Notes From Babel

Why the DREAM Act Should Be Passed, and Why It Won’t

with 6 comments

Having recently blogged about what I called the “Muslim PR Problem,” I think this article about the DREAM Act also indicates sort of PR problem with respect to immigration:  The Act is a good idea that fails to gain traction with most conservatives not because they fail to recognize its merits, but because they are all too aware of the overarching immigration context and the intentions of lawmakers who view the Act as a tool toward broader amnesty and open immigration objectives.

Friedersdorf is correct when he says the broad consensus of American opinion is to control the borders.  This does not mean Americans don’t appreciate a good made-in-the-USA story about a poor immigrant who accedes to great heights in America.  This is no mere concession:  such stories resonate with Americans’ sense of American exceptionalism, of pride in the American culture, in the particularities of our national, state, and local societies that make ours a different and better society than any other in the world.  And it aligns with Booker T. Washington’s views about race in America when he said:

I think that the whole future of my race hinges on the question as to whether or not it can make itself of such indispensable value that the people in the town and the state where we reside will feel that our presence is necessary to the happiness and well-being of the community.  No man who continues to add something to the material, intellectual, and moral well-being of the place in which he lives is long left without proper reward.  This is a great human law which cannot be permanently nullified.

To the extent the DREAM Act applies to those immigrants who are already part of the American society, it is hardly objectionable that they should be also made part of the American citizenry.

However, my initial reaction to the DREAM Act was negative. And I think the last paragraph quoted from Reihan Salam explains why:  that the Act “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.”

This is where I profoundly break with Friedersdorf, and would disagree that his view represents the “broad consensus”: This is not “a persuasive argument for passing the legislation.” To the contrary, the very possibility of amnesty for all illegal aliens—rather than the ones who have demonstrated they have embraced our American community and have been integrated into it, such that both us and them would be harmed by extricating them from it—is the reason why people fear taking even modest steps toward extending citizenship, such as the DREAM Act.

This is a PR problem.  Conservatives and moderates know that liberals want amnesty, and thus they suspect that legislation like DREAM is just a clever, tug-of-the-heartstrings way to crack open the barn door to get at that ultimate goal.  Thus, for those of us in the “broad consensus” on immigration, all the “won’t somebody please think about the children” rhetoric sounds fishy:  If we’re truly meant to think about the children, then why stop with the smart ones or the ones willing to serve in the military? Why not all of them?  Democrats do not extol the importance of American culture and community because this is clearly not what’s important to them.  Their end-game is amnesty for all immigrants, even those who have not demonstrated they have the ability or desire to become part of American society in anything by a positive legal sense.  Thus, Democrats’ “think about the children” rhetoric disserves the Act because it tips its principal proponents’ hand to their ultimate, troublesome goal of wholesale amnesty.

Instead, I think the right way to go here is to take the DREAM Act’s distinction seriously: not only are there certain kinds of illegal immigrants who should be given a path to citizenship because they have already made themselves integral to our communities, but there are other kinds of illegal immigrants to whom amnesty should not be extended precisely because they have not made themselves integral to our communities.  While folks might not be able to change whether they are “foreign” to our laws, they can change whether they remain “foreign” to our society.  That kernel of truth is what appeals to the “broad consensus” of Americans about the DREAM Act.  Yet, that consensus also still sees that Act as a ploy in liberals’ immigration agenda.  And that is why it failed to gain the even broader consensus it deserves.


Written by Tim Kowal

December 14, 2010 at 1:00 am

Posted in Immigration, Politics

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. thats a great article and the funny thing you look pretty gay in that picture.=}


    February 7, 2011 at 6:17 pm

  2. […] I previously threw in my support for the basic idea underlying the DREAM Act, I support the proposal in the Arizona Senate Judiciary […]

  3. I know im putting myself at risk of saying this, but I was brought here by my grandparents when I was 3 years old. I’ve grown up in the united states and I know nothing else but american culture. But yet im not documentized. I want to follow my dream and go to college but I can’t. It wasn’t my decision or my fault that im here without permision. It makes me very sad that the dream act wasnt passed because I believe we should be given a chance to succeed in life like we were taught in school. Im a senior now i’ve put all my hard work into high school and have very good grades, now everything i’ve planned since I was a little has been put to a stop and to tell the truth I didn’t know i couldn’t attend the military becuase that was in my plans too.


    March 1, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    • I feel you. Same situation here. I am faithful that some will understand what it means to grow up as an American and not be seen as one because of some documents.

      Maria R.

      May 23, 2011 at 6:07 pm

  4. I think the dream act shoulnt be pass because u never no there if there foing to use the study and its coming from or taxes y cant we use the money that were going to give to the other people to home else people or to the usa people


    February 5, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    • watch your spelling vanessa!! :)


      April 26, 2012 at 10:03 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s