Sen. Dick Lugar has said he will support the DREAM Act when it comes up for a vote in the Senate next week, which is good news. Hopefully, he'll give his other Republican colleagues some cover to support the bill, since at least two Democrats have committed to voting against it. A Gallup poll meanwhile, finds a majority in support of DREAM by description if not name.
Reihan Salam has also responded to Tim Lee:
My sense is that many voters resent the notion that they are bigots because they are concerned about unauthorized immigration. Many of these voters are, I suspect, more sympathetic to the would-be migrants who take part in the formal immigration system, e.g., by participating in the diversity visa lottery. My sketch of a more humanitarian immigration policy would be modeled on the diversity visa lottery, only it would be restricted to the world's poorest countries. Residents of all countries would be eligible to apply to work and settle in the U.S. through a points system that emphasizes skills, as we discussed above. Even if the total number of migrants under this system were somewhat lower than the current total when we combine authorized and unauthorized migrants, the impact of remittances and brain circulation would, I suggest, do far more for global welfare than the existing system. Remember that we're talking about helping societies in which large numbers of people haven't reached the two-dollar-a-day standard.
The DREAM Act, in my view, entrenches an immigration status quo that privileges a politically appealing and influential group over voiceless would-be workers.
Salam is a very gracious person and always inclined toward giving people -- particularly ideological opponents -- the benefit of the doubt. But we can only judge people by their words and deeds. House Republicans, by and large, opposed the DREAM Act and did so in terms that indicate a worldview framed by zero-sum competition between whites and nonwhites, which is frustrating and unfortunate.
That said, I think Salam is right that the DREAM Act "entrenches an immigration status quo that privileges a politically appealing and influential group over voiceless would-be workers." That's why it has any chance of passing at all. The question is whether that's a reason to oppose it, and I don't think it is. As Lee writes in his response:
This is how politics works. If you want fewer abortions you focus on “partial birth” abortions. If you want legal pot, you start with medical marijuana. If you want universal vouchers, you start by focusing on vouchers for kids in failing schools. If you want to end the estate tax, you focus on the relatively small minority of families who are forced to sell off their business to pay the tax man. This kind of half-measure is not only much easier to enact, but it also tends to move public opinion to be more favorable to the 200 proof version. In an ideal world, voters would be perfectly rational and omniscient and we wouldn't have to play these kinds of games. But they're not, so we do.
Right. And that's why border hawks oppose the DREAM Act, why abortion-rights supporters oppose bans on abortion, and why drug warriors oppose medical marijuana. I think the border hawks are wrong, and they have an unrealistic view of how to handle illegal immigration, but this is how you do it.
Salam has raised a number of complex moral questions through the course of this debate, but I think he's largely avoided the limited, immediate question posed by the DREAM Act: Does this small group of undocumented immigrants, well educated, Americanized, and prepared to serve their country deserve a chance to stay here and contribute to American society? I think the answer is quite clearly yes, because this is what is possible now.
UPDATE: I was being a bit too glib when I said agreed with Salam that the DREAM Act "entrenches an immigration status quo that privileges a politically appealing and influential group over voiceless would-be workers." DREAMers are politically appealing, yes, and the people the DREAM Act excludes don't have as loud a voice as those it would help. But these people aren't suited-up K-Street lobbyists; they are people who, in many cases, have taken very real risks in identifying themselves as undocumented.
The other thing I would add is that I don't think it's a "game" for activists and wonks to have to spend long periods of time making incremental accomplishments. Most Americans don't want to live in Arizona, and most don't want open borders, just like most Americans don't think women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term but many believe that an eight-month fetus is something more than just a fetus even if it's not quite a person. Just as anti-abortion activists hope a late-term abortion ban will make people linger in that thought and eventually come around to their view that fetuses are people, immigration activists hope that giving this obviously deserving subgroup of immigrants a path to citizenship will ultimately get Americans thinking about the unfairness of our current immigration system and the reality that immigrants can be valuable contributors to American society.
That's the marketplace of ideas, and while I definitely understand where Lee is coming from, and I think we probably all feel that way at some point, I think -- and I'm not trying to be nasty -- it's a bit Friedmanesque to say we should all be adults and understand that point X is the right one.
