There have been several versions of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act since its first introduction in 2001. For the purposes of this discussion pertaining to whether the DREAM Act is a good idea or not this writer will take into consideration the most recent version, which was rejected by the senate in 2010 December. While the DREAM ACT appears, generally, to be a great idea, the provisions of 2010 legislation can be considered discriminatory in many ways. Considering the idea of providing people classified ‘illegal immigrants’ or undocumented who have entered this country illegally/ legally with their parents, a passage to legal status is the morally correct thing to do.
Precisely, these children attend school using tax payers’ money. It is does not make any sense to deprive them the opportunity of working and participating in the social structure because their parents brought them here either illegally or they have acquired this status due the unfair immigration system which exists in America. Therefore, the idea is very good, but the factors supporting this idea are rather inhumane being saturated with enormous prejudice and animosity. As such, this writer would advance that the legislated 2010 DREAM Act is not a good idea. This emanates from the perspective that while providing a passage to legal status, accessing the provision carries with it inaccessible boundaries that are not transparent (No Dreamer Left behind, 2011)
For a moment just examine how the legislation offers Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors according to revisions presented and passed in the house 2010. These students will still have to pay out of state tuition. What is the measure of development and relief in doing this? They are not eligible for financial aid neither government scholarships no matter how law abiding or brilliant they have been over the years. Again, there is no real provision of development and relief this legislation contrary to what is expected.
These provisions were left to state or Educational Institutions’ discretion. Besides, students have to be less than 30 years old to access these provisions. Resident status is not awarded until after 2 years of either serving in the military or completing a degree at an institution of higher learning.
Chain migration is limited since they are ineligible to file for family members before 12 years (Feder, 2010). Importantly, if they have been convicted of one felony and incurred three misdemeanors this excluded them from being eligible; if they appear to become a national liability the opportunity for legal status would be lost. Other serious violations of this privilege includes being convicted of voter fraud or unlawful voting; marriage fraud to obtain legal status; abused a student visa, poses to be a public health risk and engaging in gang activities involving persecution of others ( Lee,. 2006).
The foregoing paragraph stating situations which can prevent these minors form accessing this service sounds quite fair to legislators. However, it just reflects how uneven immigration laws in America are. For a few moment let us just compare Cuban immigration law with the current DREAM Act, which in itself is an immigration piece of legislation. United States Citizen and Immigration policy has afforded Cubans a wet-foot dry- foot concession. This legislation came into law in 1994 with none of the royal run around DREAM Act has been receiving since 2001.Lawyers have described this policy as the principle of inequality which is the foundation of American immigration system of legalizing immigrants (US Immigration Support, 2012).
Specificities of this policy allow any Cuban once his/her foot lands on American soil to be granted legal status without any background check for criminal offences. They are never deported and initially, given money; access to Medicaid benefits and educational accreditation exceptions, which many native and African Americans, legal immigrants do not qualify for. The argument for granting this favor according to a US Immigration Support release is that Cuba lacked economic support due to collapse of Russian economy in that era and Cubans are fleeing political persecution (US Immigration Support, 2012). Alternatively, Haitians and Mexicans are killed at sea and on the borders if found within these territories. What a shame! Don’t these countries encounter economic difficulties too? Where did this preferential treatment emanate? Yes! You may now be asking what this has to do with the DREAM Act.
For enlightenment did you know that all these minors who now live in United States illegally, were not smuggled in through Mexican borders neither appeared here without visas? 95% of them came with their parents who possessed visitors’ visas, which have expired. Some of their parents had work permits and students’ visas which US immigration refused to renew without prejudice (Facchini & Steinhardt, 2011). Sure enough, the reason for remaining ‘out-of status’ in the US is because the countries from which they migrated have extreme economic/political difficulties too, which would entitle them to the concessions granted Cubans. This is not the case!
Listen to DREAM Act critics in the caliber of the executive director of the Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America, Yen Ling-Ling who is herself an immigrant. She perpetuates the propaganda, which presumes passing the DREAM Act encourages illegal immigration (Ling-Ling, 2007). What is more encouraging to illegal immigration than someone escaping from Cuba through the seas and being granted citizenship in America just like that? Also, they argue that it is importing poverty, cheap labor, being used as a military tool, is an economic and social burden. Is wet-foot dry-foot policy an economic burden to America? Isn’t this importing poverty as well? Imagine politicians’ debate against the DREAM Act ague that it is unfair to American born and legal residents to have the legislation written in any other way or the Act passed at all.
Could you conceptualized what is more unfair to American born citizens and legal residents to have people arriving in the country without any medical nor background checks, becoming eligible for services from, which they are deprived and it happens overnight? Hence, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act is a fallacy. It offers no development, relief, educational opportunities for Alien minors. In the writer’s opinion it was designed from a foundation of animosity and prejudice displaying injustices, which exist within the immigration system of America. In concluding the animosity is so glaring, that senators used futile excuses to prevent its passage in December 2010. This could be considered a blessing in disguise because these minors deserve better being deprived their legal status in this country they call their home. Some have been here all their lives without legal documents while others’ feet just have to touch American soil and they receive citizenship. DREAM ACT is subtly punishment! DREAM Act is no good idea for Alien Minors!
Works cited
Facchini, G. & Steinhardt, M. F. "What drives U.S. Immigration policy? Evidence from Congressional roll call votes” Journal of Public Economics: 95:7 (2011) pp, 734-743. Print
Feder, J. Unauthorized alien students, higher education, and in-state tuition rates: a legal
Analysis. RS22500. Congressional Research Service. 2010. Print
Lee, Y. "To dream or not to dream: a cost-benefit analysis of the development, relief, and education for alien minors (DREAM) act". Cornell Journal of Law and Public
Policy, 16, 231 (2006). Print Ling-Ling Yen."The Dream for Some, a Nightmare for the Rest," Daily Californian, October 19, 2007.
No Dreamer Left Behind. North American Integration and Development Center University of California, Los Angeles. 2010. Print.
