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. 

Why I Marched on May Day

Reading the news is one way to gauge what's going on in the world; reading the public's reaction to the news is another barometer. A few weeks ago, after reading a news article on the Knoxville News-Sentinel website about an immigration raid, I scrolled down again to see readers' responses to this particular story. There was a lot of the same worn-out rhetoric about "illegals," but that wasn't what got me. What made me sick to my stomach was reading one person's comment that said – and I quote directly: "First time, deport them, second time shoot them in the head, won't be no third timers and the first timers will cease to exist pretty quick. Take a lesson from China on how to protect our borders."

I flagged the post as "inappropriate," and it has since been removed, but that horrible notion still exists in the mindset of that person and goodness knows who else. And the very fact that rhetoric like this exists in the year 2010 of the Common Era is frightening.

The issue of migration is complex, involving a great many economic, historical, and social factors. But you don't have to get into a jargon-filled spiel to recognize that some of the steps being taken to "correct the problem" are severely out of hand. It simply cannot be overstated that this isn't about political leanings; this is about basic human rights.

The biggest controversy in the recently-passed Arizona law is asking what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" as to a person's immigration status. Allegedly this is not going to result in racial profiling of any kind. (My response to that would normally be, "Right, and my shoes speak Welsh," but apparently shoes are part of what they're going to use to determine who looks "illegal." I wish I were joking.) Among other things, the law also makes it a fineable offense for a documented("legal") immigrant to go around without their paperwork. I've heard some people compare that to provisions that you have to carry proof of insurance with you while driving, but a police officer isn't supposed to ask proof of insurance when you're walking.

I ask this quite earnestly: How are you supposed to know by looking at someone whether or not they're an immigrant? The logical extension of this law – if it were truly being implemented fairly across the board – would be that everyone, including citizens, would have to carry proof of their citizenship or legal immigration status at all times. That's called fascism. Aren't we supposed to be against this sort of thing? Well, since they're talking very seriously about biometric ID cards, maybe I can't argue that one anymore (and for the record, I find that extremely frightening).

The question of calling people who enter the United States without authorization or overstay their visas "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" or simply "illegals" versus "undocumented immigrants" is not just an issue of semantics or trying to be PC. Undocumented and unauthorized are not perfect terms, but they at least acknowledge that the nature of the imposed status is whether or not they have papers or formal authorization to be in a particular place. The word alien simply means non-citizen, but the connotation of the word is dehumanizing because it conjures up images of something downright otherworldly. Illegal alien is a term used by the INS to describe immigrants who have been convicted of felonies; it is not a blanket term for anyone residing in the country without authorization. Illegal immigrant is a relatively mainstream term, unfortunately, but it still conjures up images of criminality when immigration is a civil, not criminal, issue (although the Arizona law has changed that, which is a problem in and of itself). Of course, when "illegal" modifies the word "immigrant," at least then the main descriptor is immigrant, maintaining some semblance of the personhood of the individual(s) being described. "Illegal" as a noun, by contrast, completely dehumanizes them and implies that the very nature of the person is their "illegality."

A Republican congressional candidate recently asked, without irony, "If I can microchip my dog, why can't I microchip an illegal?" This shows just how dehumanizing "illegal" as a noun can be, and this is where the rhetoric gets really dangerous. In almost every instance of human rights abuse, the oppressed persons are described as having been "treated like animals." When you look at how easy it is to jump from immigrants to dogs, are we going to then associate them instead with cattle? With attitudes like that, is it any wonder that folks like the aforementioned guy who wants to take a cue from China on immigration policy can be so quick to forget that immigrants, authorized or not, are human beings? Who's next on the list of people it's going to be okay to talk about like this?

This issue is personal for me in the sense that I know several undocumented students (that's right, kids, some undocumented immigrants go to college despite the fact that they are ineligible for federal and state aid, not to mention most scholarships... and no, they aren't using any of your tax dollars to do it), and I've had the pleasure of taking an entire course about migration where we did discuss the broader issues (and yes, that's where I've learned a lot of this). But even for those of you reading for whom this is not overtly personal, many of the problems at hand have immense ramifications for everyone, not just immigrants.

This is one of the (many) reasons I marched on May Day.

"The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life." Jane Addams