DREAMers Caught Up In Efforts To Keep The Government Open

Susan Foster - Your information is incorrect about legal pathways for legal immigration status; and Mr. Brown is actually correct. What the real issue is, is the determination as to which path to legalization is beneficial to the country and to those individuals. One other thing in this mess: Why penalize a wholly innocent individual attempting legally to immigrate by placing these individuals in front of them? Why should these individuals (so-called DREAMers) be given a 3, 5, or even 10 advantage on or in front of someone else whose parent/s or other relatives did not break the law?
One other thing in regard to this - there is a cascade effect, and I have actually experienced it. What happened in my families case; my wife and I wanted to bring a niece (8yo at the time) to the US for education and residence, originally it was going to take two (2) years from start of process to actual immigration, however due to amnesty programs (for illegal aliens) and other preferential actions it was then going to be 10 years before she could legally immigrate. Well there went the Junior High/Middle School and High School prep for college out the window with the attendant increase in cost that neither her immediate family nor me and my wife could afford. She did go on to college, but not in the US primarily due to cost and other factors.

https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/eligibility-categories

SSG Robert Webster - Perhaps some of the DACA registrants we are talking about fit into a category above. Many do not. For those that do, I have no sympathy and they should taken care of it already if they are over 18. For those that did not have an opportunity because they didn't fit the categories, it takes something as simple as legislation to fix it. It doesn't have to be in front of anyone else, it could be in addition to them. They are already working or going to school here anyway, and it would be very expensive to send them to another country, both in lost economic value and cost of deportation. The President even recognized this. I would even say don't let anyone else register, and terminate the program. What would be your objection to that?

Susan Foster - Then you need to read the oped as published in The Hill;
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/daca-is-neither-bipartisan-nor-in-americas-interest/ar-AAuRqfL?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=ansmsnnews11
"Now onto the proposal. The "Gang of Six" proposal's amnesty provisions go far beyond DACA recipients in scope. The senators included the full DREAM Act, which would end up giving amnesty to nearly 3.5 million illegal aliens - many more than ever benefited under the DACA program. What about the parents who brought them here illegally? They get three-year renewable work permits as a reward for putting their children on a treacherous journey and crossing the border illegally. And that's not all, the proposal adjusts the visa lottery as a way to provide amnesty for some 400,000 people who were granted Temporary Protected Status (some as long as 20 years ago), many of whom were here illegally at the time of the triggering event in their homelands."
You should note that I wrote about this in another comment. I should also state that I have had a personal interest in this type of stuff since 1982 and 1983, when I started to prepare to get married to my wife and bring her to the US. And I have watched how things have changed and not necessarily for the better. And legislation usually does not fix the problems, it usually exacerbates them.

SSG Robert Webster - Obviously you do have a personal interest and it's a hot button with you. Thank you for the op-ed. It directly contradicts several other articles, one last night from AZ Central newspaper which says "....would provide $18 billion in border-security enhancements over the next decade, including an immediate $1.6 billion down payment on Trump's border wall. In exchange, dreamers would be granted permanent legal status. The compromise would put them on a 12-year path to citizenship..." So I would say some journalists have it wrong, although I don't know which. It's hard for me to believe Graham would have gone along with what the op-ed says he did, however. The article goes on to say it is for the ones here who were brought as children, but perhaps they are wrong. If you will note above, I did not say anything about parents or including the entire DREAM Act, nor would I ever support that. But for the 800,000 currently under temporary protection, I would. The AZ article also said the money for border security wasn't nearly what DHS wants. I still think they should be come up with a proposal that, while not perfect, is a compromise both sides can live with. It seems like winning is the only solution either side wants.

What sickens me is the "govies" that I work with are praying for a gov't shutdown. Why? Because they know it will be a free and paid vacation. Let that sink in. The gov't workers want the gov't to shutdown. They could careless if the military will be shorthanded or if gov't contractors lose several days/weeks worth of pay.

I hope this is sarcastic remarks only.

It's not a guarantee the federal government workers will be paid eventually. Yes, they always have, but they could at least make them take their leave. At least it wouldn't be free. And yes, I totally believe you and it sickens me too.