DREAM Act

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (also called "The DREAM Act") is a piece of proposed federal legislation in the United States that would provide high school students who are illegal immigrants who wish to attend college or serve in the armed forces with eligibility for legal status.

The bill, in various incarnations, has been introduced several times in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the House it has never been brought to a floor vote as a stand-alone bill; in the Senate it was finally brought for debate on the floor on October 24 2007, but failed to gain cloture by a 52-44 vote, 8 votes short of overcoming a filibuster. The text of the bill has also been included in various other immigration-related bills, including the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007, though none so far has been successful.

Background

Currently, in the United States, a child who immigrates from another country can only obtain legal status through their parents; there is no independent method to accomplish this. Through many quirks in immigration law many individuals brought here as children remain without permanent status, despite having parents or spouses who are naturalized citizens or legal permanent residents. If a child is brought into the country illegally there is no method of becoming a legal resident. Returning to their country would not guarantee a path to legal status. Attempts to come back legally are often difficult, with roadblocks such as ten year bans on re-entering the U.S.

The United States military faces challenges in enlistment, which in 2005 were described as a "crisis". Immigrants that do not have a "green card" are not allowed to enlist. Several senior officials at the Department of Defense have spoken in favor of promising legal status to members of the military as a means of boosting recruitment .

Description

To qualify, a DREAM Act beneficiary would have to meet certain requirements such as:

• Proof of having arrived in the United States at age 15 or younger.
• Proof of residence in the United States for a least five (5) consecutive years since their date of arrival.
• Must be between the ages of 12 and 30 at time of bill enactment.
• Having graduated from an American high school, or obtained a GED.
• "Good moral character," essentially defined as the absence of a significant criminal record (or any major drug charges), compliance with Selective Service laws and an absence of fraudulent information in documents .

During the first six years, the immigrant would be granted "conditional" status, and would be required to graduate from a two-year community college or complete at least two years towards a 4-year degree, or serve two years in the U.S. military. After the six year period, an immigrant who meets at least one of these three conditions would be eligible to apply for legal permanent resident status. During this six year conditional period, immigrants would not be eligible for federal higher education grants such as Pell grants, though they would be able to apply for student loans and work study.

If the immigrant does not meet the educational or military service requirement within the six year time period, their temporary residence would be revoked and he or she would be subject to deportation. They also must not commit any crimes other than those considered non-drug related misdemeanors, regardless of whether or not they have already been approved for permanent status at the end of their six years. Being convicted of a major crime, or drug-related infraction would automatically remove the six year temporary residence status and he or she would be subject to deportation.

If the immigrant meets all of the conditions at the end of the 6-year conditional period, he or she would be granted a permanent green card with the same rights as a permanent resident alien, including the right to apply for U.S. citizenship.

An estimated 65,000 immigrant students who meet the initial basic requirements graduate from high school each year. However, it is not known how many of those eligible go on to complete the further requirements. It is estimated that currently only 7,000–13,000 college students nationally can fulfill the further obligations, a drastic drop from the already limited pool of those initially eligible.

History

A very similar version of the bill, though never called the "DREAM Act", was introduced during the 107th Congress in 2001, as H.R.1918 and S.1291 in the House and Senate respectively. It has been introduced in both the Senate (as the "DREAM Act") and the House (as the "American Dream Act") at various times. In the Senate: S.1545 (108th Congress), S.2075 (109th Congress) and S.774 (110th Congress). In the House: H.R.1684 (108th Congress), H.R.5131 (109th Congress) and H.R.1275 (110th Congress).

The text of the bill has also been placed in various other immigration-related bills (none yet successful), including the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611) and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348). With the failure of comprehensive reform, Richard Durbin, the chief proponant of the DREAM Act in the Senate, made its passage a top priority for 2007.

In September 2007, Richard Durbin filed to place the DREAM Act as an amendment to the 2008 Department of Defense Authorization Bill (S. 2919). Opposition emerged, primarily led by talk radio, criticizing the legislation on a variety of matters. Three key points were commonly cited in opposition to the DREAM Act. First, the language regarding in-state tuition was characterized as requiring states to give preferential treatment to the beneficiaries of the DREAM Act. Second, the lack of an age cap was regarded as open for abuse. Finally, the amendment was regarded by opponents as non-germane to defense matters.

In light of the criticism, Richard Durbin tabled the amendment in favor of a rewritten DREAM Act amendment to the Defense Bill. In consideration of their opponents, all language regarding in-state tuition was removed from the amendment and an age cap of 30 was put in place for potential beneficiaries. As for the argument that the amendment was non-germane, proponents cited the Army Times, which stated several senior officials at the Department of Defense have spoken in favor of the DREAM Act, and specifically the bill's promise of legal status to members of the military as a means of boosting recruitment. Nevertheless, the amendment was not brought up for a vote.

On October 18, Richard Durbin,, along with Republican co-sponsors Sen. Charles Hagel and Sen. Richard Lugar, introduced the DREAM Act as S.2205. Though nearly identical to the revised amendment to the Defense Bill, opposition continued to cite previous arguments. In order to bring forth the DREAM Act for debate, a vote was scheduled on October 24 that would require a "filibuster proof" count of 60 yes votes.

While Senate proponents largely cited consistent reasons for passage, a variety of reasons were brought forth in opposition. Some labeled the DREAM Act as amnesty that would only encourage further illegal immigration. Others stated that the DREAM Act, though worthy legislation, should only be enacted as part of a comprehensive immigration reform. In light of the Senate’s failure to successfully pass a single appropriations bill, some Senators stated that the DREAM Act was a distraction to more pressing matters and should rather be considered in January 2008. Finally, debate emerged as to the amendment process for the DREAM Act, specifically, how willing the Democratic leadership would be in allowing debate of Republican amendments.

In a surprise move, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who had previously stated that she would oppose consideration of the DREAM Act, announced on the Senate floor that she had expressed reservations to Sen. Durbin and he had made a verbal commitment to work with her to make changes that she saw necessary to garner greater Republican support. In response, Sen. Durbin announced that the first amendment that would be considered, should debate of the DREAM Act begin, would completely re-write the bill in favor of the language that Sen. Hutchison suggested. Though 52 Senators voted in favor of considering the DREAM Act, this fell eight votes short to break fillibuster and the legislation was not considered.

Current status

In light of recent events, the future of the DREAM Act lies in uncertainty. The details of Sen. Hutchinson’s revision have since emerged, which would have given beneficiaries of the legislation a temporary student visa instead of conditional residency and a renewal work visa upon completion of the terms of the DREAM Act instead of permanent residency. Whether this change will be incorporated in future legislation has yet to emerge.

The Democratic leadership has stated that the DREAM Act is unlikely to be considered until 2009. However, the Democratic leadership has also stated their refusal to consider H1B visa reform unless the DREAM Act is first passed, leaving an opening for the issue to be addressed sooner. Furthermore, advocates of the DREAM Act have begun discussion of combining the DREAM Act with AgJOBS and border enforcement legislation.

External links

• Official Information from Library of Congress
• pfaw.org - Article in support of bill
• National Immigration Law Center page on the bill
• The DREAM Act Portal - (A pro-Dream act site)
• - Economic Benefits of the DREAM Act