The DREAM Act is going to be coming up for a vote in the US Congress in the next little while, and the contours of that vote are beginning to come into shape.
The DREAM Act would give undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children a path to citizenship through college enrollment or military service. Polls show that it’s supported by a strong majority of Americans, and it’s expected to pass the House of Representatives easily.
It’s in the Senate, where a sixty-vote supermajority is required to invoke “cloture” and bring legislation to the floor for debate, where the real drama is expected.
Various media outfits and advocacy groups have released lists of the senators they believe to be in play, and though those lists are individually unreliable — Pro Publica’s list included a sponsor of the bill in their list of on-the-fence-senators — together they give a sense of the universe of possible wavering votes.
Thirty-five Democratic senators have signed on as sponsors of the DREAM Act, and another ten Democrats are understood to be reliable votes for its passage. On the other side, twenty-nine Republicans are known to be rock-solid in opposition. That leaves twenty-six senators who are at least theoretically up for grabs, and proponents of the bill need fifteen of those twenty-six to vote yes.
Here’s how those twenty-six votes break down, as of Friday, November 26:
Against:
- Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, was once seen as a possible “get” by DREAM Act but his spokesperson told the Daily Caller this week that he’ll be voting against cloture.
- Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, has told the National Review Online that he’ll also be voting no.
- George LeMieux, Republican of Florida, has announced that he’ll be voting against the bill, telling a reporter that he “cannot support consideration of the DREAM Act until we have taken substantial and effective measures to secure our borders.”
- Ben Nelson, Democrat of North Dakota, is also on record as a firm no.
Almost certainly against:
- Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana. Voted no in 2007. At that time he attacked the bill as “virtually the same” as “amnesty,” and he’s given no indication that he’s reconsidered his position.
- Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, has repeatedly attacked the DREAM Act as an “amnesty” bill.
- Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, who has supported the bill in the past, now calls its consideration a “cynical” act, while his staff has laid the groundwork for a “no” vote with the National Review Online. He’s up for re-election in 2012, and unlikely to stick his neck out now.
- Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas — who is the target of an ongoing hunger strike by DREAM Act advocates — said in a statement on Tuesday that she will not support the bill unless it is dramatically narrowed. Like Hatch, she’s up for re-election in 2012, and likely to stick with the conservative line for the next two years.
- John McCain, Republican of Arizona. Another past supporter of the bill who has distanced himself from it in recent months. One news story says that he has declared that he will not vote for it this year, though I haven’t been able to confirm that.
- Mark Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas. Voted no in 2007, said in September that he would “probably” oppose it again. Pryor was one of two Democrats who broke ranks in September and voted against bringing the defense bill to the floor with the DREAM Act and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal added to it as a rider.
Uphill climbs:
- Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota. Voted no in 2007, said in September he hadn’t made up his mind. Up for re-election in 2012.
- Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. Voted no in 2007, said in September he hadn’t made up his mind. Retiring from the Senate, which may make him less predictable.
- Kay Hagan, Democrat of North Carolina. Listed as a “likely no” vote at DREAMact.info, she has said that the bill “should” be taken up as part of comprehensive immigration reform, but hasn’t said definitively that she’ll vote against it.
- Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia. A conservative Democrat just elected in a conservative state. Almost certainly a tough vote to get, but not yet declared either way.
- Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine. Voted yes in 2007, but is worried about a possible primary challenge from the right when she runs for re-election in 2012.
- John Tester, Democrat of Montana. Voted no in 2007, hasn’t made a statement this time around.
Up for grabs:
- Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware. Elected this November, but took office early as he was running to fill Vice President Joe Biden’s seat for the remainder of his unexpired term. Hasn’t staked out a public position on the issue.
- Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. Voted no in 2007, but one blogger said she was told by Landrieu’s staff this month that she’s a supporter this time, and she voted for cloture on the defense bill in September. Landrieu isn’t up for re-election again until 2016.
- Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska. Is said by her staff to be “reviewing the bill.” This vote may well be a big one for Murkowski, who won re-election in November as a write-in candidate after losing in the Republican primary. If any Republican has a reason to want to poke the GOP in the eye right now, it’s Murkowski.
- George Voinovich, Republican of Ohio. Listed as a no vote on two bloggers’ scoresheets, though apparently hasn’t made a public statement. Is retiring from the Senate, and may be less concerned about maintaining party discipline as a result. Has been taking increasingly liberal stands on immigration issues in recent years. DREAMact.info lists him as undecided.
Ripe fruit:
- Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas. Voted yes in 2007, no position this time. Retiring from the Senate to serve as governor of Kansas.
- Susan Collins, Republican of Maine. Voted yes in 2007, hasn’t taken a position yet this year.
- Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. Voted no in 2007, but described herself as “very sympathetic” to the bill’s aims this September. Voted for cloture on the defense bill in September.
- Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia. Another vote for cloture in September, he’s listed at the DREAMact.info website as a solid “yes” vote on the bill.
Definitely for:
- Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana. He’s a sponsor of the bill, and a longtime proponent of it, so he really shouldn’t be on the list at all. But Pro Publica listed him among the senators whose votes are “considered uncertain,” so here he is.
- Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, has also announced that he’ll be voting for the bill.
So there you have it. To recap, there are twenty-six senators who are supposedly up for grabs, but six of them have already publicly declared their positions — four against, and two in favor. That leaves twenty actual undecideds, and the DREAMers need the support of thirteen of them in the cloture vote to win passage of the bill.
Of those twenty, four seem like solid pickup opportunities, and four more look like plausible gets. If all eight vote yes, that leaves five more votes needed out of the twelve remaining senators — but six of those twelve are almost certain “no” votes.
I’ll keep updating this list as the vote gets closer and more information emerges. If anyone has any additions or corrections, please let me know in comments.
studentactivism.net 
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 26, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Janet Liu
DREAM is going to fail according to the smartest pundits I have been reading… and the inside baseball Congressional blogs seem to agree.
The one good thing, though, is that young DREAM supporters are now embarking on hunger strikes.
This is good because most of the DREAMsters appear to be at least 10% above optimal bodyweight, and in many cases 20% above, or even 30%.
The hunger strike affords them an opportunity to get back to normal bodyweight in preparation for returning to their home countries.
Slim down, pack up, DREAMsters. No dignity in breaking into someone else’s country and then whining at them to let you stay. Even more embarrassing is trying to call them “Racist!”–that doesn’t work any more and just looks stupid. You come from very tribalist societies, and there is no sign you do not embrace that tribalism, even if at the moment you are pretending to be full of patriotic American fervor.
Slim down, pack up.
November 26, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Angus Johnston
Janet, I’d like to direct you to this site’s comment policy:
https://studentactivism.net/comments-policy/
It’s not very long, and I’d encourage you to read the whole thing. But if you don’t have time for that, here’s a synopsis:
Don’t be a jackass.
Right now you’re being a jackass. Stop being a jackass.
November 27, 2010 at 2:20 am
Sook
YAWN.
Weight jokes and specious accusations of “tribalism” are neither clever nor substantive.
After all, low body fat is an indicator of political rectitude – witness the paragons of virtue Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly. Furthermore, I’m sure the thousands of undocumented Irish in the Northeast are “tribalist” and dedicated to the erosion of our charming, exceptional American lifestyle.
(PROTIP: Lawmakers were calling “Orientals,” “Asiatics” and “Malays” “tribalistic” and a threat to American cultural integrity less than a century ago, Ms. Liu – I suspect Bulosan and Korematsu are turning over in their graves to see you side with the ghosts of McClatchy and Knowland.
I’d say “nice try, though,” but what with the cheap shots and historical blindness…I’d be lying.
@ Angus: Unfortunately, I suspect Janet has one thing right; DREAM’s chances are precarious. I suspect the motion will fail by one or two votes.
November 27, 2010 at 8:10 am
Janet Liu
@Angus I am indulging you by taking a minute to post on your rarely visited forum–let’s not get snooty here.
@Angus, of course it will fail by one or two votes–that’s the way it always works when one party is pretending to want to do something that its base wants but which would be very bad politics. The Senators divvy up among each other the privilege of voting Yes on things while knowing well that they will not collectively let Yes prevail. It’s theatre, and you are evidently an unknowing spectator.
@Sook, O’Reilly is hardly a fatty, although you’re obviously right about the other 2. (He is arrogant, though.)
@Sook, because I feel bad about Asian-American forebearers, I am supposed to want the whole third world to move to the US, and I am supposed to sneer at the need for immigration law? No thanks.
Of course we are just talking around the edge of this issue. To me, the substantive issue is: can anyone possibly explain how DREAM would not reduce the disincentives to further illegal immigration? If the last group that crashed the border, or ignored the expiration date of their visa, got rewarded by having little Kiddie get to stay (and possibly even more rewarded by having Kiddie get to help THEM to stay), how can that possibly fail to incentivize future people to laugh at the laws, too?
Or do you think it is immoral for the US to even have borders and laws? Do you think that all estimated 1-billion people who would like to pour into the US should be allowed to do so, turning the nation into one big squatter colony and destroying all semblance of social welfare programs here?
November 27, 2010 at 9:52 am
Angus Johnston
Thanks for moving back in the direction of actual substantive discussion, Janet. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
As for the DREAM Act’s prospects, I agree with your conclusion but not your premise. It does look like the bill is likely to fail, but the reason is the inverse of what you suggest.
The Democratic Party, as a party, wants the DREAM Act to pass. From the perspective of the national party it’s both good policy and good politics. But there are a few Democratic senators for whom that calculus doesn’t apply, and there is a huge political incentive within the Republican Party to see it fail.
Two Republicans have already announced their support for the bill. Five others are listed here as possible gets. Of those five, two are retiring, one is at war with her party, and the other two are red politicians representing a deep blue state. And experience shows that it’s those last two who are most likely to preen and wring their hands and then bring the bill down at the last moment.
November 27, 2010 at 11:07 am
Janet Liu
OK, that’s a first step toward substantive discussion. Now what about addressing the substantive points in my second posting?
November 27, 2010 at 11:56 am
Angus Johnston
I’m not really interested in a huge argument about underlying principles of immigration policy, Janet. This post wasn’t a defense of the DREAM Act, it was a discussion of the prospects for the bill in its upcoming vote.
I’m not an ideologue on this subject. I don’t see that much is gained by imagining a world of truly open (or completely closed) borders, because neither of those is going to happen in my lifetime. And no, I don’t think that providing a narrowly-tailored path to citizenship for people brought to the US as children is likely to have a huge effect on the volume of undocumented immigration.
November 27, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Bobbie
@Angus, there’s nothing “narrowly tailored” about this bill, which is why it’s going to fail.
November 27, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Banana Dissent
Have a look at Banana Dissent! Facebook
November 27, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Kyle
Not to be picky, but Ben Nelson is a Senator for Nebraska, not North Dakota.
November 27, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Janet Liu
Nice new piece by V. D. Hansen just came out. Hansen asks:
“If a guest ignores the law — and thereby often must keep breaking more laws — should citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome? Once it is deemed moral for the impoverished to cross a border without a passport, could not the same arguments of social justice be used for the poor of any status not to report earned income or even file a 1040 form?
Second, what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on impoverished U.S. citizens? Does anyone care? When 10 million to 15 million aliens are here illegally, where is the leverage for the American working poor to bargain with employers? If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state tuition discounts to illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much for out-of-state, financially needy American students — whose federal government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there fewer for U.S. citizens?”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/27/is_illegal_immigration_moral_108066.html
November 28, 2010 at 1:13 pm
P
“If a guest ignores the law — and thereby often must keep breaking more laws — should citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome?”
-DREAMers were brought to the US as children. They are not criminals, but Americans without papers. To create a chance through legislation for them to earn their legal residency is–obviously–not the same as abandoning the rule of law. Your slippery slope argument is specious.
“If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state tuition discounts to illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much for out-of-state, financially needy American students — whose federal government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there fewer for U.S. citizens?”
-In the US, as opposed to most western countries, immigrants are eligible for virtually no social programs. Education and emergency medical care are the only exceptions in most cases (refugees are often eligible for more assistance).
-In-state tuition is based on residency in a state because such residence implies the payment of taxes, which are then used by the state government to subsidize public institutions of higher education. Federal subsidies are almost completely subsidized through financial aid to students, and undocumented students are not eligible. This should tell you that in-state tuition eligibility should have nothing to do with federal subsidies, and that, in most cases, all residents (regardless of status) are paying state and local (sales, property (often through rent), sin, etc.) taxes. Many undocumented immigrants also pay federal taxes. If the DREAM Act passes, it will not grant in-state tuition to DREAMers, but clarifies a law that could be read as limiting a state’s ability to choose to grant in-state tuition. As far as federal aid, only loans (which must be paid back) and work-study (which is earned) will be available to DREAMers. It should have no impact on US citizen students in terms of loans, and minimal, if any, affect on work-study.
“Of course we are just talking around the edge of this issue. To me, the substantive issue is: can anyone possibly explain how DREAM would not reduce the disincentives to further illegal immigration? If the last group that crashed the border, or ignored the expiration date of their visa, got rewarded by having little Kiddie get to stay (and possibly even more rewarded by having Kiddie get to help THEM to stay), how can that possibly fail to incentivize future people to laugh at the laws, too?”
-The DREAM Act does not apply to those arriving in the future. It has been languishing in Congress for ten years, and even now may not be passed. Perhaps a few people will risk life and limb (if crossing the border) or years of legal uncertainty for the small chance that maybe another DREAM Act would be passed someday for their children so that, something like a decade later, their child may be able to get them legal residency. More likely, it will have–like almost all immigration law–little effect on the actual flow of people into this country (which, in the case of Mexico, has existed for about a century), which is predicated on economic and social ties that the US encourages through free trade agreements, etc.
November 28, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Janet Liu
P, you raise some interesting points.
1. Indeed, some of the points made by Hanson are more relevant to “comprehensive immigration reform” (a more neutral term would be “conditional amnesty”). So are you opposed to that?
2. I think you may be misinformed about the Dream Act not applying to future arrivers. At least, I read that it has no sunset provision. If you believe otherwise, please provide a link on that. If you’re wrong about this, your point about lack of perverse incentive effects clearly goes out the window. (Of course, conditional amnesty is chock full of perverse incentive effects–presumably this is a plus for the Latino grievance industry who stand to personally advance the more new illegals pour in.)
3. Hanson’s (hardly new) point about driving down wages does indeed seem relevant to the Dream Act. Just because these kids are enrolled in the military or get two years of college, that doesn’t mean they aren’t going to end up as laborers, fast-food workers, or in other jobs that are traditionally sought by the working poor. Just because the media parades forward some Cornell biochemistry major doesn’t mean that person is in any way representative of Dreamsters. Heck, humanities graduates of Ivy League colleges are lucky right at the moment to get any sort of white-collar job at all. Aren’t most of the Dreamster going to be community college students who have majored in fields like Chicano Studies? In-n-out Burger would be a great landing spot for someone with that kind of “academic” credentials. So Hanson’s point is pertinent–legalizing things makes life tougher for native-born American’s from lower SES background. Shouldn’t you give a hoot about that?
November 28, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Tony
@Janet. It does not need a sunset provision. Dreamers will only be eligible if they have been here for five years prior to the enactment of the law.
November 29, 2010 at 7:22 pm
win
@Tony,
The requirement for five years prior to enactment of the law does not mitigate the need for a sunset.
Historically is all that is required for “proof” of such requirements is an affidavit signed by the individual. Since there is no proof required in actuality a sunset is needed or even newly arrived, up the age of 35 can take advantage of the Dream Act simply by saying I was here for five or more years before the Dream Act.
While some may want us to assume that would never happen, amnesty programs such as this one have historically been filled with fraud according to both government and private organization reports. Further, considering that if one is in the US illegally at age 35 then one has broken the law at some point to work, or such.
November 29, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Tony
@Win Your point is valid, although I don’t think the sunset date or a lack thereof is what is going to make or break this bill.
November 30, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Derek Washington
@JANETLIU uh, I’m going to step out on a limb and guess that you are maybe 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation as far as your family coming to this country> I find your “I got mine, screw you!”, attitude boorish.
One of things that gets me is that Asians have been very quiet on this issue. I’m sure there are millions of undocumented Asians here and the Asian community seems to be just peachy as long as the focus is on “Mexicans.” I wonder how complacent they will be when the racists get rid of the “Mexicans” and come after them?
December 1, 2010 at 12:31 am
Sook
@Janet: It seems the conversation has gone beyond the discussion you and I were having. That said, you bring up good points I feel it’s pertinent to answer.
1. “…I am supposed to want the whole third world to move to the US, and I am supposed to sneer at the need for immigration law? No thanks.”
Certainly not; hence the separation of the DREAM Act from comprehensive immigration reform. This is a moderate, one-time deal for young people tangled in the current immigration system. By overhauling the system in the conversations over CIR, we can ensure that the “Third World” won’t come into the US and strain the (laugably patchwork) social system we have set up.
I brought up the Asian point because much (not all) of the opposition to the DREAM Act is rooted in xenophobia rather than principle. When misinformation and hysteria about foreigners is in the air, it always ends up coming down on Asians, whether home-grown or imported.
I was, consequently, a little unsettled to see you present the same arguments that nativist politicians used to oppose Asian immigration – there are plenty of substantive ways to oppose immigration to the US (as you’ve displayed in your other posts) but tossing around talk about “tribalism” is, to put it lightly, cheap and lazy.
2. “Or do you think it is immoral for the US to even have borders and laws? Do you think that all estimated 1-billion people who would like to pour into the US should be allowed to do so, turning the nation into one big squatter colony and destroying all semblance of social welfare programs here?”
I’m not making any points about the morality of laws or borders, though I think that you have a false dilemma implicit in that question. There is no way in hell that a billion people can come into the US so quickly. And the government has the responsibility (as all governments do) to maintain order and safety. Nobody’s arguing that.
Furthermore, illegal immigrants (or immigrants in general) aren’t turning the US into a squatter colony; rather, our prioritization of corporate welfare and military aggression are doing so. As President Eisenhower aptly put it, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
Consequently, there’s money for increased immigration if this country’s willing to spend it, and the nightmare scenario you described is completely avoidable.