Those wanting to become U.S.citizens should earn it
 

Those wanting to become U.S.citizens should earn it
By Rueben Navarrette


Since the demise of comprehensive immigration reform earlier this year, I've been looking for another idea that would give illegal immigrants the chance to become legal but require that those who receive such a privilege give back quite a bit in return.

For a while, I thought this sort of thing would never materialize. In fact, you could say, I thought I was dreaming. But now comes the DREAM Act (for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors). The idea needs adjustments, but it's a step in the right direction. The measure -- proposed by Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin -- would give U.S. citizenship to individuals if they had come to the United States before the age of 16, graduated from high school or received a GED, and completed two years of college or military service. Durbin tried to insert the idea as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid nixed it because there wasn't enough support. Reid did promise to bring the DREAM Act to a vote next month.

It's the mention of military service that concerns those on the extreme left, who fret that students who can't afford college might be so eager for citizenship that they could wind up in Iraq. Meanwhile, the extreme right thinks that the idea will serve as a magnet for illegal immigration (as opposed to say, jobs) and rejects it as nothing more than -- wait for it -- amnesty.

As usual, both extremes are wrong. But to assuage some of those concerns, I think the DREAM Act should be tweaked so that students have to complete a four-year degree or four-year military enlistment before qualifying, and then they would qualify only for legal residency -- not citizenship. Once they become legal, they should have to follow the same steps anyone else does to obtain citizenship. We might also add a third option besides college or the military. How about two years of national service in a poor community within the United States? If the point is to find some way for these young people to contribute to the betterment of a country that is about to grant them legal status, that would sure do the trick. The specifics can be worked out, but let's not lose sight of the real strength of the DREAM Act. It's the quid pro quo of offering illegal immigrants a path to legalization but not making that path a cakewalk. Every single piece of immigration reform that comes along should strike the same sort of bargain. Those who don't want to accept the terms and take the deal can go about their business, and bet their chances with immigration authorities. But those who do will have demonstrated that they're willing to make an investment in a country that has already given them a lot and stands to give them much more. In return, the rest of us get a higher-earning, greater-producing legal resident who can contribute to society for many years to come.

One of the shrillest and most alarming arguments against this bill is coming from conservative Republicans who insist that enacting this sort of reform would somehow reduce educational opportunities for native-born U.S. citizens by forcing them to compete with illegal immigrants for admission to colleges, scholarships and the like.

It's official. The protectionists have no shame. We now have members of Congress who -- after years of arguing that Americans are threatened by trade deals, high-tech workers and low-wage laborers -- are trying to protect native-born high school students from the embarrassment of competing with illegal immigrant students and losing out. It just hit me. What Americans really need is a domestic DREAM Act for our own kids -- something to remind the little darlings that, if you want something out of life, you have to put something back in. If they learn that, they won't need protecting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You think if they made those changes we would get more support?? Like instead of two year for college and military make it four? the community service part isn't a bad idea either.

Funny sig.


Yes! I believe there should be a four year degree requirement. In all honesty two years is very little for school. Besides, you mostly need a BA anyway these days. In New York it seems like not getting an MA is a death sentence. I don't know about four years in the military though, that's a bit harsh given the current deployment strategies, I don't believe any country in the western world has had such a long requirement in the last century.

I believe in merit based status which is why I believe in the DREAM Act outside of being covered by it. I think it will turn out in the end that only a fraction of the people they thought would apply for DREAM actually will. If it helps DREAM then change it, we'll just work a little more.

I think we would definitely gain more support. Heck, there's a guy commenting on one of the articles that were posted that is against DREAM but might support it if it had a 4 year requirement for school. I'm personally all for it, because I'll be going to school for 4+ years anyway. I think most of us will, actually.

make it 6 years. I want my master degree.

I think the two year requirement with some sort of community service component would be more realistic. I think some opposition is from the people who consider it just a way for immigrants to get a "free" college education. In fact most of the debate (other than the usual 'well they are illegal' garbage) is around the college aspect - that you guys will get something that citizen kids don't get somehow. Nobody talks about the jobs part. I think if there was a community service option it might appeal to more people - or at least give a strong argument to the 'get something for nothing' folks. Also, if you want to make an argument around a "skilled work force" many of the tech type jobs require more, well, technical training that a two year degrees gives instead of a B.A. - (this is coming from someone with a B.A. whose husband went to tech school :lol: )

Maybe 2 years military service - or - 2 years college and 1000 hours community service -or - 2000 hours community service
(just pulling numbers from the air here, its early - but you get the general idea)

I would also be concerned that it would be very difficult for many people to do the four year degree in a six year time line if they are also working full time, because even if you did get the student loans, without family financial support it obviously won't cover everything - it would be cutting it very close. Particularly those who came here with a foreign language at closer to 15 than 5.

Just my opinion

I have to agree with you, MrsMom. I do see the benefits of a 4 year requirement, but if we were to change that, we should not do it without changing the length of the conditional residency period.

Where is the link to this article??? I know Naverette posts for CNN, so I'm going to go look for it...thanks

thanks

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of hateful and ignorant comments i see.