Here is why every politician should support The Dream Act

[RobinFinderson]

I'm sure most of you know already, but The Dream Act is a bill that if passed into law would allow the children of illegal immigrants who entered the country before they were 16, and who graduated from high school, to receive temporary legal residency status for the purpose of pursuing higher education and receiving in-state-tuition. After completing college the former student would be fast-tracked to receive a green card and citizenship. This is extremely good policy and here is why:

1. We are talking about people who are, for the most part, culturally American. The vast majority of those who would qualify to receive Dream Act benefits speak English as their primary language, and have little knowledge about the country and culture that their parents left behind.

2. These are good students. These are the kids with the personal willpower and the family support to graduate from HS and pursue higher education. We are not talking about future gangsters and criminals. We are talking about those students who take education the most seriously, and who stand to contribute the most the the US economy be becoming educated workers.

3. We have already invested a LOT of money in these students by providing them with a HS education. To cut them off from the ability to pursue more education at this critical point in their lives will leave them working as illegals in menial tasks that are below their ability and ambition. The risk is that we take those who could be big net contributors to the economy and culture and hobble them to the point that they become net detractors from the economy and culture.

4. It is simply the compassionate thing to do. Whatever harm there was in the choice that parents made to enter this country illegally, their children didn't have any choice in this matter. We are talking about children who are hard working students who find themselves victims of their parents' choices and popular anti-immigrant fervor.

So it seems like an obvious choice to me -- we need to show compassion to hard-working children students who know no other country than the US as their home, and we will reap the future economic benefits of their skills and ambition.

[Jacob]

Why should the US Congress decide whether a non-citizen receives an education subsidized by a state. Shouldn't that be up the the state in question, or the taxpayers/subsidizers of that state?

As to your point No. 3: You say we've already "invested" a lot into their education, and I think you got that right--at the cost of the citizen students. But it's a sunk cost and really isn't relevant to the question of whether we should subsidize their education in the future. We already send far too many citizens to college, so I'm unconvinced that subsidizing even more college students is going to be a good investment.

[All-American]

I'm sure most of you know already, but The Dream Act is a bill that if passed into law would allow the children of illegal immigrants who entered the country before they were 16, and who graduated from high school, to receive temporary legal residency status for the purpose of pursuing higher education and receiving in-state-tuition. After completing college the former student would be fast-tracked to receive a green card and citizenship. This is extremely good policy and here is why:

1. We are talking about people who are, for the most part, culturally American. The vast majority of those who would qualify to receive Dream Act benefits speak English as their primary language, and have little knowledge about the country and culture that their parents left behind.

2. These are good students. These are the kids with the personal willpower and the family support to graduate from HS and pursue higher education. We are not talking about future gangsters and criminals. We are talking about those students who take education the most seriously, and who stand to contribute the most the the US economy be becoming educated workers.

3. We have already invested a LOT of money in these students by providing them with a HS education. To cut them off from the ability to pursue more education at this critical point in their lives will leave them working as illegals in menial tasks that are below their ability and ambition. The risk is that we take those who could be big net contributors to the economy and culture and hobble them to the point that they become net detractors from the economy and culture.

4. It is simply the compassionate thing to do. Whatever harm there was in the choice that parents made to enter this country illegally, their children didn't have any choice in this matter. We are talking about children who are hard working students who find themselves victims of their parents' choices and popular anti-immigrant fervor.

So it seems like an obvious choice to me -- we need to show compassion to hard-working children students who know no other country than the US as their home, and we will reap the future economic benefits of their skills and ambition.

But . . . but . . .

[youtube]sIzivCJ9pzU[/youtube]

[Moliere]

I'm sure most of you know already, but The Dream Act is a bill that if passed into law would allow the children of illegal immigrants who entered the country before they were 16, and who graduated from high school, to receive temporary legal residency status for the purpose of pursuing higher education and receiving in-state-tuition. After completing college the former student would be fast-tracked to receive a green card and citizenship. This is extremely good policy and here is why:

1. We are talking about people who are, for the most part, culturally American. The vast majority of those who would qualify to receive Dream Act benefits speak English as their primary language, and have little knowledge about the country and culture that their parents left behind.

2. These are good students. These are the kids with the personal willpower and the family support to graduate from HS and pursue higher education. We are not talking about future gangsters and criminals. We are talking about those students who take education the most seriously, and who stand to contribute the most the the US economy be becoming educated workers.

3. We have already invested a LOT of money in these students by providing them with a HS education. To cut them off from the ability to pursue more education at this critical point in their lives will leave them working as illegals in menial tasks that are below their ability and ambition. The risk is that we take those who could be big net contributors to the economy and culture and hobble them to the point that they become net detractors from the economy and culture.

4. It is simply the compassionate thing to do. Whatever harm there was in the choice that parents made to enter this country illegally, their children didn't have any choice in this matter. We are talking about children who are hard working students who find themselves victims of their parents' choices and popular anti-immigrant fervor.

So it seems like an obvious choice to me -- we need to show compassion to hard-working children students who know no other country than the US as their home, and we will reap the future economic benefits of their skills and ambition.

I agree. I don't think this is the best solution, but it would work for me. I don't want them getting priority over other citizen-students for loans or other financial aid but if they have worked hard in school and earned their way educationally into college then let's educate them and make them part of the full tax paying class of Americans.

Why should the US Congress decide whether a non-citizen receives an education subsidized by a state. Shouldn't that be up the the state in question, or the taxpayers/subsidizers of that state?

As to your point No. 3: You say we've already "invested" a lot into their education, and I think you got that right--at the cost of the citizen students. But it's a sunk cost and really isn't relevant to the question of whether we should subsidize their education in the future. We already send far too many citizens to college, so I'm unconvinced that subsidizing even more college students is going to be a good investment.

Illegal aliens pay school taxes too. The cost to educate everyone through high school mostly comes from property taxes, which are paid by home owners and tenants. Unless they are living in a van down by the river they are contributing to the educational system.

[Jacob]

Illegal aliens pay school taxes too. The cost to educate everyone through high school mostly comes from property taxes, which are paid by home owners and tenants. Unless they are living in a van down by the river they are contributing to the educational system.

Depends on the state and locality. But if you think we didn't "invest" a lot into them, take it up with Robin, that was his argument. But I'll gladly take it up for a moment. Even if illegal aliens pay "school taxes" like property and sales taxes those taxes were general tax revenues that could have been paid to educate illegals or not. In any case, the HS student didn't contribute any significant portion of his education costs in taxes and giving him a mere temporary legal residency does nothing to ensure that he will be a net tax contributer after we sink up to a hundred thousand in his college education and then take away his temporary residency.

And we haven't addressed the incentive this would create to bring your 15 year old to the US illegally so that he can get free HS and close to free college education unavailable to him in his home country.

[RobinFinderson]

I misspoke, Jacob, in presenting my understanding of the bill (which is primarily informed by how it would affect students here in CA). Looking it up on Wikipedia provides the following info:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act"]DREAM Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

This bill would provide certain illegal and deportable alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors, and have been in the country continuously and illegally for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning. The students would obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within the six year period, a qualified student must have "acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or [have] completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States," or have "served in the uniformed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, [have] received an honorable discharge."

So basically it offers good students the right to pursue higher education without fear of deportation. After they graduate with a degree, they qualify for conditional permanent resident status.

So, to answer a couple of your questions, this federal law doesn't impose any mandate on the states that they must subsidize student tuition at a reduced rate. The dream act simply allows students to be here legally while they study, and remain legally as long as they don't have a criminal record.

[Jacob]

That's a much more modest proposal and I wouldn't have much of a problem with it I think. But I'd probably have a problem with such students qualifying for federal grants, aid, and subsidized loans, which I'm guessing they will. But I have some problem with those programs in general, so it's not really specific to this case.

Did Cali pass a law that gives illegals the right to in-state tuition, or was it a court that ruled that such treatment was required? IIRC, it was a law that passed through the legislature. That's California's problem and their prerogative. It's also a much bigger problem for them than it would be for just about any other state in the country considering the number of illegals in California.

[Jacob]

Upon further review, I am still opposed to federal laws and programs that encourage more people to go to college or subsidize the cost.

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/12/09...se-the-number/

As Richard Vedder notes in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “some 17,000,000 Americans with college degrees are doing jobs that the BLS says require less than the skill levels associated with a bachelor’s degree.”

Wait a minute...people learn skills in college?

[snowcat]

So basically it offers good students the right to pursue higher education without fear of deportation. After they graduate with a degree, they qualify for conditional permanent resident status.

So, to answer a couple of your questions, this federal law doesn't impose any mandate on the states that they must subsidize student tuition at a reduced rate. The dream act simply allows students to be here legally while they study, and remain legally as long as they don't have a criminal record.

Sounds pretty reasonable. Count me as a yea.

[wuapinmon]

Of course I support this.

[Jacob]

Not sure whether it's appropriate to start a new thread titled:
"Why every politician should oppose the DREAM Act"

So I'll keep it here for now. From Mickey Kaus:

DREAM's Free Decade: I have differences with Roy Beck, head of the influential restrictionist group NumbersUSA. (He wants to reduce both illegal and legal immigration.) But Beck's closing analysis of the DREAM Act is quite powerful and damning. He argues that, because there are no penalties to lying on a DREAM application, and because once you file the application you get a work permit good for 10 years (while you comply with the Act's requirements), DREAM is basically a 10 year free pass to any illegal in a broad under-35ish age range who either qualifies or is willing to say he qualifies even if he doesn't.
Why wouldn't an illegal immigrant who didn't qualify file a false application? The rewards are very large. (Even if you don't qualify you get 10 legal years.) The risks are low. (Even if your application's rejected you are highly unlikely to get kicked out.) It's an easy choice to rationalize—you just want to work, the politicians should have passed "comprehensive" reform, etc.—and there will be friendly pro-immigrant activists to help rationalize it for those who hesitate. I'm not sure any group of individuals anywhere in the world could withstand that temptation. Beck thinks
up to 2 million illegal aliens could legitimately qualify for the opening application, and perhaps a couple million more might be or look young enough to fraudulently apply.
After 10 years these millions would either have met the requirements for permanent legalization under DREAM (by spending two years in college or the military)—or else they could still apply for a "hardship" exemption.
It's not as big an amnesty as I'd thought. It's much, much bigger

[Commando]

Absolutely this must pass. You have no idea the legal gymnastics we immigration attorneys have to go through and the expense the clients go through just to stay in the U.S. legally after having been brought up same as us whiteys.

I'm talking about clients that came as children and are now college educated, good people, zero criminal history, etc. (and dare I bring up-- LDS return missionaries).

Why should they be kicked back to what amounts to a foreign country in 3rd world Mexico when they are contributing here because of the limited and incomplete immigration policy heretofore enacted by Congress? Kicking them out is not a matter of obligation in the interest of our value of sustaining the law.

As a free society, changing the law to match the values we claim to sustain is our obligation.

[Jacob]

I'm talking about clients that came as children and are now college educated, good people, zero criminal history, etc. (and dare I bring up-- LDS return missionaries).

This act would apparently not benefit any of your (college educated) clients, unless they lied on their application.

[Commando]

btw -- outside of the occasional marriage of convenience, people don't fraudulently apply to immigration for relief.

Might I, with all due respect, state that Beck doesn't know shit.

Willingly subjecting your life to the scrutiny of the one government agency that has the power to expedite your deportation is the fastest way to screw yourself if you're an alien. Fraudulent applications ARE forwarded to Homeland Security and such aliens are regularly put into removal proceedings with no legal relief, thanks to one fraudulent application.

[Commando]

This act would apparently not benefit any of your (college educated) clients, unless they lied on their application.

It certainly would have 7 years ago... this needs to pass now.