The DREAM Act passed the House yesterday, and it now goes on to an uncertain future in the Senate where at least two Democrats -- Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor -- have said they won't vote for it.
In the meantime, Tim Lee responds to Reihan Salam's criticisms of the bill:
A couple of things. DREAM is politically feasible precisely because it appeals to Americans' generosity, sense of fairness, and self-interest. Those who would be eligible are poised to offer concrete, sustained benefits to the country as a whole. Sending them away is a waste of the resources we've already invested in them, not to mention the ones they're prepared to contribute. DREAM also shaves about $1.4 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. So while DREAMers are getting something very valuable, the rest of us are as well.The DREAM Act is different. The pro-DREAM argument appeals directly to Americans’ generosity and sense of fairness, not our self-interest. The hoops kids must go through to qualify for DREAM are focused on self-improvement for the kids themselves, not (like the Founders Visa) on maximizing benefits for American citizens. There’s no quota on the number of kids who are eligible, and at the end of the process the kids get to be full-fledged members of the American community.
Nothing about this says that we should “value the children of unauthorized immigrants more than the children of other people living in impoverished countries.” I wish Congress would also enact legislation to help children of people living in impoverished countries. If Reihan has a realistic plan for doing that, I’ll be among its earliest and most enthusiastic supporters. Unfortunately, I think the political climate in the United States makes that unlikely to happen any time soon. But that’s not the fault of the DREAM Act or its supporters. And voting down DREAM will make more ambitious reforms less, not more, likely.
Second, whether or not America should “value the children of unauthorized immigrants more than the children of other people living in impoverished countries," it has a clear obligation to the former by virtue of their actually being here to treat them fairly. That means not holding them responsible for what their parents did.
There isn't a "quota" on the number of people who are eligible, but the requirements have become significantly stricter in recent weeks. You now have to be younger than 30 to qualify, and you have to have been in the country for the past five years to be eligible, so anyone who comes from this point on is out of luck. The bill that passed the House last night also has serious fees -- that decade of conditional non-immigrant status comes with a price tag of about $2,525 all told.
