Right to DREAM: Immigration Reform and America’s Future

Part 1: Answering the Critics

PART 1 Answering the critics As with other domestic issues, Americans are deeply divided in their beliefs about the long-term effect of our current immigration policy. Some groups, like the Cato Institute, see immigration as a key to a robust and expanding economy, a continuation of the melting pot process that has made America great. Other groups, like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), see the rapid increase in racial and ethnic minorities as a threat to America’s European heritage. As a result immigration has become this decade’s hot-button political issue, not only because of the dramatic increase in the number of immigrants in the past thirty years but also because immigration is the process that defines who we are as a people. Some Americans feel threatened by these changes. Parties attracted to the immigration debate sometimes respond emotionally when they sense jobs, health care, education, and national security are at risk. In such a charged climate, it is not surprising that Congress has been unable to address comprehensive immigration reform, and the DREAM Act has been at the center of this debate. With no consensus at the national level, states have moved to fill the political vacuum, but state governments are moving in two different directions. On the one hand, fourteen states have decided to improve the opportunities for undocumented students in higher education with the passage of the DREAM Act.2 On the other, states like Arizona, Alabama, and Florida have passed laws limiting access to higher education for undocumented students , arguing that they are protecting taxpayers. 14 ANSWERING THE CRITICS Landmark social legislation occurs at the confluence of economic , social, and political forces. Historians usually write about the leaders who framed laws and, through the power of their personalities , passed them. In reality, passing landmark legislation requires a Congress who represents an electorate whose attitudes are shaped by the state of the economy and the society and a collective willingness to accept social change. History is replete with examples. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act on August 14, 1935. Although controversial, the legislation passed the House 372 to 33, with 81 Republicans voting in support, and the Senate 77 to 6, with 16 Republicans supporting. Thirty years later, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law on July 30, 1965, after passing the House 307 to 116, with 70 Republicans supporting, and the Senate 70 to 24, with 13 Republicans voting for the bill. The same pattern persisted with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Were they controversial? Yes. Were they products of their times? Yes. Can the vast majority of Americans conceive of a society without Social Security and Medicare? Probably not. Most appreciate the role these laws have played in creating a civil society. But ask yourself , “Would any of these bills pass Congress today? Would there be an attempt to cross the aisle, compromise, and vote for what was good for the nation? Would the majority of Congress cast a vote for the common good?” The 2012 presidential election was a game-changer. Congressional Republicans have stalled immigration reform and the DREAM Act for a decade, but the growing share of Hispanic voters, which helped reelect the president, is likely to double by 2030. Heeding the warning, prominent Republicans are launching a new super-PAC, Republicans for Immigration Reform, with the hope of repairing the political damage left by years of anti-immigrant rhetoric. Political relevance, not the common good, is driving these efforts, but it is creating the best chance for comprehensive immigration reform in a generation. But words are cheap, and the American people should not be surprised if Congress cannot pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. This is why the states must continue to provide leadership on this issue. In the next five chapters, I explore the key issues surrounding passage of the DREAM Act. What are the issues that divide? What do ANSWERING THE CRITICS 15 the proponents and opponents of the DREAM Act argue? Is there a middle ground? Is compromise possible? As with all controversial legislation , arguments on both sides abound. I believe the following five arguments are the ones most commonly and most forcefully set forth by opponents of the DREAM Act: Legal. Undocumented students are criminals. They are breaking the law. Passing the DREAM Act would reward...