Reconsidering the DREAM Act

Written by Charlene Collazo

Given my last name, you might assume I'm Hispanic and an advocate of minority support programs. Although the former is true (I am a Florida-born Cuban American), I was initially very opposed to the much debated DREAM Act - better known as the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors.

Currently a resident and student in Florida -- ranked third in the nation for undocumented immigrants at 3.8 percent of the population -- I strongly believed that providing economic support to other students who resided illegally in this country was not fair or right. As a U.S. citizen born of Hispanic parents, I followed the rules and worked hard to earn a college degree. I believed undocumented students who, after all, are illegally in the country had no right to reap the same benefits that I worked so hard for.

But, the Senate Judiciary hearing that took place last month completely changed my mind. It was Texas Sen. John Cornyn's assumptions about immigrants, and flawed interpretation of the act, that bothered me the most. In no uncertain terms, he began to suggest that those who may have misdemeanor charges could be eligible. Just by suggesting a relationship between criminal acts and eligible students, I decided then to read the act more carefully, and follow the debate with a more critical eye.

As it turns out, those applying under the act have to pass through a process where "good moral character" is considered along with other requirements: Applicants must have entered the U.S. before the age of 16 and be less than 35 years of age, lived continuously in the U.S. for at least five years and earned a high school diploma. If they can meet all of those requirements, they are eligible to pay the state tuition rate for higher education and, once they complete at least two years of college or military service, they would be provided with conditional permanent resident status for six years.

There are many other assumptions made about the DREAM Act, some of which I initially shared. For one thing, many interpret this bill as having major implications for broader immigration reform when, in fact, its main purpose is to provide college access for students who have resided in this country for much of their lives. A growing number of undocumented children make up our K-12 system. By providing a better opportunity for these students to attend college and become more educated and productive members of society, we can capitalize on the dozen years of free K-12 public education they received as young children paid for by taxpayers.

Capitalizing on this prior education isn't just good for the individual students; it would provide a greater economic benefit for our country as well. What else will these young adults do if they cannot pursue higher education and cannot find legal work? The possibilities are many, and mostly unsettling. A University of California-Los Angeles study estimated that these dreamers, if given the chance, would generate about $3.6 trillion in the span of 40 years.

As a resident of a state where education is a very competitive and limited resource, my initial fear was that this act would provide a financial burden on citizens like me who struggle enough, as it is to reach my goals. But upon reading the act carefully, and the anti-immigrant rhetoric that is defining much of the debate, it seems clear to me now that these students are not my competition. They are my peers, who represent the future of this country as much as I do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charle..._b_923683.html

I think she got something wrong, the conditional residency time would begin at the time we get the residency from USCIS, not after we complete either one of the requirements.

whos this stupid cow who thinks shes above anyone to make judgement calls just because

"As a U.S. citizen born of Hispanic parents, I followed the rules and worked hard to earn a college degree. I believed undocumented students who, after all, are illegally in the country had no right to reap the same benefits that I worked so hard for."

dumbass people like that are part of the problem like if all acts of congress needed their retarded individual consent, how exactly did she follow all the rules, first off her parents fall under the dryfeet clause so she got lucky, second, what exactly are 'all the rules' that she had to follow? if anything she got a free ride of financial aid money in the mail like many lazy ppl i know who only enroll in classes and later drop them just to get a fatter check, by the way her writting sucks after4 years of her bachelors, probably more like 6 she still cant write right, instead of reporting news all she did was think of herself, what "I" think just look at how she starts the article, its about her, and her fears that immigrants will 'take all her hard earned rights away' so out of fear for her free college tuition shed rather say fuck them

"Florida-born Cuban American), " thats all she had to say. Damn cubans think they are gods. They have it so easy they dont even matter

Cuban or not, any USC has it easier than undocumented.. we have to pay tuition out of our own pocket.. and without loan

why doesnt this bitch write an article and name it Reconsidering the cuban american amnesty, yea thats what i thought.

there is a comments section over there..