Insight on Immigration: the DREAM Act

Q. In Congress, there is talk of a GOP-led version of the DREAM Act that includes legalization but not a pathway to citizenship for certain undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and who attend college or serve in the military. Would this be acceptable?

Answer: Yes.

It would be encouraging to see a GOP proposal that could receive bipartisan support and deal positively with a significant group of undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children.

Those who say it does not go far enough must realize that we have failed to get bipartisan agreement on substantial reforms, including comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act. No other proposal has been able to gain enough support from either Democrats or Republicans in Congress.

This proposal is better than the current status quo, where a generation of children is living in the shadows of our society. It is time to give these people an opportunity to compete and thrive in a country that they were brought to as children. These individuals can contribute to our society. This is especially true for those who served our country honorably in the military.

Peter K. Nunez, former U.S. attorney in San Diego and board member of the Center for Immigration Studies

Answer: No.

Any version of the DREAM Act is an amnesty, which becomes an inducement for more illegal immigration. We should not provide people more reasons for trying to enter illegally.

Do we have sufficient control of our borders to prevent illegal immigration? Do we have a system to prevent people from overstaying their visas? Have we taken sufficient steps to either deport or influence those here illegally to self-deport? Not yet.

Any new version of a DREAM Act must not provide additional benefits for those receiving permission to stay, especially no right to sponsor family members who qualify under the current immigration system. The DREAM Act should not open the door to more legal immigrants, as witnessed following the 1986 amnesty. Nor should other family members currently here illegally be allowed to stay based on their relationship with the DREAM Act recipient.

However sympathetic these children may be, that is no reason to expand immigration beyond the unsustainable numbers we currently admit or condone.

Lilia Velasquez, immigration attorney and adjunct professor of law at Cal Western School of Law

Answer: No.

Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Florida) alternative DREAM Act is inherently flawed. It would create an undefined, second-class status for potential applicants. More importantly, it would deny a path to citizenship to avoid chain migration (since U.S. citizens are eligible to petition for immediate family members). This would be contrary to family reunification — the cornerstone of our immigration policy. The proposal also suggests that once applicants obtain provisional status, they must wait in line to apply for permanent residency, when really there is no avenue for legalization.

Since presidential candidate Mitt Romney opposes the current version of the DREAM Act, the GOP seeks to draw Latino voters with its watered-down version, which does not benefit significantly the thousands of undocumented students who came to the U.S. as children through no fault of their own and are eager to continue with higher education and become productive members of society. Clearly, the GOP’s version of the DREAM Act will discourage Latino voters as it offers no real solution.

David Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute at USD

Answer: Yes.

The main goal of immigration reform efforts should not be providing an automatic pathway to citizenship for particular groups of undocumented immigrants. It should be to allow mostly honest, hard-working people who had few other options in coming to America to come out of the shadows, reside legally and breathe freely in the United States. Citizenship should not be out of the question, assuming appropriate criteria are met, but it is a separate issue.

A recent GOP proposal by Sen. (and possible vice presidential candidate) Marco Rubio would seek to separate the issue of legal status from citizenship, while raising the bar of eligibility for legal residency somewhat by requiring either military service or completion of a four-year college degree (instead of just a two-year associate degree). The details of the Rubio proposal remain uncertain, but Democrats have criticized the main idea as too “watered down” and even “nightmarish,” while Republicans say it is just another “amnesty.”