On June 28 the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary held hearings on the latest version of the  DREAM Act. As you recall, last year the DREAM Act was defeated. The latest proposal is Senate Bill 952 sponsored by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois.  (The 2010 Senate version of the DREAM Act was S. 3992 and the corresponding 2010 House bill was H.R. 6497.)

The text of S. 952 and statements from those who participated in the recent hearings are available on our Downloads page at myUSAi.org. This includes testimony of sponsor Senator Dick Durban (D-IL); Stephen Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS); Janet Napolitano, Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security;  Arne Duncan, Secretary United States Department of Education;  Clifford Stanley, Under-Secretary of Defense; Margaret Stock Lieutenant Colonel (ret) USMC; and “Dreamer,” Ola Kaso. 

Every participant was in favor of the act except Stephen Camarota. Let’s look at each of his major objections.  

IT WILL COST TOO MUCH. According to Camarota, it will be too expensive for state governments to cope with the expected influx of in-state tuition alien students into a public school system where they are only required to complete two years of college; these new illegal immigrant students will take the place of U.S. citizen students; and they will take away affirmative action programs that should be targeted for U.S. citizens only.

RESPONSE.  If an illegal alien child has exceptional scores on standardized tests, it would be a travesty to deny assistance to that person based solely on his or her parent’s immigration status. Illegal immigrant children are, from a humanitarian perspective, just like natives. This measure is designed to assimilate those for whom it is unwise, unfair, and impossible to deport anyway. And the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated the bill would actually cut 1.4 billion dollars from federal deficit over the next 10 years. For more on the perspective of educators, read Arne Duncan’s prepared statement.

IMPACT ON NEW MEXICO. Forward-thinking states like New Mexico already give in-state tuition to alien children. And California and New York just passed or are introducing similar legislation.

Nationally, approximately one million may qualify for citizenship under this version of the act. If this total were divided equally between the 50 states it would equate to about 20,000 Dreamers per state.  If one-half went into the military and the other 10K went into higher education, it would require each of New Mexico’s roughly 12 institutions of higher learning to absorb about 80 students per year over the next 10 years. Although this not an imposing burden, states with a higher percentage of the undocumented will obviously have more students. And many of these will attend college anyway.

IT IS “AMNESTY”.  According to Camarota it will encourage more illegal immigration since it is actually an amnesty, and will reward their illegal immigrant parents.

RESPONSE. This is the classic restrictionist myth. The short answer is: “No it will not encourage more illegal immigration.”  Why? Two reasons. First, illegal immigration has already dropped, mainly for economic reasons.  Second, our borders are far more secure than before. So any alleged new influx of illegal immigrants will be met with tighter security, just as Conservatives have demanded. Deportations are way up too, so arguably, the right has already gotten just what they wanted in the enforcement arena.

IT IS SUBJECT TO FRAUD. According to Camarota the system is too easily subject to fraud since it does not adequately discourage false applications. Furthermore, this entire process will overwhelm USCIS with more work and let off those currently in criminal deportation proceedings.

RESPONSE. There should indeed be a clearly acceptable list of documents used to determine eligibility and the act should and will be self-funding via fees.

THE EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENT IS INADEQUATE. According to Camarota two years of college do not provide sufficient skills to get a job.

RESPONSE.  Camarota has a point here too. Two years of post-secondary school education may not enough to make a significant dent in earnings potential over that of high school graduates. So why not raise the bar and require at least a two-year (Associates) Degree as the minimum? Even conservative pundit George Will supports the idea that a non-citizen with an advanced science or technology degree from a U.S. college should have “a green card stapled to it”.

IT ENCOURAGES LAWLESSNESS. According to Camarota it legalizes serious law offenders.

RESPONSE.  This is nonsense. The fact is that the criminal provisions in the DREAM act are more stringent than for regular citizenship.  An applicant cannot have more than two misdemeanors, like a DUI or a disorderly conduct. Camarota’s complaint that many criminals plead out a felony to a misdemeanor isn’t relevant considering the low numbers involved.

IT IS UNFAIR. According to Camarota it is unfair to those that can’t do college level work and those who followed the rules to come here legally.

RESPONSE.  Wrong and wrong again. If a Dreamer successfully completes two years or more of college (or whatever educational level is finally enacted), he or she will deserve a path to citizenship, that’s the whole point of the proposed legislation. And if they don’t have the interest or the chops for schoolwork, they can join the military and become a U.S. citizen via that path. And make no mistake, America definitely need these recruits. Just read the testimony of Clifford Stanley and Margaret Stock.

But what about the alleged unfairness of letting Dreamers get ahead of the line of those who “play by the rules” (another common conservative sound bite).  Well, the point is that these kids didn’t break any rules. They were just children and young adults brought here illegally by their parents. They are student leaders, class valedictorians, star athletes, and yes, our gardeners. Let’s give them a chance and help the economy too.

And what about the “chain migration” claim? (another conservative talking point)  If a Dreamer  eventually sponsors a relative from another country for citizenship, these new immigrants will be subject to current legal immigration limits.  For example, natives of some countries have a 20-year immigration backlog.

Just like the budget deficit extension, some version of the DREAM Act will eventually pass because the key positions of both sides are so close.  Once the myths are exposed it should leave issues that Centrist Republicans and Democrats can likely compromise on, or that technology can solve. But don’t bet on logic, negotiation, and common sense to prevail as long as FARuplican ideology dominates the conservative debate.