Facts Check
While immigration related policy can be controversial, The DREAM Act is a bipartisan measure with support on both sides of the political aisle. Politicians, activists, and communities recognize that The DREAM Act is a sorely needed solution to the issue of over 1.2 million undocumented immigrant youth, or DREAMers as they are known, raised within the United States. However, as with all issues, there are detractors that argue The DREAM Act will only exacerbate America's immigration woes. This section is designed to systematically refute each and every argument put forth by the opposition. It's worth noting that all of these arguments ignore the fundamental question of:
"What should we do about 1.2 million American raised undocumented immigrant youth that don't have ties or even memories of their home countries?"
ARGUMENT: The DREAM Act would cause undocumented students to take college seats away from "American" citizens.
REBUTTAL: Currently, this is the most popular argument against The DREAM Act, so its rebuttal is split up into four sections.First, except for top tier universities there is no such thing as "limited seating." Community colleges and universities accept as many qualified applicants as they can in order to increase tuition revenues and, if public, state allocation of funds. Second, The DREAM Act has a military provision that would allow students to apply for permanent residency if they completed two years of military service meaning not all undocumented students will be attending college.Third, many DREAMers have already graduated from college or university. This means that there are thousands of highly qualified, college educated individuals in a wide variety of fields that cannot put their degrees to use because of their legal status.Fourth, these students have grown up in American culture, taken the same standardized tests, met the same criteria and taken the same rigorous courses as "American Citizens." If they qualify for college or university it is because they have earned it. They are just as American and patriotic as citizens with papers and have a right to a higher education.
ARGUMENT: If passed, The DREAM Act would encourage more illegal immigration.
REBUTTAL: The DREAM Act only affects undocumented youth who have resided at least five years at the time of its passing. It does not apply to future arrivals. While some may argue that future immigrants may arrive in the hopes of the United States passing another "DREAM Act," their argumentation hinges on a hypothetical situation that, due to the current legislative climate, would be incredibly unlikely.
ARGUMENT: The DREAM Act would serve as a defacto "amnesty" for immigrant youth.
REBUTTAL: First, at its core, amnesty is forgiveness for wrongdoing. DREAMers have done nothing wrong in the sense they didn’t choose to come to America, they were brought here as children. Second, amnesty is usually applied to a broad group of people. The DREAM Act only applies to a limited number of children who meet all the legislation’s requirements.
ARGUMENT: Why don’t they just go back to their own country?
REBUTTAL: DREAMers are unique. First, DREAMers come from all over the world including Mexico, South America, Asia and some from Europe, but the US is their home. Second, DREAMers have grown up in the US and have little to no knowledge of their home country—some don’t even have or know of family members there. Sending DREAMers home is like sending a citizen child to another country where he or she knows no one and has nowhere to go.
ARGUMENT: Why don’t they just apply for citizenship?
REBUTTAL: As most DREAMers were brought without proper documentation, they have virtually no legal method of legalization. They cannot apply or take a test for citizenship. There is no existing legal process for undocumented youth to apply for citizenship. The DREAM Act will be that path of legalization for children to apply for legal residency.
ARGUMENT: Why can’t we send both the parents and children back?
REBUTTAL: While immigrant parents have some knowledge of their country, DREAMers have little to none. Sending DREAMers back would be turning away talented individuals we have already invested in through their education and socialization. Furthermore, many DREAMers live in mixed-status families, where either parents and/or siblings are legal but they are not, so while they can be deported, their families can’t.
ARGUMENT: Why reward lawbreakers?
REBUTTAL: DREAMers are not lawbreakers as they did not chose to come to this country. Furthermore, punishing talented young adults, many college educated, would deprive the United States of an incredibly skilled and sorely needed source of future engineers, lawyers, doctors and other professionals.
ARGUMENT: Why help undocumented immigrant students and not documented ones?
REBUTTAL: The DREAM Act does not provide more benefits to DREAMers than to documented immigrant students. The Act only puts them on the same plane and students will have to work just as hard as everyone else.
ARGUMENT: Wouldn’t taxpayers be paying for it they allowed DREAMers to be legalized?
REBUTTAL: No. In fact, taxpayers would be losing if they don’t. The DREAM Act requires that students either join the army or attend a post-secondary institution. A single person with a bachelor’s degree who earns an average of $60,000 of taxable income will contribute $9, 640 to taxes and welfare annually; in a 40-year lifespan he/she will have contributed $385, 000. The DREAM Act would be an economic stimulus for many communities and if DREAMers are not allowed to contribute taxpayers will lose the investment already made on these children.
ARGUMENT: Why should they get in-state tuition when U.S. citizens have to pay out-of-state when they only move to other states LEGALLY?
REBUTTAL: The DREAM Act is not about tuition or giving DREAMers more benefits than citizens. After the DREAM Act, States will still be able to charge out-of-state tuition for undocumented students. Once DREAMers meet the criteria of the DREAM Act, their residency would depend on state law. If they are legalized, they would also pay out-of-state tuition when they move to another state, just like any other citizen. In addition, citizen students’ moving to another state is a choice which was not given to DREAMers. In short, in today's legal environment, DREAMers may meet all the legal, tax, and social requirements of in-state residency but because of their status (and only their status) they are denied that classification.
