Why the DREAM Act Shouldn't Be Controversial

Anyone currently living in the United States or who pays any attention to the news coming out of here knows that immigration has come to the fore as a hot-button issue, and one which has been relatively polarizing in U.S. politics as of late. One piece of proposed legislation, though, should not be controversial once you understand the provisions contained therein: the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (commonly abbreviated as the DREAM Act).

Over a million young people living in the United States are undocumented (or, as the mainstream media call them, "illegal") because of the simple fact that their families brought them here – as babies, young children, or young teens – without authorization. These youth live normal lives and are indistinguishable from citizens or legal residents. They often do not even know that they are undocumented until they want to undergo normal teenage rites of passage – like getting a driver's license or applying for college or registering to vote – only to be told by their parents that they are not in the country legally. 

Under current laws, the only way these young people can rectify their legal status is to go back to their country of origin – where they will be banned from re-entry to the United States for five to ten years – and then and only then can they even applyto return to the U.S. Many of them do not speak the language of their countries of origin; the United States is the only home they've ever known, and all of their friends and social networks are here. Some of them come from countries where they would be persecuted or even killed because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. And remember... these youth had absolutely no say in the decision to come to the United States without authorization. 

If made into law, the DREAM Act would allow undocumented persons who were brought to the United States before the age of seventeen a chance to legalize their immigration status. This would not, I repeat, NOT be an amnesty, and this is a path to legalization, not citizenship per se.

• Applicants must meet all of the following requirements:
  
  • They must prove that they arrived in the United States before the age of seventeen and that they have lived here continuously for at least five consecutive years. (This is, by the way, exceedingly difficult to prove when they are not eligible for state IDs or drivers licenses, and this provision alone will weed out a significant proportion of potential applicants.)
  • They must be between the ages of twelve and thirty-five at the time the bill is enacted, and at the time of application must have graduated from a United States high school or obtained a GED.
  • Furthermore, they must qualify under the "good moral character" provision, which bars those convicted of felonies or "crimes of moral turpitude" (including drug-related offenses or shoplifting) or "habitual drunkenness."
• If the applicant satisfies all of these requirements, they are granted a provisional legal status and are given six years to either:
  
  • 1. Graduate from a community college,
  • 2. Complete at least two years toward a Bachelors degree, or
  • 3. Serve two years in the United States military.
• During this six-year period, applicants would not be eligible for government grants such as Pell grants. They would, however, be eligible to apply for private scholarships, private loans, and work study. They could obtain driver's licenses and work permits.
• If the applicant does not complete the required education or military service requirements in the six-year period, or if they commit any of the above-mentioned crimes in the interim period, their conditional status would be repealed and they could be deported. 
• If the applicant completes the education or military service requirements in the six-year period, they would be eligible for legal permanent residency (LPR) status.

In short? A young person who is able to prove that they came to the United States as a minor, who graduates from high school (or the equivalent) and goes to college on their own dime or serves in the United States military for two years and does not commit a crime, is able to become a legal permanent resident.

There is nothing in this piece of legislation which a reasonable person – even those with staunchly anti-"illegal" immigration stances – should be able to denounce. Applicants under the DREAM Act would still not be citizens, and this law would have no bearing on the legal status of their family members (who, because of current laws, could not be sponsoredby their children anyway). LPRs cannot vote and they are subject to Selective Service, and of course they would still pay taxes (which about 75% of undocumented workers also pay, by the way). They can still be deported if they commit certain crimes. Can I stress again that they will be paying taxes? They can apply for citizenship only after a full five years of permanent residency if they are not convicted of crimes.

The DREAM Act is by no means a perfect piece of legislation or a panacea for the broader problem of an immigration system which everyone seems to agree is "broken." I would argue that it does not go nearly far enough and that there is still a grave need for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level. But the provisions of the DREAM Act by itself should not be at all controversial. It provides a path to legalization for young people who had no say in the decision to come to the country "illegally" in the first place.