A couple of weeks ago the US House of Representatives approved the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, better known as the DREAM Act. This past Saturday, almost 10 years after its initial introduction, a minority of Senators used the threat of a filibuster to end all hopes of its passage.
The DREAM Act would allow young immigrants brought into the country illegally before age 16 to stay, apply for permanent residence, and eventually apply for US citizenship. There would be strict conditions. Beneficiaries would have to be younger than 30, have lived in the US five or more years straight, and have earned a GED or high school diploma. If they completed at least two years of college or military service and passed various background checks, they would then be able to apply for permanent resident status.
Before the critical vote, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions denounced the Act as "a reward for illegal activities." Senator Lindsey Graham insisted we pass border security before moving the DREAM Act. Given these gentlemen's status as protectors of the national interest, this stance is also known as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The US Department of Defense strongly supports the DREAM Act. The offer of military service as a path to citizenship would have led tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of immigrants to enlist. With the US military stretched to the breaking point by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, top officials saw the DREAM Act as a key recruiting tool. Indeed, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness refers to the DREAM Act in its 2010-2012 strategic plan as a "smart" way to draw good recruits to military service.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, called on Congress to pass the Act.
So Senator Graham yelps about the need to enhance US national security through border security, on one hand, while blocking the use of a key military recruitment tool and thereby undercutting national security, on the other. Just politics, I guess.
Who else besides the military supports the DREAM Act? Just in the business community alone, we see such weak-kneed, namby-pamby, liberal do-gooding luminaries as the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Microsoft, Pfizer, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, American Express, and Con Edison petitioning the Congress to do the smart thing.
Why? Because Big Business knows that immigrants who took the higher education route to citizenship would mean billions in additional tax revenue and greater national competitiveness in the global economy. They know that the US is now seeing a slight out-migration of educated talent headed for greener economic pastures in India, China and elsewhere. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg put it, if we can't keep the best and the brightest in the United States, and attract more of them to the United States, all the next big business innovations will happen outside the United States.
Unlike many of the young entrepreneurs now leaving the United States, the young people embraced by the DREAM Act are American in everything but name. Their talent, nurtured here, would remain America's talent.
I wish I could say "wait 'til next time" and shake my fist with respect to the prospect of passing the DREAM Act sooner than later, but with the Republican opposition gaining strength in the new Congress at least two years will pass before we can reasonably hope to hope again. Oh well. At least somebody - if only the nation's military and economic competitors - will be pleased.
Crossposted from Race-Talk.org.
"It would apply to non-citizens who are younger than 35, arrived before they were 16, have been here for five years and have obtained a high school diploma or GED. They could apply for permanent resident status if they serve two years in the military or complete two years of college and maintain good moral character."
So, they have could have been living here for 30 years or more illegally and that's acceptable. Ok, on to the next one. It says they need to complete two years of college. The article, of course, fails to mention they have 10 years to do so. Finally, it says they must maintain good moral character. That's interesting since the individual can still qualify even after being convicted of 2 misdemeanors and 1 felony. These are strict conditions?
It's pretty simple.
If one crosses the border, when they aren't supposed to, that's wrong.
Rationalize the "why" of it all you want...still wrong. ;)
2. I'm describing all the young adults who would attend at least two years of college -- many would complete much more and then stay here -- as exactly the people this country will need more of to remain economically competitive, pay taxes, and (you hope) pay for your social security.
If 15.1 million American Citizens are out of work
Why is this country in need of 11 million illegals and their 2.1 million illegal childred to remain economically competitive
U.S. Taxpayer already pay an estimated $60 billion annual to fund emergency Unemployment benefits assisting 15.1 million Americans out of work
Don't allow Obama to get a feather in the cap while leaving more than ten million suffering undocumented immigrants behind.
2. You're describing people who merely have GEDs or high school diplomas as "young entrepreneurs" with "talent"? We're talking about American high schools, after all.
But I might support giving preferential treatment to African immigrants who scored in the top percentiles in math on various tests, and whose parents came to America legally and have Ph.D.s or businesses grossing x dollars a year.
How can anyone justify spending so much money so people who are here illegally can go to college while we have millions of citizens who would love the chance and need the assistance. I don't think one cent should go to a foreigner until every student who has good grades gets the chance to go to college if they want to.
But for anyone who read the bill it was obvious the college would end up being some podunk or mail order college for most and the service would not have been required with all the hardship exemptions and loopholes.