The Dream Act: congressional debate over amnesty and citizenship for undocumented students

¶ … United States Government should grant conditional amnesty -- and offer a path to citizenship -- to undocumented students living in the U.S. that have finished high school and qualify under "The Dream Act" legislation. This paper presents solid arguments as to why the U.S. Congress should the pass legislation known as "The Dream Act" -- technically called "The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act" -- and reasons why The Dream Act did pass the House of Representatives but did not pass muster with the U.S. Senate in 2010.

Why is There an Immigration Crisis? Brief Background

It is widely known that the United States is facing a serious crisis with reference to the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants that are living and working in the U.S.; the crisis includes an unknown number of undocumented immigrants that are coming across the U.S. / Mexican border every day. The flood of immigrants -- and the social, economic and political problems those immigrants have created -- real or imagined -- has resulted in some hard-line anti-immigration legislation in several states, including Arizona and Florida.

In Arizona, for example, Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a tough piece of legislation (SB 1070) in 2010 that: a) allows law enforcement officials to question a person's immigration status "if there is a reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally" (Associated Press); b) would make it "a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job" (AP); c) allows police to "arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant"; and d) makes it a criminal offense for an undocumented immigrant to be in Arizona without proper immigration paperwork (AP).

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked portions of that law and the United States Justice Department has sued the state of Arizona asserting that a state cannot pass legislation with reference to immigration because immigration issues come under federal jurisdiction. Governor Brewer has responded to the federal appeals court "stay" on SB 1070 with this comment: "I remain steadfast in my belief that Arizona and other states have a sovereign right and obligation to protect their citizens and enforce immigration law in accordance with federal statute" (AP).

Moreover, the Republican Party has taken an extremely hard-line stance on immigration, far more drastic than independents and Democrats have taken. For example, in 2010 "…all seven Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee… asked [the Homeland Security Department] how much money it needed to depart every illegal immigrant the government encountered" (Bennett, 2011, p. 1). One estimate by the Center for American Progress showed it would cost American taxpayers "$206 billion over five years to deport the estimated 11 million people living in the country illegally" (Bennett, p. 1). In 2006, Republicans in the House of Representatives rallied around a bill written by Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) that would have made being in the U.S. without proper papers a felony. It would have imposed "criminal penalties for those aiding illegal immigrants [hiring or providing shelter]" and further would call for construction of a 700-mile-long fence along the U.S. -- Mexico border…" (Media Matters, 2006, p. 1).

These sources point up the frustration of some American lawmakers when it comes to the need for immigration reform. In short, there is a need to act, and notwithstanding the urgent need to act, the U.S. should proceed with civility and dignity when it comes to immigration reform. The most promising and humane proposal that would allow some undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. And pursue their futures legally is the Dream Act.

The Dream Act -- what is it?

Meanwhile, the Immigration Policy Center explains that The Dream Act would help approximately 1.9 million young undocumented immigrants that are part of the American culture, have grown up in the U.S., and have graduated from high school. It would allow them to have "a pathway to U.S. citizenship through college or the armed services" (Immigration Policy Center / IPC, 2010, p. 1). The Dream Act offers hope and a future in America for "undocumented children belonging to the 1.5 generation," Professor Roberto Gonzalez of the University of Washington explains in the IPC fact sheet. Many of the 65,000 undocumented students that graduate from high school each year want to attend college, join the military, get a good job "or otherwise pursue their dreams," Gonzalez explains. But they cannot do those things because they are undocumented.

Many of these students have "high aspirations, yet live on the margins" according to Gonzalez. In addition then cannot get a driver's license, they cannot vote or work, in many cases. This is a highly frustrating situation for young people who have lived their whole lives (or most of their lives) in the United States, they are fluent in English, they understand American laws and cultural values in most cases and they want a future in the United States.

In June, 2010, an undocumented student (who had enrolled at Harvard University in spite of her lack of citizenship) was put on detention by immigration officials. Harvard University President Drew Faust was quoted saying the Dream Act could serve as a "lifeline to these students who are already working hard in our middle and high schools and living in our communities by granting them the temporary legal status that would allow them to pursue postsecondary education" (IPC, p. 2).

What would the Dream Act do for undocumented immigrant youth?

The Dream Act was introduced by U.S. Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), and Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) in 1009, the IPC reports. In the Senate it is S. 729, and in the House it is H.R. 1751. It would do several important things for young Latinos living in the U.S. without citizenship status. Initially, it would make a young undocumented immigrant eligible to achieve a "lawful permanent resident" (LPR) status, providing he or she has been in the country for at least five years and providing that individual was "younger than 16 when they first entered the country" (IPC, p. 2).

The LPR status would be granted (on a conditional basis) to the young person for up to six years, "during which time the student would be allowed to work, go to school, or join the military," the IPC explains. Also, after six years, the "conditional" status would be taken away provided the person would have "either completed two years in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree or has served in the armed services for at least two years, and if discharged, has received an honorable discharge" (IPC, p. 2). For those politicians that don't want to see taxpayer money used to help the youths that have achieved LPR status, the legislation includes a provision that Dream Act students would not eligible for federal education grants, the IPC notes.

Who would be benefiting from the Dream Act?

The IPC estimates that (as mentioned earlier) about 1.9 million undocumented children and young adults would be eligible to benefit from the Dream Act. These young people have dreams of becoming doctors, nurses, teachers and entrepreneurs, the IPC continues. The Dream Act would give them the opportunity to fully explore their potential; in fact there are today 78,000 potential beneficiaries "with at least an associate's degree" who would be eligible for conditional LPR status (some community colleges allow undocumented immigrants to attend), according to the IPC. Also today the IPC estimates there are 541,000 "potential beneficiaries" who would be "immediately eligible for conditional LPR status" since they have already achieved a high school diploma (or a GED). Those 541,000 young people with high school behind them would likely "…have the incentive to complete two years of college or two years of military service to be eligible for permanent status" (IPC).

Meantime there are 934,000 children under the age of 18 who would be eligible for "conditional LPR status in the future, which would provide them with incentives to finish high school and pursue a post-secondary education or join the military," the IPC continues. And there are approximately 421,000 potential beneficiaries who could be eligible for conditional LPR status in the future "if they obtain a GED" (IPC).

California currently has the most Dream-Act-eligible immigrants (26% of the national total live in California); Texas is next with 12% of the national total, followed by Florida (9%), New York (7%), Arizona (5%), Illinois (4%), New Jersey (4%), Georgia (3%), North Carolina (2%), and Colorado (2%).

Why do some politicians stubbornly refuse to support the Dream Act? (Opinions)

According to the Immigration Policy Center, there are members of Congress who oppose the Dream Act because they would like to see it not as stand-alone legislation, but rather as part of a "broader immigration reform" package. Some say that passing the Dream Act would "hamper the possibility of larger reform," but that seems a stretch, because there are many other aspects of immigration reform that need to be given consideration (border protection, worker permits in certain situations, possible amnesty for some immigrants, public facility usage like schools, healthcare services, and more) and can be addressed in a major piece of legislation.

The IPC also reports that "many Republicans have come under fire for supporting any form of immigration 'amnesty'" and conservatives see the Dream Act as "amnesty," albeit the Dream Act is not amnesty at all. If a politician from a "red" state (a state that tends to vote for Republicans / conservatives / the Tea Party) is being criticized in the press and at town hall meetings for supporting what appears to be a "liberal" idea, he or she will switch allegiance and vote against that measure. Right wing politicians will run like a deer from any suggestion that he or she is giving in to progressive causes. For many conservatives, the position that is most politically correct is generally to "get tough" on immigration, to "crack down" on those illegal immigrants who cross into the United States.

Senators that once supported the Dream Act -- like Senator John McCain of Arizona -- are changing their position on the Dream Act as their constituents take a hard line on immigration. McCain changed his position on the Dream Act when he was running against Barack Obama for president; McCain was playing up to the right wing of his party, and trying to get Tea Party votes, so he came out against the Dream Act.

What McCain has done is not leadership, this is giving in to the worst instincts of the electorate. If a United States Senator in any state sees that the Dream Act is going to be helpful to hundreds of thousands of young people who want a chance to participate in this society, why would that senator not show the leadership that his or her position suggests and explain to his or her constituency why this legislation is a good idea? Instead of bending backward to seem like he or she is going along with the hard liners by being tough on illegal immigration, it seems that a senator that originally believed in the Dream Act would stand up for his or her beliefs and do what is right and just.

One of the big political problems in America right now is the sharp polarization between conservatives and progressives, or between Republicans and Democrats. And the far right wing Tea Party is putting pressure on moderate Republicans to move farther to the right and support a hard line on immigration. This is part of what has derailed the Dream Act at this time. Rather than vote with their conscience, many politicians tend to vote with the tide of opinions that they think might get them re-elected. On the Web site "Latino Decisions" writer Matt Barreto explains that "among the 45 U.S. Senators who did not support moving ahead with the Dream Act," 6 were Democrats and 39 were Republicans. If the Democrats had stuck together and if only 3 Republicans had voted in favor of the Dream Act, Barreto writes, it would have passed in 2010, the president has said he would sign it immediately, and hundreds of thousands of high school students that currently are undocumented immigrants would be eligible to join the military, attend college, and get on the fast track to citizenship.

The interesting dynamic that Barreto alludes to on page 2 of his article is that "both senators from Texas and both senators from Arizona" voted against the Dream Act. In Texas some 36.9% of voters are Latino, so why did Senator Kay Hutchison decide to vote against 40% of her own constituency? In Arizona, Senator Kyle voted against the Dream Act when in fact over 30% of his constituency is Latino -- what are these senators thinking? It is obvious they fear the backlash of their more conservative constituency if they seem to be supporting a "liberal" cause like the Dream Act. Again, instead of educating their electorates as to the economic and social benefits of the Dream Act, these politicians stubbornly duck for cover by taking the easy road and going with the conservative tide.

An article in the Tucson Citizen points out that Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate from Nevada, retained his senate seat in a very close 2010 election thanks to the support of the vast majority of Latino votes. Reid's opponent, Sharron Angle, "depicted Latinos in a negative light," and thought she wouldn't need the Latino vote; but Angle, a Tea Party favorite, was defeated. Reid has supported the Dream Act from the very beginning.

President Obama says his administration "…Will not give up…"

"Obama's version of immigration changes not only include tighter security at the nation's borders, but a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here…"

David Jackson, 2011, USA Today

President Obama has been a firm supporter of the Dream Act for years. On the White House Blog (posted by Kori Schulman) the president asserted that the vote in the U.S. Senate against the Dream Act was "…an incredibly disappointing" vote. A small minority of Senators "prevented the Senate from doing what most Americans understand is best for the country," the president explained. "My administration will not give up on the Dream Act," he said (Schulman, 2010). On another White House Blog (posted by Stephanie Valencia) the writer posts the names of 10 Latino youths who would benefit from the Dream Act. Among the ten is Gaby Pacheco, who was the "highest ranked Junior ROTC student in her high school and president of her college student government (remember, some states allow undocumented immigrants to enroll in college); she wants to serve in the Air force and "eventually live out her dream of working with special needs children" (Valencia, 2010).

Conclusion

Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of Homeland Security and she writes in another White House Blog that the young people who today are undocumented immigrants will undergo a "rigorous background check" before being eligible for "lawful permanent resident" (LPR) status. Hence the scare tactics used by conservatives (that the Dream Act will be "amnesty" for law breakers) is bogus. In fact, it is the position of this writer that the Dream Act should be supported no matter what political party a politician belongs to. It is good for the economy, it helps solve part of the immigration problem, and gives worthy young Latinos a chance to become part of the American Dream.