FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The ACHIEVE Act Sham

by AMALIA PALLARES AND TANYA GOLASH-BOZA

One of the supposed lessons of Obama’s electoral victory was that Republicans could no longer afford to advocate an enforcement-only position on immigration reform. So it says something that the party’s first nod in that direction was extraordinarily weak.

At the tail end of 2012 and of their careers, retiring Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) introduced the ACHIEVE Act, which would provide legal status to a narrow group of undocumented youth. But this proposal does nothing to appeal to Latinos because it provides no real path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Although Hutchison calls this proposal her version of the DREAM Act, it is not. The core purpose of the DREAM Act, first proposed in 2001, is to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented youth, who are Americans in all ways but one – legal citizenship rights.

The ACHIEVE Act had no chance of passing in the lame duck session, yet Hutchison and Kyl hope their successors, Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), will take it on when the new Senate convenes. They want this bill – not DREAM – to be the basis for negotiations, with “no citizenship” as their bottom line.

This isn’t going to work. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 86 percent of Latinos in the United States believe that migrants to this country – even unauthorized ones – deserve a chance to become citizens. This belief is shared by 72 percent of all Americans. It is the core of true immigration reform: the rest is just bells and whistles.

A path to citizenship is the politically astute route: it is also the only route that is not morally bankrupt. The ACHIEVE act would create a permanent underclass of denizens by refusing citizenship rights to a large sector of society – nearly all of whom are youth of color. Less than 4% of undocumented immigrants come from Europe. This move hearkens of laws passed in 1790 that restricted naturalization to free white people. For much of our history as a nation, citizenship was restricted by race: it was not until 1952 that all racial and national origin restrictions were eliminated. In today’s political climate, it would be impossible to pass laws that overtly restricted Latinos and Asians from citizenship rights. ACHIEVE nevertheless would accomplish this.

In addition to being unjust, ACHIEVE is based on erroneous assumptions about the law. Hutchison’s refusal to grant a path to citizenship is based on her mistaken belief that undocumented people should not be permitted to cut in the line of people who have applied legally. This stance assumes that those visa applicants who have yet to arrive in the country and the undocumented who have been here most of their lives are in the same line. They are not.  The long wait for those applying for visas for family reunification – over two decades for many Mexicans and Filipinos – is due to unrealistic quotas for immigration visas. If Hutchison is concerned about those waiting in line, she could have submitted a bill to increase the number of family-based visas.  But she did not.

Hutchison has refused to support previous versions of the DREAM Act because, although she has claimed empathy for undocumented youth and a desire to integrate them, she consistently has stated she will not support a path to citizenship. Even when sixteen youth were arrested for civil disobedience in her San Antonio office, and despite extensive lobbying by youth in a state where 86% of Latinos favor the DREAM Act, she voted against it 2010. By making ACHIEVE her last bill introduced in the Senate, Hutchison wants to ensure that integration with no path to citizenship becomes her lasting legacy.

Jon Kyl has contended that a path to citizenship is not necessary because those immigrants who qualify for ACHIEVE can attain citizenship through marriage. This position is misguided. It sets up a kind of marriage derby where love becomes a negligible factor. Kyl’s “anybody” also excludes all homosexual couples whose marriage is still not recognized by the federal government. And it excludes most heterosexual married couples where one is a citizen and one is undocumented because undocumented immigrants who have accumulated more than 365 days of illegal presence — which they need to qualify for ACHIEVE — have to return to their country of citizenship for ten years to qualify for legal residency based on marriage.

Given the current laws, this path of “citizenship through marriage” is a sham.

These Senators apparently want their legacy to be the creation of a permanent underclass: people who can remain here, but who are denied citizenship, access to health care, educational loans, and the right to vote.

The time has come for us to stop piddling around with half-measures and phony gestures. None need to heed this call more than Republicans, who stand to lose even more credibility if they continue to appease xenophobic elements in their party, who are already appalled by something as weak as ACHIEVE. The Republicans are in for a dime; they may as well throw in the dollar and join the American consensus on the issue at last.

Immigration reform must include a path towards citizenship for undocumented immigrants – young and old. ACHIEVE, in its failure to do this, is as unhealthy for Republicans as it is for immigrants.

Amalia Pallares is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Latin American Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the author of Marcha! Latino Chicago and the Immigrant Rights Movement (Illinois 2010).

Tanya Golash-Boza is an Associate Professor Sociology at the University of California, Merced, and the author of Immigration Nation: Raids, Detentions, and Deportations in Post-9/11 America (Paradigm 2012).

June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail