Shortly after I wrote Liberation Politics And The Future Of Immigration Reform last summer, a few colleagues questioned my position.

I asserted the two-party system is no longer effective for addressing tough political issues like immigration reform.

I explained although differences between one party’s Tweedle Dee and the other party’s Tweedle Dum may be minor, the two-party indoctrination has conditioned voters to perceive the differences as distinct as night and day.

Certain immigration inquiries happen too often.

Immigrants, not being fully informed, put their trust in programs with risks they do not suspect.

Like the I-601 waiver process.

A few days ago, a woman in early 30s visited my office to find out if I could help her husband.

She explained that he traveled to his home country for a green card interview, but he was not allowed to return to the United States. Despite a notario’s assurances to the contrary, her husband’s request for an I-601 waiver had been denied.

When I asked what her husband told her, she said he could not prove enough hardship. She did not know what that really meant.

Neither did I.

Ring. Ring. Ring.

Over the past two weeks, my immigration law offices, probably like many others, has received tons of calls regarding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Most callers’ interests are very low. They only want to know if they qualify for deferred action . . . and, of course, employment authorization.

To me, that’s unacceptable.

I refuse to address DACA in such limited terms.

It’s an awful choice.

Facing deportation, many immigrants have only one defense against removal from the U.S.

Cancellation of removal.

With an emphasis on the hardship family members will suffer if the immigrant is deported, it requires immigrants with young children to make a painful decision at the outset of their cases.

Two options exist.

Take their children to a country foreign to them.

Leave them with relatives or friends in the U.S.

As a deportation defense lawyer, some days, you just don’t get any respect.

Especially from short-sighted allies.

A young woman, in her early 20s, walked into my office to talk about the DREAM Act. She had heard the news about Obama’s newest immigration proposal.

It reminded her about a meeting we had two years ago, when I told her about the DREAM Act as a possible solution for her immigration situation and to keep her eye out for it in the future, closer to the election.

Her optimism was blind.

When I told her that the current DREAM Act deferred prosecution proposal was not the real DREAM Act, she became upset. Not at the news, but at me.

I agree with Senator Rubio.

Immigration reform resembles political ping pong.

The game accelerated with the start of the Obama administration.

In March 2010, I wrote a post entitled “Immigration Reform Ping Pong,” which discussed how the hopes of immigrants were being tossed back and forth by Democrats and Republicans as they counted votes.

As an immigration lawyer in Riverside, it’s a question I hear almost every day.

“Do you think,” ask clients, “we’ll have immigration reform this year?”

It’s a tough question.

Immigration reform resembles a ping pong match.

The immigration prosecutorial discretion circus is coming to a city near you. But it’s unclear which performers are arriving and what acts will be carried out.

The proposed I-601 changes do not go far enough.

In early January, the administration announced plans to modify the unlawful presence waiver process.  The dreams of many immigrants soared.

I was cautiously optimistic, having been through several ups and downs with the Obama administration on immigration reform.

I am not ready to jump on the I-601 bandwagon.

I am not against streamlining the permanent residency application process.

I am not against promoting family unity.

I am not against revamping the unlawful presence bars.

Rather, I am opposed to the premature applause for the current I-601 proposal.