Does Rubio’s “DREAM Act” Really Put Obama in a Box?

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) at CPAC in 2012.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/6871297603/sizes/m/in/photostream/" target="_blank">Flickr/Gage Skidmore</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has been trying to create some political space for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has embraced a draconian “attrition through enforcement” approach to immigration, to move to the center on the issue. The Washington Post reports that Rubio’s alternative to the DREAM Act, which would provide legal status without citizenship to some undocumented immigrants brought to the US as minors, is getting a look from immigration reform activists:

In recent days, Rubio has quietly reached out to a number of immigrant advocates who are usually White House allies but have grown frustrated with some of the president’s policies. Some of the activists say they are open to Rubio’s effort — even though it would stop short of a provision in the Democratic-backed Dream Act to create a path to citizenship — because it would at least provide some relief to people at risk of being deported.

Rubio’s plan is getting attention from activists in part because they’re in dire straits—legalization without citizenship is better than getting deported to a strange country you’ve never really lived in because your of something your parents did. The temptation to embrace Rubio’s proposal must be pretty strong, particularly for those activists who have family and friends who would be eligible for legal status under the proposal.

The Post piece, however, is shorn of the relevant historical context of the DREAM Act. Although many media outlets have referred to Rubio’s proposal as “Republican DREAM Act,” the original DREAM Act was the Republican DREAM Act. It was first introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in 2001, who later opposed President George W. Bush’s attempt at comprehensive immigration reform. The proposal quickly became a bipartisan one. Like the individual mandate in health care reform, the DREAM Act represented a narrower alternative to a more ambitious approach to a policy problem—one Republicans were willing to embrace as long as there didn’t seem to be any chance of it happening. Like the mandate, once Obama embraced the DREAM Act, it became the latest manifestation of the dark socialist menace threatening America.

Rubio’s DREAM Act doesn’t actually resolve the primary objection of the GOP’s immigration restrictionist wing, which is that any legalization of undocumented immigrants will encourage more illegal immigration. That’s why immigration restrictionist Kris Kobach, (whom Romney looked to for an endorsement as far back as 2008 but whom he’s recently tried to distance himself from) doesn’t like the idea.  

The Rubio proposal hardly puts Obama in a “box,” as the Post suggests. All Obama has to do is endorse the Rubio option as a stopgap measure, say it’s the best that can be done for now, and tell Congress to get to work. At that point, the GOP will fling it into a black hole of obstruction, from which neither hope nor light can escape.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate