What happens to the DREAM Act?

The DREAM Act (for the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) has raised hackles on the right, though it once enjoyed modest bipartisan support. The measure, never a sure thing, appears poised to become a new casualty in the nation's backlash against undocumented immigrants. U.S. bishops reiterated their support December 3 for DREAM (they have long supported DREAM as well as comprehensive immigration reform). The act is intended to provide a soft landing for young people who have grown up in the United States but who entered the nation without documentation as children with their parents. Approximately 65,000 such young people graduate from America's high schools each year. Coadjutor Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Migration, called on Congress to pass DREAM, calling it “the right thing to do.”

Prospects for the passage of the bill in this lame-duck session of Congress are not great, but they would presumably be far worse after Republicans assume control of the House next year. There is perhaps more at stake than just the DREAM. As one opponent of the act told the N.Y. Times: “We think if we beat this one we won’t have to deal with amnesty for many years to come."


Under the legislation, young undocumented people who complete two years of higher education or two years of military service would be eligible for legal permanent residence and eventual citizenship. Coming of age has meant coming to terms with a future fraught with obstacles for such young people. Many have few or no clear memories of their nations and cultures of origin. It is therefore something of a cruelty to force their relocation to such nations to apply for immigration through standard channels and without legal residency they are currently stymied in efforts to pursue higher education or careers that suit their talents, altogether a waste of the investment the United States has already made in these potential contributors and citizens.

"It is important to note that these young persons entered the United States with their parents at a young age, and therefore did not enter without inspection on their own volition. We would all do the same thing in a similar situation,” Archbishop Gomez said. “They have incredible talent and energy and are awaiting a chance to fully contribute their talents to our nation. We would be foolhardy to deny them that chance.

“There are times when a proposal should be enacted because, simply put, it is the right thing to do.  This is one of them,” the Archbishop said.  “The DREAM Act represents a practical, fair, and compassionate solution for thousands of young persons who simply want to reach their God-given potential and contribute to the well-being of our nation.”

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Carolyn Hyppolite
7 years 10 months ago
The problem is that Americans think this is a zero sum game in which immigrants winning means that they lose. I am eager to see someone to a serious exploration on how immigrants as workers, tax payers and consumers have contributed to the American economy from its founding.

Peace in Christ
Carolyn Hyppolite
Marie Rehbein
7 years 10 months ago
It would be ridiculous to send these young people back to the countries their parents left.  They may not even speak the language.  Too bad they don't call the act something that explains more specifically what it is - "homeless children's safe refuge act" or something like that. 
Mark Harden
7 years 10 months ago
"Three million such young people graduate from America's high schools each year."

That's a typo, right? Such a high figure for illegal immigrant high school graduates is absurd. Three million!? Each year!? Please cite? 
Marie Rehbein
7 years 10 months ago
The Pew Hispanic Center was cited in the following:
http://www.labor.ucla.edu/publications/reports/Undocumented-Students.pdf, which states the following:
"Furthermore, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from U.S. high schools each year.  Of this number, roughly 40 percent, or 26,000, undocumented youth reside in the state of California."

Where does the 3 million stated in the article come from?
Marie Rehbein
7 years 10 months ago
Sixty-five thousand kids is still a lot of kids.  If the US deports them to countries they do not call home, what is achieved by that?  I know the people who oppose illegal immigration will react that this kind of thing only encourages other adults to smuggle their children into the country, but children are profit centers, not cost centers, and the more educated people we have in this country, as opposed to other countries, the better it is for us.  In other words, our nation made the investment whether it wanted to or not, should it not be able to reap the benefits of all the education it provided?


The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018