The Dream Act Is Good Legislation From A Self-Interested American Perspective
Reihan writes:
As I understand it, the DREAM Act implicitly tells us that I should value the children of unauthorized immigrants more than the children of other people living in impoverished countries. If we assume that all human beings merit equal concern, this is obviously nonsensical. Indeed, all controls on migration are suspect under that assumption.
Even so, there is a broad consensus that the United States has a right to control its borders, and that the American polity can decide who will be allowed to settle in the United States. Or to put this another way, we’ve collectively decided that the right to live and work in the U.S. will be treated as a scarce good, just as we treat the right to access the spectrum as a scarce good. (Briefly, I think the case for treating the spectrum as a scarce good is much weaker than the case for treating the right to live and work in the U.S. that way, but that’s a separate issue.)
This means that we are departing the terrain of moralistic theorizing and entering the terrain of deciding what is best for U.S. citizens and, perhaps, lawful permanent residents.
I am part of the broad consensus that believes the United States has a right to control its borders, and that the American polity can decide who will be allowed to settle in the United States. And I urge my fellow citizens – or more particularly, our elected representatives – to pass The Dream Act. This is not because I want to send a signal that the children of illegal immigrants should be valued more highly than other people living in impoverished countries, nor do I believe that signal to be implicit in the legislation.
What I do think is that longtime residents of the United States brought here by illegal immigrant parents during childhood are in a unique position: through no fault of their own, they’ve long resided in a country where they don’t have a legal right to live or work (partly due to an incentive system set up by American citizens who are glad to employ illegal immigrants). It’s a tragedy for the affected kids. Economically they’re better off than lots of people in Third World countries who’d like to come here. But life is more than economics. Unlike would-be immigrants, potential Dream Act beneficiaries have developed friendships, formed romances, an invested themselves into communities in the United States. All that will be lost if they are forced to leave, and along with American complicity in their plight, those costs that factor into how I think about the legislation despite my not valuing people here already more than far away illegal immigrants.
And those costs aren’t just born by the illegal immigrant kids themselves! Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Reihan is right, and that when it comes to immigration policy we should do what’s best for US citizens and permanent legal residents. By that imperfect standard, Dream Act beneficiaries ought to be “valued” more highly than the impoverished resident of a Third World country. Compared to his counterpart somewhere abroad, the potential Dream Act beneficiary is almost certainly higher skilled. Having avoided legal trouble for many years, she is less likely to end up in jail than lesser known quantities. For anyone who values cultural assimilation, she is much farther along the path, if not fully assimilated. Most importantly, the ties the Dream Act beneficiary has to US citizens binds in two directions –– if he or she is given legal status rather than deported, there is a constellation of American citizen friends, lovers, neighbors, teachers, corner grocers, and employers whose loved one, friends or friendly acquaintances will be around for many years, rather than tragically deported or else living in the shadows, circumstances that’ll make some of the important stakeholders in this hypothetical very sad.
The self-interested American might also note that these culturally assimilated long time residents are relatively unlikely to be deported even if the Dream Act doesn’t pass, and that if they remain in the country anyway, society is worse off in various ways if they stay “in the shadows,” as opposed to living within our system of laws and communities of civic engagement.
Reihan seems to anticipate some of these objections, writing:
…would we yield a higher net number [of lifetime economic contributions to the United States] if rather than legalize 825,000 or 2.1 million Dream Act beneficiaries, we instead welcomed 825,000 or 2.1 million workers with some combination of high levels of English-language proficiency, start-up capital, college and post-graduate degrees, and other markers of bright labor market prospects?
Again, I think this ignores all the non-economic benefits to American citizens of passing the Dream Act. Beyond that, if both the Dream Act and a program to welcome high skill immigrants to the United States yield a net economic and social benefit, why not do both? It isn’t as if the practical choice we’re faced with is “authorize the Dream Act or bring a lot of even more highly skilled immigrants to the United States to replace the folks who would’ve benefited.”
So far, I’ve failed to mention that Reihan’s whole post is framed as an argument against a Michael Gerson column. And I agree that Gerson’s approach to argument is weak and moralizing in a maddening way. I’m glad to see that once he looks past Gerson Reihan concludes as follows:
I can imagine a decent argument for the Dream Act, e.g., it is a wedge strategy designed to begin the process of earned legalization for the large population of unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States, and we don’t have the will or the resources for a serious campaign of attrition or repatriation. That’s fair.
I think that too is a persuasive argument for passing the legislation.
But these kids are not culturally assimilated. These children of illegals are the same kids that threaten riots if others display American flags in a way they deem offensive as happened in the Bay Area recently. These kids don’t value the historical and culutural uniqueness of America and what it means to be an American.
— vaildog · Dec 9, 08:15 PM · #
Conor:
OK. Maybe. Could be. Whatever.
But—I’m almost afraid to ask—does the broad consensus that believes the United States has a right to control its borders, and that the American polity can decide who will be allowed to settle in the United States include making our borders secure?
— jd · Dec 9, 09:32 PM · #
jd hit the nail on the head. In 1986 with Simpson-Mazzoli we gave amnesty to anyone who could prove they came here illegally prior to 1982. But then we did nothing to round up and deport those who came after 1982 or failed to register for the amnesty.
So bingo, we now have the 11 million person problem! I feel for these children. But the DREAM act will allow them to also sponsor their parents and other relatives who did come here illegally. And where does it stop? Say we do the DREAM act now and more people come across the border illegally with infants and toddlers. In ten years are we going to demand a DREAM act for them too?
There is an immigration compromise possible. But in return for any kind of amnesty there has to be strict border, visa, employment, and deportation policies enforced. The amnesty has to be a one-time thing and anyone who comes after that cannot qualify for another amnesty in the future due to our failure to enforce the law.
— MarcV · Dec 9, 10:55 PM · #
“…does the broad consensus that believes the United States has a right to control its borders, and that the American polity can decide who will be allowed to settle in the United States include making our borders secure?”
Yes it does. And with the DREAM act, america’s representatives in the government can decide that children of illegal immigrants who grew up here get to stay.
— cw · Dec 10, 04:39 AM · #
You can lie on your DREAM Act application without penalty and get an automatic ten year work permit.
— Steve Sailer · Dec 10, 04:59 AM · #
As usual, the go to guy for all things DREAM is Kaus:
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/kausfiles/2010/12/08/d-day-for-dem-s-dream.html
— Jeff Singer · Dec 10, 04:46 PM · #
The author makes some persuasive points, but he misses the main problem.
He could hardly not miss it because the Dream Act itself misses the main problem … how to control/regulate our borders.
As such, the Dream Act acts as a major distraction from setting sane, logical immigration strategy and then ENFORCING IT.
It is putting the cart before the horse.
The Dream Act (or anything akin to it) can only make sense in the framework of an overall sane, logical immigration strategy. Within that framework, and only within it, can something like the Dream Act do what it’s supporters say it is intended to do.
Outside that framework, the Dream Act doesn’t really help anyone, children of immigrants or American citizens. It just adds another layer … another label, to categorize people within our society. And it creates divisions and animosity between these differently labeled peoples, especially when one group is deliberately priveledged over another. Example: giving in-state tuition rates to non-citizens (be they on a path to citizenship or not) over citizens from another state.
Furthermore, not all children of immigrants are well assimilated, and H1B-like (as the author tries to paint them). If that is a justification for passing the Dream Act, wouldn’t the Dream Act make those distinctions as it does for weeding out those with criminal records?
— Lori · Dec 12, 06:27 PM · #
We had completely open borders until 1924. Most of us would not exist had that not been the case. Most of our ancestors moved to this land easily because it did not restrict the free movement of people.
Was this policy unwise? Why shouldn’t we return to it? I’d say the case for open borders is a strong one.
— The Voracious Rationalist · Dec 13, 01:07 AM · #
These are wonderful![url=http://www.caps2011.com]monster energy hats for sale[/url] Thank you for sharing
— red bull hats · Dec 13, 10:38 AM · #
Voracious:
Is it possible you don’t see the difference between the immigration of our past and what is happening now with our Mexican border? There is a glaring difference.
Hint: It’s a geography question.
— jd · Dec 14, 02:47 PM · #
My feelings of the dream act.This is so hard to understand. For me, I know that there are children that have come into this country , along with their parents, illegally. These parents that brought them were looking for a better life,and I don`t blame them.Then these parents took advantage of every thing they could from our government,and in their situation, I would have done the same,but they worked illegally and never paid taxes.These children were put into schools . Most of them never knew that they were illegal. They just thought they were born here.Some grew up to be smart,intelligent,and went on to college, how ever they were able to.Even if it meant cheating the government, and getting grants or what have you. We know that these school taught children, somewhere down the line ,knew that they were illegal.Now they face a problem. What should they do?I was wrong about the dream act bill,at first because I thought it meant allowing all illegals to just come into our country and allowing them all the benefits that Americans have, but I am starting to realize what this bill really means.I know that there have been illegals that have green cards and work legal in our country and pay taxes, and I never understood how some can get green cards and others could not. Why can`t these students take some kind of test ,through our system, to be allowed a green card to attend schools and work in our country? Of course the answer would be ,Sure they could if they used their own money, but they have none. So now what? My heart goes out to these people,but at the same time, we are talking about all illegals from every country in the world, not just Mexico,and I fear that at this time of Americas problem status,that we are not taking inconsideration of the population explosion,and the lack of jobs for Americans. I am 67 years old and I remember years ago that America let a number of immigrants come in to America that were from different countries and then would stop the flow and let others come in from other countries. After all, was not that the American dream of all the people from European countries?
I believe that we in America are not against these immigrants,but we are just against the way our government is handling the situation. The government big shots just seem to do every that would benefit themselves and don`t care how they do it. SO, I suggest that A bill should properly be form and passed that would be supported by Americans,voted on by Americans, understood by Americans,and carefully studied by Americans to welcome immigrants to our way of life,like our forefathers were. MIND YOU, this bill would have to follow all the laws of the constitution and not hurt our people,or affect the legal citizens that have been here for years.
Does this sound rational or am I just a NUT?
— gaetano · Dec 17, 02:13 PM · #