Lawmakers Debate Access for Immigrants
By Nicole M. Byrd
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was reintroduced in both the Senate and the House in March. The purpose of the act is to help undocumented immigrants who were brought here as minors gain access to higher education. Students who were brought to the United States prior to age sixteen and have lived here for at least five years immediately prior to the date of the act, would become eligible to gain legal status, depending on higher education attainment or military service. The DREAM Act would repeal the section of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that forbids states from offering these students in-state tuition based on residency.
Like many aspects of immigration, the legislation is contentious. Opponents of the act object to using tax resources to subsidize the tuition of those lacking legal residency and characterize the act as an incentive for illegal behavior. Proponents counter that the provisions are aimed at those who entered the United States while too young to make decisions about illegal behavior for themselves and that investment in education saves money in the long run, since higher educational attainment is correlated with lower crime rates and other benefits and also boosts people into higher tax brackets.
A notable feature of the DREAM Act—and several state-level counterparts—is that support and opposition cut across party lines. The federal legislation has had impressive bipartisan support in each of the sessions in which it has been introduced, reaching forty-seven Senate cosponsors in 2003. The current cosponsors include heavyweights from both parties such as Senators Kennedy, McCain, Hagel, and Durbin. Since 2001, ten states have passed legislation allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition (often based on high school attendance instead of residency), despite some court challenges. Several other states have defeated similar measures by wide margins, including a referendum in Arizona last fall that disapproved of extending in-state tuition by 71 percent.
Given the existing patchwork quality of state regulations, a policy determined at the national level may be the only way to put a halt to the continual back-and-forth and volley of bills and amendments.
|