Dear Editor,
The ignorance displayed in the recent quarrel about the DREAM Act that has occupied this space has me concerned. Select students tackled a piece of legislation they seemingly know almost nothing about. While I do appreciate political discussion from all viewpoints, it is important that political discussions be based on fact. Without further ado, here are the facts:
The federal DREAM Act was concocted not as a solution to America’s immigration woes as a whole, but as an answer to a narrow issue. Legal or not, America has found itself investing in education for undocumented immigrants without anything to show for it. We can indulge in as many normative statements regarding immigration as we wish, however, our troubles will not simply go away. The DREAM Act seeks to give top illegal students a path, though tough, to legality.
The bill only applies to illegal graduates of U.S. high schools who’ve lived in America for five years prior to application for eligibility. DREAMers must exhibit strong moral character and must either gain entry to a four-year college or join the armed forces. The current bill does not allow access to Pell Grants or other federal financial aid services and leaves application of in-state tuition rates up to the states. It also bars DREAMers from benefits of “Obamacare,” Medicaid, food stamps and other welfare programs. Application for the DREAM Act does not act as amnesty and any insufficient candidates can be deported as a result of application. Furthermore, completion of the program only ensures revocable permanent residency, not citizenship, which has further requirements. By some estimates, only 7,000 to 13,000 students would currently be able to complete the entire DREAM Act and citizenship program.
Finally, some suggest the bill would quickly apply to “millions” of illegal immigrants. In reality, a UCLA study projected that the bill would apply to only about 825,000 to 2.1 million people during a 40 year period.
The DREAM Act would increase America’s skilled labor force and its tax base. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that the bill could produce $2.3 billion in additional tax revenues during a 10 year period, while reducing deficits by approximately $1.4 billion. Additionally, the aforementioned UCLA study projected an increase in taxable income from $1.6 to $3.6 trillion during a 10 year period.
So, there are the facts. Enjoy.
Sincerely,
Joe Hoey
Vice President,
Temple College Democrats
alvinwashburn@hotmail.com
But for many hardworking families, affordable insurance can be hard to find. The new “Penny Health” is giving you more control over your family’s health care by expanding your options for health insurance and making them more affordable.
Love those facts! If only Republicans and Democrats got into an understanding…
thank you for writing this
“The bill only applies to illegal graduates of U.S. high schools who’ve lived in America for five years prior to application for eligibility.”
This is not quite true, it also applies to those who get their GED.
“DREAMers must exhibit strong moral character and must either gain entry to a four-year college or join the armed forces.”
This is not quite true: DREAMERS must has not been convicted of any offense under Federal or State law punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year; or 3 or more offenses under Federal or State law, for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the 3 offenses and sentenced to imprisonment for an aggregate of 90 days or more.
DREAMERS should complete at least 1 of the following 1. acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States. 2. complete at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor’s degree in the United States. This can be done at a Community College. 3. serve in the Armed Forces for at least 2 years and, if discharged, received an honorable discharge.
There is also an exception part of the bill that most people never mention. The two years of college or Armed Forces service can be waived. You need to demonstrate that your removal from the United States would result in hardship to yourself or your spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
In other words, anyone who has a GED or is a high school graduate, has been here since they were 15, has not been convicted of a major felony, and has U.S. born children or a U.S. born spouse or legal resident spouse, would be entitled to apply for permanent residency under this bill.
When the exception portion of the bill is included the number of those eligible to apply is increased to millions.
As for the cost of the bill, you site only the cost for the first 10 years. During that time the DREAMER would be barred from using most social services. However, after the first 10 years the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the bill would increase deficit spending by at least $5 billion. You also did not mention that the CBO report did not include any cost estimates to State and local governments.
“This is not quite true, it also applies to those who get their GED.”
GED is a legal equivalent to a high school diploma.
“This is not quite true: DREAMERS must has not been convicted of any offense under Federal or State law punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year; or 3 or more offenses under Federal or State law, for which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the 3 offenses and sentenced to imprisonment for an aggregate of 90 days or more.”
Moral character in terms of U.S. law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_moral_character
“There is also an exception part of the bill that most people never mention. The two years of college or Armed Forces service can be waived. You need to demonstrate that your removal from the United States would result in hardship to yourself or your spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States.”
Don’t believe this is in the CURRENT bill. There are multiple versions of the federal DREAM Act and as time passes the bill continues to be watered down and exceptions have been eliminated.
“complete at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor’s degree in the United States. This can be done at a Community College.”
Stressing that the institution can be a community college shows an elitist bias. Additionally, most community colleges do NOT have BA programs.
“would be entitled to apply for permanent residency under this bill.”
You can apply, you will not necessarily be granted permanent residency. And anyway, permanent residency is NOT citizenship. More so, the amount of applicants who would not sufficiently meet the requirements would likely create more deportations than it would permanent residencies.
“However, after the first 10 years the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the bill would increase deficit spending by at least $5 billion. You also did not mention that the CBO report did not include any cost estimates to State and local governments. ”
Not true, it did not claim an immediate increase by 5 billion. It said during one 10 year period after 2011 deficit spending would increase by 5 billion. It did not give further reach than that. More so, UCLA, not susceptible to “magic auditing” of the CBO claimed an increase in taxable income in trillions over a 40 year period… (Correction to the end of my post, the UCLA study is a 40 YEAR PERIOD)
The thing I never got is why they group students and the potential service men/women that could come about thanks to the Dream Act…shouldn’t those who enlist in military service be granted full citizenship after 3 years of service? I mean, if they’re here through no fault of their own, growing up since children, assimilating to our “culture”…why shouldn’t be be rewarded with full citizenship if they seek to put their lives on the line for the country they love? I get the whole 10 year period wait period for students as they aren’t doing much of an immediate service to pay back for subsidized higher education but must those who enroll in military service be punished rather than rewarded for their sacrifice?
I get the whole *they came here illegally* side of the argument but truth of the matter is that most of these Dreamers came here as children, brought here by irresponsible parents who decided to skirt the law for whatever reason. These Dreamers, while technically criminals, should not be held as such as they were in a way victims of a crime their parents perpetrated. If we become a nation that punishes those who are essentially victims of a crime they unwillingly committed through their parents actions, then shall we also jail a toddler when his parents commit a felony? What justice lies in punishing these kids/young adults? By the legal definition, the Dream Act will never be amnesty as amnesty is a way for a criminal to start with a carte blanche yet the Dream Act sets hurdles a Dreamer must overcome to receive a green card. They must then work towards their citizenship. Amnesty would entitle them to automatic citizenship without any sort of work. The definition of the word amnesty is the very proof that the Dream Act isn’t amnesty. I wonder when opponents to this bill will get that.
The most current House bill H.R. 1842 Dated May 11, 2011, Section 5a2A:
▪ IN GENERAL- The Secretary may, in the Secretary’s discretion, remove the conditional basis of an alien’s permanent resident status if the alien–
▪ (i) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (E) of paragraph (1);
▪ (ii) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the inability to satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (D) of such paragraph; and
▪ (iii) demonstrates that the alien’s removal from the United States would result in extreme hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate December 7, 2010
S3992 Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2010.
Page 2 first complete paragraph:
Although the legislation would not have a large impact on deficits over the 2011-2020
period, the eventual conversion of some of the conditional nonimmigrants to legal
permanent resident (LPR) status after 2020 would lead to significant increases in spending for the federal health insurance exchanges, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Pursuant to section 311 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 (S. Con. Res. 70), CBO estimates that the bill would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods starting in 2021.
Page 6 tope of the page:
ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
This bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. Some state and
local colleges and universities may experience increased enrollment as a result of this bill, but any associated costs would not result from intergovernmental mandates.
ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR
This bill contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Mr. Hoey, With all the strong emotions surrounding these bills I wanted to know the truth of what was and was not written in them. So I have read the bills myself. Currently they are not the narrowly defined bills that supporters claim them to be. Any adequate attorney would be able to argue that any illegal immigrant who has been here since the age of 15 and is married to a U.S. citizen, or has U.S. citizen children, should fall under the provisions of the DREAM act. I can not support either the current House or Senate bill. If they were rewritten to do what you say they do, and only that, and the cost to the States was guaranteed to be paid by the Federal Government, the DREAM act would have my support.
@Trish
I’m fine with discussing the nitty-gritty of this policy too if you still have misconceptions.
EVEN if that language does currently exist (which upon further review it does, however it likely would not in any final passed bill simply because it would get filtered out by Republicans), the language of the bill dictates that all three of those conditions MUST be considered at once. Therefore a DREAMer must be applicable to ALL other conditions of the bill, must prove “compelling circumstances” suggesting that she/he can not complete either military service or college time, must also PROVE EXTREME hardship as a result. Even after all of these circumstances the Secretary of Homeland Security has exclusive jurisdiction on these claims and still can deny a DREAMer.
How someone could prove they could not complete either a college education or military time without serious disabilities or other extreme circumstances is beyond me. Unless you have a compelling source of hardship exception cases, I don’t see how this segment creates a significant increase in successful applicants, especially because the success of all of those applicants is determined largely subjectively with the standard set at EXTREME…
I mean, maybe you’re suggesting that “any illegal immigrant who has been here since the age of 15 and is married to a U.S. citizen, or has U.S. citizen children” is also unable to successfully complete either college OR military time. If so, I’d love to see how you came to this conclusion. (Or how any attorney would)
“CBO estimates that the bill would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods starting in 2021.”
Consistent with what I’ve stated. I refuted this by providing the more accurate UCLA study statistic suggesting a much greater increase in taxable income over that period of time… As for states, again, states would get a piece of the taxable income pie…
Oh, and as for costs of the states, many state programs you discuss often still end up covering illegal citizens without receiving tax dollars from them… A major Republican argument against illegal immigrants. Why not give them a tough shot at legality, broaden your tax base, and get a return on your investment rather than letting state tax dollars go to waste?