to other areas, such as welfare eligibility, where tough standards are required in the face of massive numbers, but more flexibility is possible when the tide ebbs

Basically he's saying:

"We'll be much nicer to you, as long as there are far fewer of you coming.....BTW it would be really nice if you weren't an unskilled farmer from Central or South Americans also.

We'd really prefer a very limited number of skilled, highly-educated, preferably English-speaking immigrants if you don't mind....and then we wouldn't be quite so belligerent.

Oh, and we'd even be willing to cut those kind of immigrants a little slack as far as stuff like welfare goes as long as that other kind of immigrant stops coming here"

Like the saying goes: You can put lipstick on a pig … but it's still a pig. And for all the talk of welcoming new immigrants and "draining away the venom of the immigration debate", Mr. Krikorian is merely painting over his very nasty streak of xenophobia and nativism with a pound of cheap dime store lipstick.


Digg This Story

Read More...

Summary only...

Hold DHS Accountable!

With only days left until the end of the Bush administration, two new rules have been hastily enacted that strike at the heart of the civil liberties of immigrants and asylum seekers. One denies immigrants legal representation in deportation cases, the other mandates DNA tests for all detained immigrants and US citizens who have been accused of a crime, but not convicted.

The American Immigration Law Foundation had this to say about Attorney General Michael Mukasey's last minute decision to deny legal council in deportation cases:

On January 7, 2009, in the waning hours of a departing Administration, Attorney General Michael Mukasey unraveled decades of legal precedent guaranteeing due process to people facing life-changing consequences-namely, deportation. With less than two weeks left in office, this Administration apparently could not resist the temptation to take one more stab at undermining fundamental Constitutional principles.

In a decision issued Wednesday… the Attorney General declared that henceforth, immigrants, asylum seekers, and all others in removal (deportation) proceedings do not have any right under statute or the Constitution to representation by a lawyer before they can be ordered deported. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and most federal courts have for decades operated under the premise that immigrants DO have such rights. The Attorney General has reversed many years of precedent and operation by simply declaring it so….. his declaration will wipe out the rights of all but a handful of people with one stroke of his pen.

AILF (PDF)

Another Justice Department rule, which took effect Friday, directs federal agencies to collect DNA samples from foreigners who are detained by U.S. authorities.

...the U.S. government will collect DNA samples from people arrested and detained for suspected immigration violations, despite concerns that the move violates their privacy rights.

The new Justice Department policy also will expand DNA collection to people arrested on suspicion of committing federal crimes. Previously, the government only obtained DNA from people convicted of certain crimes.

LA Times

The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced "grave concerns" about this expansion of governmental DNA collection to include immigrant detainees and those who have not been convicted of any crime.

Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's technology and liberty program said, "People who are merely accused of a crime or a civil violation of law but haven't been convicted of anything are being subjected to the most invasive sort of testing."

These decisions reflect the total disregard for basic Constitutional rights we have come to expect from this administration.

From the warrant-less arrests and detention of not only immigrants, but US citizens, by the DHS, to the kangaroo courts of Postville that denied basic Constitutional protections, our current immigration enforcement system has become so far divorced from the rule of law, it now resembles more the system of a rogue failed-state than the worlds leading liberal democracy.

But we can start to do something about it ... we can demand a return to the true rule of law... One that respects the Constitution and the rights it guarantees.

Rights Working Group, a national coalition of more than 250 community-based groups and policy organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties and human rights is urging President Obama to place a moratorium on current immigration enforcement practices in order to conduct a full review of DHS policies and programs to ensure that they are compliant with both Constitutional protections and internationally recognized human right standards.

Dear President-Elect Obama,

I am signing this petition to ask your Administration to address the violations of human rights and civil liberties resulting from ill-conceived immigration enforcement policies pursued by the Bush Administration. I believe our government should be committed to upholding due process and civil liberties for all people in the U.S., especially when enforcing the law. Therefore, I urge you to hold the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accountable to protecting the human rights of citizens and non-citizens alike.

Currently, DHS' immigration enforcement policies use extreme measures to lock up undocumented workers, legal permanent residents and, at times, even U.S. citizens. Raids of homes and businesses, often without a warrant, have not only steamrolled over Constitutional protections, but also torn apart communities and families. Conditions in immigration detention facilities are overcrowded and dangerous and have deteriorated to the point where people are dying in custody from treatable ailments, and people with chronic conditions are not getting the basic medical care they require. While DHS has taken commendable measures to process numerous naturalization applications delayed by security background checks, over 30,000 such applicants are still waiting to be granted citizenship. Efficient and transparent mechanisms are needed to ensure that, in the future, all eligible immigrants can attain citizenship in a timely manner.

DHS policies which prioritize the appearance of enforcement over this nation's founding principles of liberty and justice for all do not serve the national interest. I am asking your administration to set clear, enforceable legal standards for DHS operations - standards that uphold the dignity and Constitutional rights of all people in the U.S. - and hold DHS accountable to these standards. I join the Rights Working Group in urging you to place a moratorium on current immigration enforcement practices in order to conduct a full review of DHS policies and programs to ensure that they are compliant with Constitutional protections and internationally recognized human right standards.

You can join the fight to restore the rule of law and respect for the Constitution by signing RWG's petition to end the raids and make the DHS and Justice Department respect and uphold the rights all people living in the US.

Sign Petition

Read More...

Summary only...

Support a DREAM at Change.org

Each year approximately 2.8 million students graduate from US High Schools. Some will go on to college, join the military, or take other paths in life, hopefully all becoming productive members of society.

But for approximately 65,000 of them, these opportunities will never be available. Not because they lack motivation, or achievement, but because of the undocumented status passed on to them by their parents.

Lacking legal status and social security numbers, these students, raised and schooled in the US, cannot apply to college, get jobs other than those at the bottom of the economic ladder, or otherwise follow their dreams.

They grew up on American soil, worked hard and succeeded in spite of all odds, and want nothing more than to be recognized as individuals and not just the holders of a status they had no part in acquiring.

In Washington, politicians have debated the fate of these kids for more than seven years, holding lives and futures in their hands while vying for political advantage.

For these kids, and thousands more who have already managed through sheer force of will to complete their higher education, but now face a life of uncertainty and alienation, the DREAM Act is the only answer

Even for those living in states that do allow them to complete their higher education, working low paying jobs just to make ends meet and pay their own college costs, many of these students, once completing their educations, face an uncertain future where advanced degrees are all but worthless without the legal documentation to join the workforce as productive members

Without proper documentation and social security numbers they are unable to move from the "underground economy" of their parents' world into the mainstream workforce that their educations give them the ability to participate in.

.
One would think that legislation that would allow thousands of high school graduates yearly the opportunity to pursue higher education could garner pretty widespread support in Washington.

And if these graduates came from a segment of society which the right-wing continually claims under-performs academically, and eventually becomes a burden on society, one would think winger politicians would be falling over themselves to support legislation that would enable these ethnic scholars to become more productive members of society ... even if to only supply more to the tax base.

OK .. just kidding .

We all know that wingers see immigrant kids yearning for an education and say:

"No way, your American dream ends right here, we don't care that you were raised and schooled in this country, we don't care that despite all odds, you've succeeded, we don't care that you're just as 'American' as the next kid."

...all they see are "illegal aliens"


For these students, opportunities that most children take for granted will never be available. They cannot live up to their potential, because they lack the legal documentation to do so. Children that grew up on American soil, respected the laws of this country, and want nothing more than to be recognized for what they are; Americans .... despite the "sins of there fathers."


But it doesn't have to be this way

A simple little bill can change the situation.

At seven pages long it's got a few simple provisions that would allow thousands of kids who've worked hard and played by the rules to qualify for the exact same rights afforded every student in the nation. ... the right to continue their educations and make a better life for themselves and there families.

Wingers call the legislation "just one more shamnsty" bill, because it allows those who have lived here most of there lives, and know no other home, a conditional reprieve from arrest and deportation. It allows them a chance to temporarily shrug off the yoke of their parents "misdeeds" and provides them an opportunity to prove themselves "worthy" of their adopted home.

The DREAM Act would provide nothing more than a path to legality for persons brought illegally to the United States by their parents as children, or whose parents attempted to immigrate legally but were then denied legality.

To qualify, the immigrant student would have to meet certain requirements:

• Proof of having arrived in the United States before reaching 16 years of age;



• Proof of residence in the United States for a least five (5) consecutive years since their date of arrival.



• Having graduated from an American High School, or obtained a GED.



• "Good moral character," essentially defined as the absence of a significant criminal record (or any drug charges whatsoever).

After meeting the above requirements students would be eligible to apply for a temporary six year "conditional" residence permit which would allow them to live legally in the United States. They could obtain driver's licenses, attend college as in-state residents where applicable, work legally (including obtaining a social security number), and apply for special travel documents which would allow for travel outside of the country for limited amounts of time.

During the six years of conditional status, the eligible immigrant would be required to either:

1. graduate from a two-year community college,


2. Complete at least two years towards a 4-year degree, or


3. serve two years in the U.S. military.

After the six year period, an immigrant who meets at least one of these three conditions would be eligible to apply for legal permanent resident (green card) status. During their temporary time, immigrants would not be eligible for federal higher education grants such as Pell grants, though they would be able to apply for student loans and work study.

If the immigrant does not meet the educational or military service requirement within the six year time period, their temporary residence would be revoked and he or she would be subject to deportation.

During the six years, the immigrant must not commit any crimes other than those considered non-drug related misdemeanors, regardless of whether or not they have already been approved for permanent status at the end of their six years.

Being convicted of a major crime or drug-related infraction would automatically remove the six year temporary residence status and he or she would be subject to deportation.

If the immigrant meets all of the conditions at the end of the 6-year conditional period, he or she would be granted a permanent green card with the same rights as a permanent resident alien, including the right to apply for U.S. citizenship.

It's a simple enough bill. No hundreds of pages of legal-speak and loopholes like most immigration related legislation.

The qualifications are simple and cut and dry, The "benefits" and obligations easily understood. You can read a copy here (PDF) to see for yourself.

But there's not much to debate here.

For progressives this choice should be clear. One either sees these children raised and schooled in America as future Americans ...or sees them as nothing more than the products of their parents "misdeeds" who must be punished the rest of their lives as such.

Please show your support for the 2.5 million DREAMERS whose only hope of ever breaking out cycle of undocumented status is the passage of the DREAM Act.

Go to CHANGE.ORG and vote to make the DREAM Act a priority in the upcoming legislative session.

Read More...

Summary only...