Why the Dream act needs its next act

CNN) -- 2010 began with promise for advocates of immigration reform, but it ended with a stark reminder of the obstacles they face.

In the two weeks since a Senate filibuster killed the DREAM Act (it stands for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors), commentators and political strategists have already shifted their focus to the next Congress, where any legislation including legalization of undocumented people is unlikely.

To chart a path for the future, however, it's useful to take stock of what DREAM's failure reveals about the bill's opponents.

In letting this piece of legislation die, 45 senators allowed restrictionist sentiments to prevail over economic rationality and showed why it is so hard to have a sensible national conversation about immigration. (It won't help them much with the Latino electorate either.)

In actual fact, considering immigration through an economic lens makes sense these days, as Americans and their political leaders grapple with an economy climbing out of crisis. It should have been a no-brainer for Congress to promote the development of skilled workers and encourage them to stay here. Instead, they killed the bill that directly confronted what to do with the immigrant potential we already have within our borders.

DREAM was not about the relative merits of bringing in new immigrants -- an important question for another day. The most recent version of DREAM offered a way to bring roughly 1 million motivated high school graduates into our formal economy.

Conditional upon completing two years of university or military service, undocumented immigrants brought here by their parents as minors would be offered an earned path to citizenship. The students would have been able to go to college, serve in the military, and go on to use their education and talents to contribute to our economy and national security.

DREAM was based on the simple premise that we do not punish children for the actions of their parents. But allow me, for the moment, to set aside the critical questions of justice, inclusion, and compassion and focus instead on the economic question.

DREAM students have been educated in this country for up to 12 years, and the vast majority of them want to go on to college. In fact, tens of thousands of "DREAMers" have already completed at least an associate's degree.

By voting against DREAM, the Senators -- 39 Republicans and 6 Democrats -- who either abstained or voted against limiting Senate debate effectively told those immigrants to either remain in the shadows or take their education, motivation, and ingenuity elsewhere. The senators revealed a willingness to squander the investment our country has already made on these young people.

The economic effects are quantifiable. First, on the budget: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that passage of DREAM would have reduced the government deficit over the next 10 years by $2.2 billion because DREAMers would contribute more in taxes and social security payments.

Rest of the story
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/3...omy/index.html

Very good find, Andres. That was an inspiring read. The single most important thing on my mind with the condition of our country is our country's deficits and what that would mean for our economy and lifestyle in the future. Passage of this act sure could have helped out with preventing a possibility of our country's debt exceeding it's gross domestic product. If that situation were to happen in the next few years, we would end up like Greece. We would need the rest of the world to bail us out, and that may be unlikely to happen, say in 2015 or so. (worst-case scenario)

I think the Senators that voted against the bill should look behind the narrow box they view this in (as if the bill is only about immigrants/college) and think about the economic benefits that all Americans could have experienced if this bill was passed.

Edit: The DREAM Act can also address the labor shortages this country faces, mainly with scientists, teachers and people within the fields of technology. We need those kinds of people in this country so the United States could maintain it's competitive edge in relation to other countries.