Dream Act -- Immigration Controversy the \"Dream

Dream Act -- Immigration Controversy

The "Dream Act" is legislation that was originally introduced to the U.S. Congress in 2001 and in 2009 it was re-introduced after being co-authored by Republican U.S. Senator Orin Hatch of Utah and Democrat U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. The "Dream" Act in Dream Act is an acronym for "The Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act." The Act is designed to allow young Latinos -- who are technically illegal immigrants -- to avoid deportation and become American citizens through a specific legal process. These young people were brought into the U.S. By their undocumented immigrant parents as children, but because they have never achieved citizenship, they fear the worst -- deportation. Hence, the Dream Act would allow Latinos who at present are illegal -- and who were under the age of 15 when their parents brought them into the United States and are under the age of 30 now -- to remain legally in the U.S. For up to six years if certain requirements are realized.

That is, those applying for and being accepted into the program -- there are about 65,000 individuals eligible -- will be granted a six-year "conditional status," and in that time they must serve two years in the U.S. military or attend a college or university for two years. After that, assuming these individuals have not committed crimes, they would be eligible for U.S. citizenship. Unfortunately for many of these 65,000 young people the Republicans in the U.S. Senate created a filibuster that defeated the Dream Act in 2010; ironically a majority of U.S. Senators who voted for it but the Republican filibuster required 60 votes to break it, and the 60 votes were not there.

First Political Perspective: Republican U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions refused to call the Dream Act what it really is and instead uses the term "amnesty" in order to amplify his opposition. In an article published in December 17, 2010, Sessions listed "10 Reasons to Oppose DREAM Act." Some of Sessions assertions include: a) The Act will be "funded on the backs of hard-working, law-abiding Americans" and will take jobs away from American citizens due to "…the addition of workers to the workforce"; b) the Act "provides safe harbor for any alien, including criminals"; c) "certain criminal aliens -- including drunk drivers -- will be eligible for amnesty" under the Act; d) the Act doesn't require any immigrant to finish college or complete military service; e) "…in reality, we have no idea how many illegal aliens will apply" and there may be 1.3 million "illegal aliens" eligible; and f) Dream Act aliens will have all the rights that legal aliens currently have.

In his introduction to the ten reasons he opposes the Act, Sessions argues that the bill "…incentivizes and rewards more illegality… [and] its passage will only encourage more people to unlawfully enter our country expecting a DREAM act of their own" (Sessions, 2010).

Response to Sessions: Clearly Sessions is wrong on several of his assertions. Either he is a bigot against the Latino culture, or simply opposed to everything President Obama puts forward, or both. He voted against immigration reform in 2006 and 2007 -- even after Republican president George W. Bush supported reform. He is wrong when he asserts: the Act will give safe harbor to criminals; American taxpayers will fund the costs; Dream Act participants will have the same rights as legal immigrants; and he's wrong that the Act will take jobs away from Americans. He's a bitter right wing Senator who is clearly out of touch with diversity in the U.S.

Second Political Perspective: President Obama believes the Dream Act is "common sense legislation" that gives students who "grew up in the United States a chance to contribute to our country's well-being by serving in the U.S. armed forces or pursing a higher education" (White House). The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office study shows the Dream Act will "…cut the [federal] deficit by $1.4 billion and increase government revenues by $2.3 billion over the next 10 years" (White House). Obama says it is a "myth" to say the Act is "amnesty." The young people who become participants are required to attend college or join the military and pass criminal background checks prior to becoming citizens. It is also a "myth" to say the Act will encourage more students to immigrate illegally because the Act only applies "…to young people already in the United States who were brought here as children" (White House). It's also a "myth" that taxpayers will be subsidizing student loans because Dream Act participants since those individuals accepted into the Act are not eligible for any federal grants or loans.

Response to Obama: The president is absolutely right to push this legislation. In fact because the Republicans blocked the Dream Act in the Senate, Obama authored a new policy that allows eligible Latino young people (approximately 1.7 million) who present no risk to public safety "…to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization" (White House). Obama's position is a strong, fair, and a progressive one.