THE DREAM ACT: GOOD FOR OUR ECONOMY, GOOD FOR OUR SECURITY,
GOOD FOR OUR NATION
The DREAM Act is common-sense legislation drafted by both Republicans and Democrats that
would give students who grew up in the United States a chance to contribute to our country’s
well-being by serving in the U.S. armed forces or pursuing a higher education. It’s good for our
economy, our security, and our nation. That’s why the DREAM Act has long enjoyed bipartisan
support. It’s limited, targeted legislation that will allow only the best and brightest young people
to earn their legal status after a rigorous and lengthy process, and applies to those brought to the
United States as minors through no fault of their own by their parents, and who know no other
home.
Our country will reap enormous benefits when the DREAM Act is finally enacted:
The DREAM Act will contribute to our military’s recruitment efforts and readiness.
Secretary of Defense Gates has written to DREAM Act sponsors citing the rich precedent
of non-citizens serving in the U.S. military and stating that “the DREAM Act represents
an opportunity to expand [the recruiting] pool, to the advantage of military recruiting and
readiness.” The DREAM Act is also a part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012
Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.
The DREAM Act will make our country more competitive in the global economy.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has stated that passing the DREAM Act will allow
“these young people to live up to their fullest potential and contribute to the economic
growth of our country.” In particular, the DREAM Act will play an important part in
the nation’s efforts to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by
2020,
” something vital for America to remain competitive in today’s global economy.
The DREAM Act will have important economic benefits. According to the non-
partisan Congressional Budget Office, the DREAM Act in its current form will cut the
deficit by $1.4 billion and increase government revenues by $2.3 billion over the next 10
years.
According to a recent UCLA study, students that would be impacted by the
DREAM Act could add between $1.4 to $3.6 trillion in taxable income to our economy
over the course of careers, depending on how many ultimately gain legal status. This
income is substantially higher than the income they would earn if they were unable to
attend and complete a college education. In fact, research indicates that the average
college graduate earned nearly 60 percent more than a high-school graduate. We have
much to gain from doing right by these young people.
The DREAM Act will allow our immigration and border security experts to focus
on those who pose a serious threat to our nation’s security. Secretary Napolitano
believes this targeted legislation provides a firm but fair way to deal with innocent
children brought to the U.S. at a young age so that the Department of Homeland Security
2
can dedicate their enforcement resources to detaining and deporting criminals and those
who pose a threat to our country.
Myths vs. Facts: DREAM Act
As the public debate on the DREAM Act moves forward, it is vital that the facts on this
important legislation remain clear. The Dream Act is good for our economy, our security, and
our nation. And the lenghty and rigorous process the DREAM Act establishes will ensure that
our nation is enriched with only the most promising young people who have already grown up in
America. In fact, according to a recent analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, just 38 percent
of all potential beneficiaries will successfully complete the DREAM Act’s rigorous process and
earn permanent immigration status.
Myth:
Opponents claim the DREAM Act is “amnesty.”
Fact:
The Dream Act requires responsibility and accountability of young people who apply to
adjust their status under the DREAM Act, creating a lenghty and rigorous process.
Young people must meet several requirements in order to qualify for the conditional
status it will provide them. These requirements include entering the country when they
were under 16 years old, proving they have continuously lived in the U.S. for at least 5
years and graduated from a U.S. high school or obtained a GED; demonstrating their
good moral character; proving they have not committed any crimes that would make
them inadmissible to the country. Only then can they obtain a conditional status for a
limited period of time.
After their six year conditional status, these same individuals will need to meet
additional requirements to move on to the next phase of this process. Specifically,
they must have attended college or served in the U.S. military for at least 2 years, and
once again, pass criminal background checks, and demonstrate good moral character. If
young people are unable to fulfill these requirements, they will lose their legal status and
be subject to deportation.
Only applies to individuals who entered the U.S. as children. According to DREAM
Act’s provisions, beneficiaries must have entered the United States when they were under
16 years old.
DREAM Act applicants will be responsible for paying fees to cover the costs of
USCIS processing their applications. According to Section 286(m) of Immigration and
Nationality Act provisions, the cost of having U.S. Customs and Immigration Services
process DREAM Act applications will be covered by the application fees.
DREAM Act applicants would be subject to rigorous criminal background checks
and reviews. All criminal grounds of inadmissibility and removability that apply to
other aliens seeking lawful permanent resident status would apply and bar criminal aliens
from gaining conditional or unconditional LPR status under the DREAM Act.
Additionally, decisions to grant status are discretionary, and any alien with a criminal
record not automatically barred by these provisions would only be granted status when
3
and if the Secretary exercises her discretion favorably.
Myth: Opponents claim the DREAM Act would encourage more students to immigrate illegally,
and that applicants would just use it to petition for relatives.
Fact: The DREAM Act only applies to young people already in the United States who were
brought here as children, it would not apply to anyone arriving later, so it cannot act as a
“magnet” encouraging others to come. Furthermore,. DREAM Act applicants would not be able
to petition for any family member until fulfilling lengthy and rigorous requirements outlined
above, and even then, they would have to wait years before being able to successfully petition for
parents or siblings..
DREAM Act beneficiaries would only be able to petition for entry of their parents or
sibling if they have satisfied all of the requirements under the DREAM Act. Even then,
they would be subject to the same annual caps waiting periods in order to petition for
their relatives; the bottom line is that it would take many years before parents or siblings
who previously entered the country illegally could obtain a green card.
Myth: Opponents claim the DREAM Act would result in taxpayers having to subsidize student
loans for those students who register through the DREAM Act.
Fact: DREAM Act students would not be eligible for federal grants, period.
An alien who adjusts to lawful permanent resident status under DREAM qualifies only
for certain specified types of Federal higher education assistance. Undocumented youth
adjusting to lawful permanent resident status are only eligible for federal student loans
which must be paid back, and federal work-study programs, where they must work for
any benefit they receive. They would not eligible for federal grants, such as Pell Grants.
What They’re Saying:
Editorials and experts around the country are agreeing that the DREAM Act is good for our
nation, and have called on Congress to pass it:
Former Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, a Republican, said on a conference call on
November 29
th
it would be a “shame” not to pass the bill in the lame duck.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said
“[The Republican Party] needs to take a hard look
at some of the positions they’ve been taking. We can’t be anti-immigration, for example.
Immigrants are fueling this country. Without immigrants America would be like Europe or
Japan with an aging population and no young people to come in and take care of it. We have to
educate our immigrants. The DREAM Act is one way we can do this.”
Former Illinois Republican Governor Jim Edgar voiced his support for DREAM in an op-ed in
Sunday’s Chicago Tribune, writing
: “A rational approach to comprehensive immigration reform
4
should begin with the young people who were brought here as babies, toddlers and
adolescents…A nation as kind as ours should not turn its back on them. Congress needs to
support the sensible, humane approach embodied in legislation known as the Dream Act. The
measure charts a rigorous path that undocumented youths must negotiate to gain legal status
and qualify for citizenship, and supporting it would be both good government and good
politics."
The Wall Street Journal published
an editorial that argues: “Restrictionists dismiss the Dream
Act as an amnesty that rewards people who entered the country illegally. But the bill targets
individuals brought here by their parents as children. What is to be gained by holding
otherwise law-abiding young people, who had no say in coming to this country, responsible for
the illegal actions of others? The Dream Act also makes legal status contingent on school
achievement and military service, the type of behavior that ought to be encouraged and
rewarded.”
On August 11, 2010, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
explained to NPR the
economic sense of allowing undocumented children to earn their citizenship: "When a kid
comes to his country, and he's four years old and he had no choice in it – his parents came
illegally. He still, because he is in this state, it's the state's responsibility - in fact, it is the state's
legal mandate - to make sure that child is in school. So let's say that kid goes to school. That kid
is in our school from kindergarten through the 12th grade. He graduates as valedictorian
because he's a smart kid and he works his rear end off and he becomes the valedictorian of the
school. The question is: Is he better off going to college and becoming a neurosurgeon or a
banker or whatever he might become, and becoming a taxpayer, and in the process having to
apply for and achieve citizenship, or should we make him pick tomatoes? I think it's better if he
goes to college and becomes a citizen."
Education, military, religious and business leaders support the DREAM Act: The legislation
is supported by a wide range of leaders from the education
, military, and business fields, and
from religious orders including the United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and
Society; the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
; the evangelical movement, the Jewish
community; and many others.
David S. C. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness under George W.
Bush, called for action on the DREAM Act to strengthen the military. “If their parents are
undocumented or in immigration limbo, most of these young people have no mechanism to
obtain legal residency even if they have lived most of their lives here. Yet many of these young
people may wish to join the military, and have the attributes needed - education, aptitude,
fitness, and moral qualifications.” [CQ Congressional Testimony; ”Immigration and the Military”;
July 10, 2006]
Margaret Stock, a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve (retired); a former professor at
the U.S. Military Academy at West Point; and an adjunct professor at the University of Alaska,
Anchorage, said: “Potential DREAM Act beneficiaries are also likely to be a military recruiter’s
dream candidates for enlistment … In a time when qualified recruits—particularly ones with
foreign language skills and foreign cultural awareness – are in short supply, enforcing
5
deportation laws against these young people makes no sense. Americans who care about our
national security should encourage Congress to pass the DREAM Act.” [Margaret D. Stock, “The
DREAM Act: Tapping an Overlooked Pool of Home Grown Talent.” The Federalist Society, Washington,
DC. Engage: The Journal of the Federalist Societies Practice Group, Volume 6, Issue 2, October 2005]
Bill Carr, former Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, called
DREAM “very appealing” to the military “because it would apply to the ‘cream of the crop’ of
students. Mr. Carr concluded that the DREAM Act would be "good for [military] readiness."
[Donna Miles, “Officials Hope to Rekindle Interest in Immigration Bill Provision.” American Forces
Press Service. June 11, 2007]
Conservative military scholar Max Boot supports the DREAM Act: “It's a substantial pool of
people and I think it's crazy we are not tapping into it.” The DREAM Act “would not only offer
a welcome path toward citizenship for many promising young people but also might ease some
of the recruitment problems that Army has been facing of late.” [Max Boot, “Dream a Little
Dream,” Commentary Magazine, September 20, 2007]
The Center for Naval Analyses issued a report finding that immigrants in the military have
high levels of performance and lower rates of attrition. The report noted that non-citizens add
valuable diversity to the armed forces and perform extremely well, often having significantly
lower attrition rates than other recruits. The report also pointed out that “much of the growth
in the recruitment‐eligible population will come from immigration.” [CNA, “Non-Citizens in
Today’s Military. Final Report.” April 2005. http://www.cna.org/documents/D0011092.A2.pdf]
Senator Richard Durbin Makes a Compelling Case for DREAM: “This is the choice the
DREAM Act presents to us. We can allow a generation of immigrant students with great
potential and ambitions to contribute more fully to our society and national security, or we can
relegate them to a future in the shadows, which would be a loss for all Americans.” [Senator
Richard Durbin, Floor Statement, “DREAM Act as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill,”
Friday, July 13, 2007
Editorial Pages supporting the DREAM Act
1. New York Times: Dreaming of Reform
, November 30, 2010
2. Wall Street Journal (National): A Worthy Immigration Bill
, November 29, 2010
3. Santa Rosa Press-Democrat (Calif.): Step forward
, November 21, 2010
4. Battle Creek Enquirer (Mich.): Step toward real reform
, November 19, 2010
5. Fresno Bee: Sorting out hypocrisy on illegal immigration
, November 19, 2010
6. Los Angeles Times: A path to college
, November 17, 2010
7. Sacramento Bee: DREAM Act should be the law of the land
, November 17, 2010
8. La Opinión: The time is now!
, November 16, 2010
9. Denver Post: To-do list for short session
, November 16, 2010
10. Berkshire Eagle: Reform is a pipe dream
, November 15, 2010
11. Sheboygan Press: DREAM Act has merit, but do it right way
, October 3, 2010
12. Myrtle Beach Sun-News: Dream deferred
, October 1, 2010
13. Rock Hill Herald (S.C.): Give DREAM Act a chance
, September 27, 2010
6
14. Leaf-Chronicle (Clarksville, Tenn.): DREAM of being a citizen
, September 27, 2010
15. Milwaukee Journal Sentienal: Editorial -- Dreams deferred
, September 21, 2010
16. San Francisco Chronicle: Editorial -- Senate should pass DREAM Act
, September 21,
2010
17. Arizona Republic: Editorial -- Pass DREAM Act the right way
, September 21, 2010
18. New York Times: Dream Time
, September 20, 2010
19. Los Angeles Times: The DREAM Act deserves a yes vote
, September 20, 2010
20. New York Daily News: Make the DREAM come true: Proposed law would clear path
to earned citizenship, September 20, 2010
21. La Opinión: A reasonable strategy
, September 20, 2010
22. Chicago Tribue: Pass the Dream Act
, September 20, 2010
23. Newsday: Create a path to citizenship
, September 20, 2010
24. Aurora Sentinel: Colin Powell is the right's voice of reason on immigration
,
September 19,2010
25. Deseret News: Pass the DREAM Act
, September 17, 2010
26. El Diario: Sí al ‘DREAM Act’
, September 17, 2010
27. Chicago Sun-Times: Give kids here illegally chance to go to college
, September 16,
2010
28. San Jose Mercury News: Dream Act should transcend immigration debate
, September
16, 2010
29. Aurora Sentinel: Everyone benefits when this DREAM comes true
, September 14,
2010
30. Arizona Republic: The Dream Act is long overdue
, August 19, 2010
31. Fort Worth Star Telegram: Politics interrupts a dream
, August 19, 2010
32. Washington Post: Dream Act could save immigrant students from deportation
,
August 12, 201 (reprinted in the Herald-Sun (North Carolina) under the title “More
American DREAMers”)
33. Fort Worth Star Telegram: Deporting students isn't the best answer to immigration
problems, August 10, 2010
34. La Opinión - The DREAM Act can’t wait
, August 8, 2010
35. Wichita Eagle: No leadership on immigration
, August 6, 2010
36. Akron Beacon Journal: DREAM of an act
, August 5, 2010
37. Los Angeles Times: Wake up and pass the DREAM immigration reform act
, June 26,
2010
38. Boston Globe: Case of Harvard student shows urgency of immigration reform
, June
18, 2010
39. New York Times: Courage in Arizona
, May 19, 2010
40. Kansas City Star: Protests could block American dream
, May 19, 2010
41. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: The Dream Act: a path for dreams to come true
, March
20, 2010
42. Philadelphia Inquirer: Reaching for a dream
, March 6, 2010
43. Tallahassee Democrat: Dare to DREAM
, February 9, 2010
44. Seattle Times: Pass the Dream Act to give undocumented young people a future
,
January 28, 2010
45. Miami Herald: Congress must pass DREAM Act, June 26, 2009
46. Philadelphia Inquirer: They’re not going away, May 1, 2009
