by Hector Villagra, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California
Historian Eric Foner has said that "[l]ike all great historical transformations, emancipation was a process, not a single event. It arose from many causes and was the work of many individuals."
We are now living through and are on the verge of a great historical transformation, as evidenced by the release of the so-called gang of eight's long-awaited immigration proposal. This transformation, some 20 years in the making, has definitely been a process. It has arisen from many causes and is the work of many individuals, but the role of the many individuals known collectively as the Dreamers cannot be gainsaid. Their name refers to the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which was first introduced in Congress in 2001, came up for a vote several times, but never become law. The DREAM Act would have allowed undocumented high-school graduates and GED recipients a pathway to U.S. citizenship through college or the armed services.
The bipartisan group of senators known as the gang of eight unveiled a comprehensive immigration overhaul that at its heart would create a potential roadmap to citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.
Under the proposal, immigrants who came to the U.S. before December 31, 2011 and who have remained in the country continuously could apply for provisional legal status within six months after the bill becomes law and would be allowed to work lawfully once they pay a penalty and back taxes and if they have not been convicted of a serious crime in the U.S. After 10 years they could apply for a "green card," or permanent resident status, and, after three more years, they could apply for citizenship. The operative word is "could." Whether they are in fact able to adjust will depend on a series of costly, misguided and harmful enforcement triggers focused mainly on the border, which the Department of Homeland Security has declared as more secure than ever.
This roadmap to citizenship lies at the heart of the proposal and gives it soul. Polls now show a strong majority of Americans support providing undocumented immigrants a roadmap to citizenship. In a recent poll, while a slight majority of conservatives oppose the roadmap, nearly three quarters support it when they hear that it would require paying fines and passing a background check.
by Hector Villagra, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California
The process is still far from over, with months of debate and scores of amendments ahead. Some of the debate and amendments will be necessary to correct the proposal's troubling aspects, like its undue emphasis on border security even as illegal immigration is at a 40-year low, its nationwide employment verification system that threatens to create a national ID requirement and undermine the privacy of every American worker, and its continued outsourcing of federal responsibilities to local law enforcement, which will only undermine public safety and lead to Arizona-style racial profiling.
Whatever the hurdles that remain to be cleared, there are many who worked to bring us to this historic point -- including immigrants, civil rights advocates and organizations, labor activists and organizations -- but the Dreamers deserve special recognition. The Dreamers have been at the forefront, advocating not just for themselves but for their families and communities.
Brought to the United States by their parents, the Dreamers have bravely stepped out of the shadows, risking their own safety and deportation. They have come together to share their stories about the fear of living in hiding and the pain of having dreams thwarted by their immigration status, and they have banded together to come out and proudly declare they are "undocumented and unafraid." They have advocated for legislation to allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates. They have lobbied for the DREAM and, when it failed to be enacted, they pressed the case for deferred action. They have since pushed for broader immigration reform.
But, more than this, the Dreamers have changed the public debate and accomplished a fundamental transformation by highlighting their humanity and insisting on their "Americanness." They have shown that the United States is the only home they have ever known, that they have deep roots here, and that they belong here. They have worked hard in school to make the most of the opportunities afforded them, and they have demonstrated a commitment to use their education and labor to contribute to the national well-being. As they have changed the terms of the narrative around immigration, it's hardly surprising to see that a majority in recent polls now sees immigration as strengthening the country.
The way Dreamers have gone about all this has been to use the tried and true strategies employed throughout American history. They have used the freedoms of free speech and assembly to protest what they deem unjust laws. They have petitioned and lobbied elected officials for redress of their grievances, showing tremendous faith in our political system.
Ultimately, they have reminded us what being an American and living the American Dream is all about. They did so by freeing themselves of the fear of being undocumented and then freeing us to consider anew what defines us as a people.
Huffington Post also published this blog post here.

Related:
Students, Parents, and Teachers Sue the State of California over Widespread Denial of Instruction to English Learner Students
A Mother's Concern

By Esha Bhandari, Equal Justice Works Fellow, ACLU & Carmen Iguina, Equal Justice Works Fellow, ACLU of Southern California
In a landmark ruling yesterday, Federal District Judge Dolly M. Gee ordered the federal government to provide legal representation for immigrant detainees in California, Arizona and Washington who have serious mental disabilities and are unable to represent themselves in immigration court. This is a historic decision — it is the first ever to recognize a right to appointed counsel in immigration proceedings for a group of immigrants. Unlike the criminal justice system, where judges are generally required to appoint counsel for defendants who cannot afford a lawyer, there are no safeguards in the immigration enforcement system to ensure the basic fairness of having legal representation for immigrants. As a result, over half of all individuals in immigration court — including 84% of detained individuals — must face the complex legal proceedings alone and unrepresented, while the government is always represented by a lawyer.
The court's ruling will begin to correct this unjust system by providing essential protections for an extraordinarily vulnerable group — immigrants with serious mental disabilities whom the government imprisons while their cases remain pending. As Judge Gee found, the appointment of a legal representative for such individuals "serves only to level the playing field by allowing them to meaningfully access the hearing process."
The government denied such a level playing field to José Antonio Franco-Gonzalez. José, now 33, has a cognitive disability; he did not learn to speak until he was six or seven years old, he does not know his own birthday or age, he has trouble recognizing numbers and counting, and he cannot tell time. He functions at the cognitive level of a child; by some measures, as young as two years old.
In April 2005, after serving a sentence in state criminal custody, José was transferred to immigration detention. A few months later, an immigration judge ordered the closure of his case, citing the finding by a government psychiatrist that José lacked even the most basic understanding of his immigration proceedings. Despite the fact that there were no open removal proceedings against him, José remained incarcerated for another four and a half years. Because he didn't have an attorney, José never stepped foot into a courtroom during that time. Finally, after an attorney learned of José's case and filed a habeas petition in federal court seeking his release, José was released from custody in March 2010.
Like José, hundreds of other immigrant detainees spend months, sometimes years, in detention without legal representation, even though they are not able to defend themselves or even understand the proceedings against them. About 34,000 individuals are put in immigration detention daily, and according to government estimates, 1,000 of those individuals have mental disabilities. Yet it took three years of hard-fought litigation to get to this historic ruling, because the government maintained that there was nothing wrong with an immigration system that left people like José to defend themselves against trained government attorneys in their removal proceedings, despite their serious mental disabilities.
Judge Gee's ruling also requires that all immigrant detainees in California, Arizona and Washington with serious mental disabilities who have been detained for more than six months must be provided with a bond hearing where the government must justify continued detention. Hundreds of immigrant detainees in these three states, many of whom are unnecessarily detained under so-called "mandatory" detention statutes, will finally have an opportunity to ask an immigration judge for their release.
This ruling is a huge step in ensuring that our immigration system is fair and humane. Recently, in response to the imminent issuance of today's court order, the government announced that it will change its policies nationwide to provide procedural safeguards to immigrant detainees with serious mental disabilities. While it is a shame that it took a federal lawsuit and protracted litigation before the government took any action to protect this vulnerable population, it is necessary that, going forward, the federal government commit to implementing systemic policy changes that protect individuals like José. As the country engages in a debate over comprehensive immigration reform, it is important to remember that principles of due process, fairness, and humanity must govern our immigration enforcement policies.