The Economist: Message the DREAM Act sends

LAST week Harry Reid said he would reintroduce a bill that would create a route to citizenship for certain undocumented young adults who were brought to America as children. According to the so-called DREAM Act, an undocumented immigrant will qualify for "conditional permanent residency" if he or she satisfies the following conditions (taken from the DREAM Act Portal):

Must have entered the United States before the age of 16 (i.e. 15 and younger)
Must have been present in the United States for at least five (5) consecutive years prior to enactment of the bill
Must have graduated from a United States high school, or have obtained a GED, or have been accepted into an institution of higher education (i.e. college/university)
Must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of application
Must have good moral character
Then, if the qualifying individual enlists in the armed forces or enrolls in college, and completes two years of military service or two years of work toward a bachelors (or higher) degree within six years of having gained conditional permanent residency, he or she will qualify for plain vanilla legal permanent residency, which entails the right to apply for citizenship.

Suppose your parents moved to America from Mexico without legal permission when you were five years old. You grow up in America. You graduate from high school in America. You're an American in every sense except the legal one. You want to go to college, but because your parents came into the country illicitly, you don't qualify for government financial aid, and you can't get legal work. If caught by immigration authorities, you face the possibility of detention or deportation, even though this is, in every sense, your home. That doesn't seem fair. Every year, over 60,000 kids like you graduate high school in the United States. And unless something like the DREAM Act becomes law, you and they will become part of a growing class of marginalised and unprotected Americans without papers. Even then, the papers are no sure thing. You've got to serve in the military or get a couple years of college under your belt, and stay out of trouble. But at least you'll someday have the chance to enjoy the same rights and opportunities as your date to the prom.

This strikes me as sensible and humane, if a little over-demanding. But here's what the National Review's Heather MacDonald has to say about it.

The act signals to prospective illegal aliens the world over that if they can just get their child across the border illegally, they have put him on the path towards U.S. citizenship—and, as significant, the child will then be able to apply for legal status for his parents and siblings...DREAM Act beneficiaries are certainly the most sympathetic category of amnesty candidates, and opponents of the act have been accused of hard-heartedness. Yet the act indisputably encourages and incentivizes more illegal behavior. It continues to send the message that the U.S. is not serious about its immigration laws, but will always eventually confer the same benefits on people who break the law entering the country as on those immigrants who respected American law.
I think it's useful in this debate to be as clear we can be. We're mostly talking about Mexicans, so let's just talk about Mexicans. Lots and lots and lots of Mexicans come across the border to the United States not because they're a nation of heedless antinomians, but because this is (was?) where the work is. Many come because much of their their family resides here, legally or ilegally. It's worth noting that the southwestern portion of the United States just was Mexico, once upon a time. There is an undeniable economic and cultural continuity between Mexico and the United States. The border distorts and disrupts it, but it cannot and will never put an end to it. The pattern of traffic between these two countries is not something to choke off, but something sensibly to regulate and rationalise.

"But we do regulate it sensibly!" you may insist. Well, suppose you're a hardworking and ambitious Mexican with no family legally in the States and not much education, but you've got friends there, 50 miles away, and they tell you they're getting steady, relatively well-paying work. One of the things that's so attractive to you about America is it's sound institutions, including its sturdy rule of law. You would very much like to migrate to the United States legally. So what are your options? Zip. Zilch. Zero. You have no options! There is no way to "get in line" and "wait your turn" because there is no line for you to stand in that leads to the legal right to live and work in the United States. So you pack up one day, take a hair-raising hike through the desert with your young daughter, meet up with your friends in Tucson, and get to work on the American dream. What were you supposed to do? Consign yourself and your daughter to a life on the edge of poverty out of respect for the American rule of law? Please.

The DREAM Act sends the message that although American immigration law in effect tries to make water run uphill, we are not monsters. It says that we will not hobble the prospects of young people raised and schooled in America just because we were so perverse to demand that their parents wait in a line before a door that never opens. It signals that we were once a nation of immigrants, and even if we have become too fearful and small to properly honour that noble legacy, America in some small way remains a land of opportunity.

Yes, the DREAM Act also incentivises illegal activity. But if the activity is not one that ought to be illegal, perhaps we should consider changing the law? Something to consider, anyway. In the meantime, this small reform will make America a somewhat more decent place.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...ty_and_decency