DREAM Act Not Controversial After All
Published August 25, 2009 @ 05:53AM PT
I was confused this morning when I saw the title of last week's piece in US News about the DREAM Act: "Controversial Legislation May Give Immigrant Students a Chance at College." I know, as does anyone familiar with the legislation, that the act tends to strike a chord with most Americans, regardless of political position on other issues. I explained the Act to a conservative friend of mine a couple weeks ago, with whom I've had many disagreements on politics over the years. He said it was one thing he thought he could support. I've gotten similar responses from right/center right commenters to the blog, though not from those commenters who are very committed to the other side of the argument.*
I think there is a reason for this. The DREAM Act takes its strength directly from the assimilationist ethic upon which the ideological nationhood of the U.S. is founded. This is the universalist aspirational ideal, that anyone is potentially an American if they commit to become a member of the nation, if they do things the right way, if they work hard and don't abuse the system. This ideal is both universalist and necessarily exclusive, but its unifying power within the bounds of the nation is undeniable. President Obama is one beneficiary of that universalist ethic, or rather, he understood the ethic's power in a deep way and it resonated with voters around the country. I believe that is why Obama's election attracted, at least initially, so many moderate and center-right voters. It is why I believe that many recent immigrants become devout conservatives--the assimilationist ethic is in one sense profoundly conservative. It is why Ronald Reagan (paraphrasing) said I can go to China or Bulgaria but I can never become Chinese or Bulgarian--but anyone can become an American (crowdsourcing opportunity: can anyone find the actual quote?). That is an extremely powerful message, if also necessarily flawed in the execution.
So what, then, is so controversial about the DREAM Act? It reaches something fundamental about what it means to be an American. Reading the article gave me some insight into the choice of title on this US News article:
While the DREAM Act has many supporters—including the College Board, the University of California system, Harvard University President Drew Gilpin Faust, Microsoft, and a number of other education, business, and political leaders—organizations like the Federation for American Immigration Reform strongly oppose the legislation. They say it would reward undocumented immigrant parents who have unlawfully brought their children into the country.
There's more, but that's essentially all you need to know. That argument is so easily refuted that it can't possibly be the real reason. Some of these kids were brought in as infants. They have fought against incredible odds to succeed and are deeply devoted to the U.S. The strongest argument FAIR can come up with is that they should be deported to punish their parents for the desperate choices they made decades ago? That just doesn't make sense.
The organized restrictionist movement has staked everything on opposing the DREAM Act. They understand what the coalitions and organizations in Congress that support comprehensive immigration reform do not: if DREAM passes, there's a good chance CIR will then pass. You will have energized between one and two million undocumented youth, allowed them to "come out of the closet" and fight for their undocumented friends and family members. It is an absolute gamechanger, and FAIR and the other groups understand this even if leaders in Congress do not.
Look at the supporters and opponents of DREAM listed in the article itself:
Pro: the College Board, the University of California system, Harvard University President Drew Gilpin Faust, Microsoft, and a number of other education, business, and political leaders
Anti: organizations like the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
And this is supposed to create a "controversy"? Clearly the reporter herself doesn't see much of a controversy, but perhaps her editor did. To me, the problematic title of the article stigmatizing the DREAM Act before the readers even get to the actual reporting means that FAIR and the other restrictionist groups have done an excellent job of messaging and of strategically positioning themselves in relation to the gatekeepers of the discourse. However, I believe that reason and dedication will eventually win the day, and that the energy and power of the DREAM movement will overcome the obstacles currently preventing DREAM from even being voted on, though supporters know it has the votes to pass.
*(Question to Mark in comments and others offended by the term "restrictionists": if that is a word you reject, what word would you use to describe the movement that includes FAIR, CIS, ALIPAC, NumbersUSA, etc. that non-insiders can understand? If it's "anti-illegal immigrant movement" then we're at an impasse, because I reject the use of the term "illegal immigrant.")
[Image: Walter Lara, Dreamer]
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Grassroots Effort Halts Walter Lara's Deportation
-
My Name is Ashley and I am Undocumented
-
Herta Thanks Her Supporters, But Not Out of the Woods Yet
Comments (31)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
David is an attorney in Philadelphia, PA, where he helps immigrants to the U.S. navigate the complex immigration legal system. Views he expresses at change.org are his alone and don't represent the views or opinions of his employer, Nationalities Service Center. The information contained on this site is intended for educational and advocacy purposes only.
Ronald Reagan (paraphrasing) said I can go to China or Bulgaria but I can never become Chinese or Bulgarian--but anyone can become an American
"Ich bin ein Berliner"- JFK
Posted by Kurt Thialfad on 08/25/2009 @ 06:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"...what word would you use to describe the movement that includes FAIR, CIS, ALIPAC, NumbersUSA, etc"
The correct term is immigration reductionist
Other immigration reductionist groups include: ZPG, Diversity Alliance, CAPS, SUPS, VDARE.
Here's a good link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_reduction
Posted by Wire Paladin on 08/25/2009 @ 10:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
lol, immigration reductionist. let's talk about PC! are you a management consultant, do you think up misleading euphemisms at your day job?
i'll invite readers to think of other ways to say "restrictionist", which i will bet started out as a euphemism dreamed up by the antis in the first place. now it's too distasteful even for the anti movement. how much farther do they need to go to hide their actual motivations and objectives?
possible candidates:
--border sanitation committee
--caucasian protection alliance
--environmental federation for minimizing extraenous non-native population growth through travel restrictions
what else sounds even less menacing (or descriptive) than "immigration reductionism"?
Posted by Dave Bennion on 08/25/2009 @ 03:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
diversity alliance!? you've got to be kidding me. that takes the cake.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 08/25/2009 @ 03:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I didn't think up the misleading euphemism, I got it from Wikipedia. Immigration restrictionist has nothing in Wikipedia. Must be something you alone thought up.
Diversity Alliance has a web site: http://www.asustainableusa.org/
Check it out!
Posted by Wire Paladin on 08/25/2009 @ 05:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Or one could say "anti-illegal immigrationists".
Posted by Mark Lindley on 08/25/2009 @ 02:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
no one couldn't because i reject the term "illegal immigrant" as i've said many times.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 08/25/2009 @ 03:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Just because you reject it doesn't make it a non-existant term in our government lingo and just about everywhere else when referring to those in our country illegally. So you not only reject IA as an appropriate term but now II as well?
An ample term for anti-illegals would be pro-laws citizens. Most pro-laws citizens object to illegal immigration because of our laws and our soveirgnty as a nation rather than what you are claiming. However, I have to laugh when the pro-advocates act like it is racist for Americans to want to retain their traditional society, culture and language and certainly not lose it through illegal immigration when they themselves would have a fit if the same thing happened to Mexico. I guess it is only the U.S. that is supposed to embrace the takeover of their country in this manner smply because they have a white majority. I think the racist shoe is on the wrong foot here.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 08/25/2009 @ 05:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
you are not doing your cause much good, but feel free to keep digging.
"pro laws citizens" is too vague. no direct connection to immigration. "pro-migrant" on the other hand is very direct and clear.
also as far as the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" go, i've addressed that at length elsewhere. http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/illegal_immigrant_is_the_real_euphemism
Posted by Dave Bennion on 08/25/2009 @ 06:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think the majority of Americans who are pro-laws are also pro-"immigrant".
Posted by Mark Lindley on 08/25/2009 @ 06:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ayy…just never realized that 'restrictionist' was politically incorrect! Well, I tried to remedy this grave injustice, but Mark was singularly unimpressed with my suggestion of "The Ignorati.” Oh well, how about this:
Beleaguered White Males with too much time on their hands
(Note: Here, the term ‘white’ refers to a state of mind more than skin color. You, of course, are one of us, Dave: “Evil Multiculturalist” ;-)
Posted by a d on 08/26/2009 @ 04:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If you think that only white males are opposed to illegal immigration/amnesty then you are living in a dream world. Fighting for our country's laws, security and soveirgnty is not akin to "having too much time on one's hands". What could be more fulfilling and meaningful than that? Certainly it isn't being compassionate to illegal foreigners while witholding tht same compassion for one's law abiding countrymen.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 08/26/2009 @ 05:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have to tell you something Mark. The church I work along with on Immigration happens to be pro-Immigration and fighting hard for the cause happens to be one of the first Dutch church "religious groups" to settle into America...to have freedom of church and prayer. They are "very white" and I have never seen a group fight so hard for a cause as they do. They also fight hard for orphans that are thrown out on the streets when they turn 18. They have bought old churchs and housed these kids and they guide them and educate them so that they can survive when they get out on the streets. They have managed to pray so hard that there prayers have helped many Immigrants and have changed the minds of people that have thought so harsely on this issue.
Mark, I would like to know what do you do to contribute to people everyday in your life today?? and I am talking about today and not ten years ago?? I am just curious?? and I do not care about the color of your skin but I do see the color of your soul and there is not such prism that exists in the color wheel of brightness. Your hue is dark and grey and depressing.
I prefer to live my life under the rainbow that sees optimism rather than your world of dome and gloom. Your thoughts and ideas that bring pain and tears to others.
I decided not long ago that I would fight for Immigrants that have had there familys torn apart and their world destroyed and this may be a shocker to you but Immigration Reform has brought me too church....and that church happens to be the oldest church in the US and they have been here way longer than you or I.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 09/04/2009 @ 12:22AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I wouldn't say that 'restrictionist' was politically incorrect, but rather inappropriate. If you subscribe to the notion that all immigrants must learn English (with which most everyone on the blog agrees), then you are applying a 'restriction' and by definition, have earned the restrictionist label. Unless you want totally open uncontrolled immigration, then you can't escape the restrictionist label, at least to a mild degree.
I'm not so concerned about restricting immigration, but rather reducing it to 250K annually. I think that makes me a 'reductionist'.
Posted by Kurt Thialfad on 08/31/2009 @ 05:53AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Kurt, our immigration laws already "restrict" legal immigration by certain numbers each year as you know. It is based on our needs for labor, assimilation, population growth, etc. Sounds sane to me. I am not a population capacity expert but I do read up a lot about it. Our birthrates are still nearlly twice as high as our deathrates. Many experts agree that ideally our populaltion should have leveled off at around 200 million in keeping with our ability to provide them with natural resources and everything else it takes to sustain that population.
Restricting numbers each year is very important but what is equally important to me is that immigrants from all walks of life that are in need be given equal opportunity to come here. It is only fair.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 08/31/2009 @ 09:35AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Seems to me Mark is pro-Immigration and fighting hard as well. The way he stands up for his nation, despite the attacks and the abuse strikes me as highly admirable. I am proud to offer my support.
Posted by Kurt Thialfad on 09/04/2009 @ 06:01AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Kurt, as you can see as usual the pro-advocates demonize anyone who doesn't go along with their agenda as inhumane, dark hole in the heart, etc. when actally it is they that have a dark hole in their hearts for their fellow law abiding citizens who are bearing the brunt of this lawlessness. Their humanitarism is so misplaced it is simply amazng to me. There is none for thier fellow law abiding countrymen.
Notice to how they continue to claim to be pro-"immigrant" when in actuality they are pro-"illegal immigrant" two totally different groups of people. But they will continue to blur the lines which is blatantly dishonest. Since we aren't pro-illegal immigrant they try to claim we aren't pro-immigrant either. Nothing could be further from the truth but truth eludes them.
They do not care how these additional millions of people who had no respect for our immigration laws are affecting this country and or how another amnesty would be an even bigger disaster than the last one and would encourage more to come illegally. They do not care if our population blossoms into 500 million people or more and the middle class is replaced by a two class system. Those in poverty and the rich. Gee, just like Mexico! They think of themselves as being morally superior in spite of all of this. It is such twisted thinking and such tunnel vision for our country.
I will continue the fight for secure borders and respect for our immigration laws. I welcome immigrants who come here legally withiin the numbers that are in the best interests of our country and fairness to ALL ethnic groups who wish to become a part of the American Dream not favoring just one ethnic group.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 09/04/2009 @ 07:01AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
When you are talking about our fellow Americans Mark...are you talking about your rich crony friends that haven't faced a stitch of financial hardship throughout their whole life. Did you read about how Brittany is a single mom with a fatherless child?? She is my fellow American "US borned citizen" and she is faced with poverty because our current broken Immigration system ripped her family apart.
Mark, to not have compassion for Brittant means you do have a huge blk dark hole in your heart. 63% of Americans want our Immigration system to reform and that includes wanting all people out of the shadows and on their way to a path to citizenship.
Some Americans are motivated by compassion and others just simply want a system that has the entire country documented and on the books so that the US can once become a place again where all people in our country have the same shot at the American Dream and so that we have all people working to find cures for disease and innovation that our country so deperately needs to have again.
We are never going to look like Mexico Mark because we have a great system of checks and balances. It is America that voted for CHANGE in this country and 63% will get the CHANGE they want in time.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 09/04/2009 @ 12:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mark, I know exactly the people you're talking about; those who bemoan the fact that the government is deporting a juvenile alien who has committed a horrendous crime, yet when an minor American commits the same level of crime, they want to try him as an adult.
Posted by Kurt Thialfad on 09/04/2009 @ 02:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
...and also those who oppose the construction of a fence on our border, yet lock the front doors of their own homes - even reside themselves in gated communities.
Posted by Kurt Thialfad on 09/04/2009 @ 02:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have no rich crony friends. I am a middle classed American. I haven't commented on any indidivual cases in here so stop implying that I have. I stick strickly to those who have broken our immigration laws. I don't comment on their familiy's demise because many Americans who have broken our laws also cause seperation and hardship for their families they leave behind when they are held accountable for breakiing our laws by jail or prison time. The guilt falls on the law breakers not our country. What do we do not enforce any of our laws against those who have families? Get real, will you!
Yes, people voted for change. Change from the Bush war, change from all the debt we had incurrred. Most Americans didn't vote for Obama because of his stance on immigraton because McCain's was the same! How easy you forget. Immigration went on the back burner with all the other pressing problems we had. They wanted the Republicans out as a party and the extra icing for minorities was that Obama was half black.
You are going to be in for a big surprise when CIR is brought up again. You don't have the support for YOUR kind of CIR that you think. Presidents don't make immigration policy anyway, congress does and they are all going to be very worried about losing their seats if they push another amnesty.
I noticed instead of addressing what I said about how unfair it is that it would be mostly Mexicans benefiting from an amnesty to the rest of world's immigrants waiting to come here you come up with "we won't look like Mexico". Well I beg to differ with the obvious but the point was it is unfair to other ethnic groups. Can't dispute that though, can you? Your humanitarism is for mostly one ethnic group. That isn't true humanitarism. If you were truly the humanitarian you claim to be you would be pushing for equality in our immigration quotas.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 09/04/2009 @ 03:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(The guilt falls on the law breakers not our country.)
What represents our country Mark. Isn't it the people who live here??? and we all know that 63% of the people do not agree with you and want the laws to CHANGE!!!
This goes further than guilt Mark...this is more about SHAME!! and it is a disgrace and SHAME when our laws divide and destroy the family "Brittant" a US borned citizen that has a "beautiful newborn baby" that is left fatherless because of broken...unrealistic Immigration laws.
Do you know that most Americans think that if a US citizen marrys an Undocumented person that the system pardons them. Tell your fellow Americans the truth Mark!! and watch their jaw drop when you tell them. Tell them the truth Mark..that Brittany is our fellow American a young knew mother who made a choice to keep her baby and the system ripped apart her family. Tell Americans that they do not have a right to marry whoever they want in this country and that if they marry and undocumented person the system will rip their family apart!!! What happen to family Values in this country???
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 09/04/2009 @ 08:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
... will pass by the down and out American Vietnam Vet with his "work for food" sign, and pick up a young strong illegal and pay him less than minimum wage.
Posted by Kurt Thialfad on 09/04/2009 @ 06:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Gee Kurt...funny thing that my friends that are Vietnam Vets...and World War ll Vets as well...do not think like you. "Work for Food" sign???
Legalize everyone in this country and bring them all out of the shadows and inforce labor laws Kurt!! and then no one will be able to pay minumim wage. Your ideas Kurt are backwords!! You are a part of the problem!! and you support the old policys and the "same ole" keep it all the same no solution talking points.
WE NEED COMMON SENSE IMMIGRATION REFORM!!
FACT: 63% of Americans want Immigration Reform and that includes bringing all out of the shadows and on to a path to citizenship.
FACT: Americans voted for CHANGE and they voted Obama in on a platform that stands for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 09/04/2009 @ 07:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Gee Kurt...funny thing that my friends that are Vietnam Vets...and World War ll Vets as well...do not think like you. "Work for Food" sign???
Legalize everyone in this country and bring them all out of the shadows and inforce labor laws Kurt!! and then no one will be able to pay minumim wage. Your ideas Kurt are backwords!! You are a part of the problem!! and you support the old policys and the "same ole" keep it all the same no solution talking points.
WE NEED COMMON SENSE IMMIGRATION REFORM!!
FACT: 63% of Americans want Immigration Reform and that includes bringing all out of the shadows and on to a path to citizenship.
FACT: Americans voted for CHANGE and they voted Obama in on a platform that stands for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 09/04/2009 @ 07:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Gee Kurt...funny thing that my friends that are Vietnam Vets...and World War ll Vets as well...do not think like you. "Work for Food" sign???
Mary's never seen anybody standing on the side of the road with a "Will work for Food" sign? The best one I saw was "Why lie, I need a Beer".
FACT: 63% want Legalization, not a path to Citizenship, get your fact straight.
FACT: Obama was not voted in just for his platform on CIR.
Legalize everyone in this country and bring them all out of the shadows and inforce labor laws Kurt!! and then no one will be able to pay minimum wage.
I don't think anybody could argue against that!! Nothing like a race to the bottom of the pay scale ladder.
Seems Mary is "backwards" in her thinking, is this her form of Common Sense?
Posted by Liquids Reign on 09/04/2009 @ 08:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You just said absolutely nothing!! As always.
I have a business to run...and no time for you to waste.
I also refuse to waste my time debateing you!! I need to get back to signing my petitions and making phone calls for Corizine.
Only 3 points behind as of yesterday....and it looks like Christie has some bad stuff coming out on him in the press.
Told you so!! :)
Posted by Mary Pranzatelli on 09/04/2009 @ 08:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You wouldn't be referring to the GQR Questionnaire would you for your 3%? From all the polls, Christie has a lead ranging from 5 -10% as of today.
This wouldn't be the bad news coming out about Christie would it:
The Star-Ledger unearths that somebody who wants to convince the state that he will take it in the right direction drove the wrong way down a one-way street in Elizabeth and got in an accident that injured a biker.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-territo/new-jersey-governor-candi_b_277253.html
Posted by Liquids Reign on 09/04/2009 @ 09:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Legalize everyone in this country and bring them all out of the shadows and inforce labor laws ...
Yes, Mary, that's the way to enforce our labor laws ... by not enforcing them.
Posted by Kurt Thialfad on 09/04/2009 @ 09:21PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Same analogy if an American knowingly marries a bank robber. It isn't our government or our laws that are tearing the family apart it is the bank robber by his actions.
As I said, your percentages are way off as to exactly what kind of CIR most Americans actually want. It all depends on how and what questions are asked in a poll and some polls are scewred to fit the agenda of the polster. Evidence of how most Americans actually feel about illegal immigration was a couple of years ago when amnesty was being shoved down our throats. The phones rang off the hook and congress dropped it like a hot potato.
Fact: only ethnocentrics voted for Obama based on his stance on immigraton reform.
Fact: Obama and McCain were both in favor of a CIR so how did Obama win the election because of his stance on CIR when both candidates promised it? (this is the second time I have asked).
I posted some of my solutions. Implement e-verify in the workplace. Can't have that now can we?
Legaize everyone illegally in our country? Why? Without even determining what our actual labor needs are and if there are Americans to fill those jobs? Without considering the added population growth today and tommorow resulting from this? Without even considering how we will take care of the social and resource needs of this huge added population? Without considering that it isn't fair to other ethnic groups across the globe who would also like to come here when amnesty would mostly benefit Latinos? What happened to the diversity that your side claims they like? I see no diversity in that.
Posted by Mark Lindley on 09/04/2009 @ 09:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And this idea of putting illegals on a path to citizenship presents a hard dilemma. Most foreign nationals do not wish to give up their citizenship. Becoming an American citizenship requires taking the Oath of Allegiance by which the applicant revokes forever all previous citizenship and allegiances. The US does not allow for dual citizenship. Most naturalized citizens still illegally retain their previous citizenship. Arnold Schwartenegger is a noteworthy case-in-point. Therefore, you have the prospect of millions of new citizens whose first official act in this country is the crime of perjury. This is unacceptable.
Posted by Kurt Thialfad on 09/05/2009 @ 07:19AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.