But after explaining this, Krikorian then makes a serious concession:
"A DREAM Act 2.0 that addressed these problems - that prosecuted fraud, implemented enforcement, prevented downstream legal immigration, and focused much more narrowly on those who came very young - would possibly be something that even I, were I a congressman, might be able to vote for."
[DREAM On, Mark Krikorian, National Review, December 1, 2010]
Of course Harry Reid will never introduce a bill such as this, so Krikorian's concession no doubt seemed politically expedient. It makes him look more moderate, while still opposing the DREAM Act and any other amnesty.
However, this type of concession is extremely unproductive in the long run. Thus far there are at least four versions of the DREAM Act circulating the Senate, with talk of even more. Each one of them pretends to deal with some of the tangential objections raised about the DREAM Act—such as lowering the maximum age from 35 to 30 for those covered.
Of course, none of these versions come close to passing Krikorian's "DREAM Act 2.0" test. But they will give cover to the politicians who vote for it.
Needless to say, it's important to point out that the DREAM Act is rife with potentials for fraud, doesn't just apply to kids etc. But sacrificing the principle that no amnesty is acceptable simply opens the door up to these dressed up versions of the DREAM Act.
Instead, immigration patriots must stay on the offensive. As I said previously, I am truly sympathetic to illegal aliens who were brought here as children and established roots. But, just as with anchor babies (an issue that Krikorian also shies away from), we cannot sacrifice the interests of American citizens just because illegals' parents put them in an unfortunate position.