The DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) is a legislative proposal introduced in the Senate in 2001 and reintroduced in May 2011.  The DREAM Act would grant permanent residency to illegal alien-students who arrived in the United States as minors, who have graduated from high schools in the United States, and who have lived in the country for at least five years before the bill is passed.  The university recently hosted a panel discussion entitled, “Realizing the DREAM Act” as well as other relevant events.  This viewpoint section is intended to spark discussion and interest in this issue.

I believe that the DREAM Act is economically, socially, and morally a logical decision. Undocumented students already have the right to an education through twelfth grade representing a sunk cost and are talented individuals who are eager to participate in the US economy.  It is inefficient to bar them from obtaining legal jobs and contributing to our economy.  In addition, undocumented immigrant students are competent individuals who have been raised to expect the same educational benefits as their peers. They are valedictorians, class presidents, and community leaders. Many of them do not know any other home outside the United States since they were brought here at a very young age. Some opponents of the DREAM Act may claim that it would in essence pardon illegal conduct. However, punishing a child for a parent’s judgment is morally irresponsible. I fully support the DREAM Act and believe that we all have a responsibility to protect those who are less privileged.

-Yessenia Diaz de Leon, management consulting major, ‘12

“Catholic evangelization as expressed by the bishops sees the work of justice as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the gospel message.  It is concerned with all aspects of the human person and the full development of the human person. The dream act seeks to address the situation of people who cannot advance their education simply because of where they were born.   When some students in this country who are valedictorians cannot advance their education, even when they might have lived in this country for most of their lives, everyone loses, not only the immigrants themselves but the county who has much to gain from the gifts they bring.

-Fr. Daniel Groody, CSC, associate professor of theology and director of the Center for Latino Spirituality

The DREAM Act, while possessing numerous theoretical merits, would, without a doubt, reduce the incentive for the children of immigrants to become naturalized. As an American-born son of a naturalized immigrant, I have witnessed first-hand the unlimited opportunities that immigrants have to better themselves in the United States, and I am fully aware of the intricacies of the seemingly lengthy process of naturalization. However, the DREAM Act appears to create a paradox: that a child may bypass the process of naturalization by being granted “conditional” resident status for six years to “pursue higher education” or serve in the military for two years. I feel that this paradox not only undermines our nation’s immigration process, but also creates a 6 year period during which “conditional” residents may work to send American dollars to their home countries. If, at the end of 6 years, the children of the immigrants have not received a degree or have not served honorably in the military for two years, they could return to their home nation with the skills and expertise they gained with US taxpayer money.

-Daniel Domingo, Fisher Hall, ‘14

The DREAM Act essentially paves the way for immigrants who are currently undocumented to receive benefits in the form of higher education and citizenship. On face value, there is nothing wrong with these proposals, however, when one looks at the situation in relation to scarcity of resources and the historical context in which the legislation is being passed in, an entirely new set of problems begin to reveal themselves.  For the United States as a whole, the American people should not come to bear the onslaught of expenses that would come about from such legislation. Not only is the funding a problem, but the framework in which illegal immigrants are allowed citizenship. Such loose language that has been consistent in many versions of the bill such as “good behavior” and “desire to improve his livelihood through education” can constitute multiple interpretations to the individual’s situation such that there is no limit in the name of absolute compassion in the admission of the illegal immigrants in question.  America has to come to grips with the fact that it can’t have it all or else the benefits we do enjoy on a daily basis will collapse all around us before we know it.

-Juan Manuel Segura, business major, ‘14