‘Dream Act’ a Nightmare to Pass
Bill A2597A-2013, otherwise known as the ‘Dream Act’ lost in the New York State Senate on Monday March 17th 2014. The bill was voted upon and was narrowly defeated with 30 votes in favor and 29 against, with the minimum being 32 needed to pass it. The law would have set aside 25 million dollars in a ‘Dream Fund’ annually providing financial aid to college students of illegal status. Currently New York is one of 14 states to allow illegal immigrants to attend in-state universities, given they pay the tuition of course. Proponents argued this law was an effort to lessen the stress on these aspiring students so that they can one day succeed in this country, despite the circumstances of their birth. However the opposition was that these 25 million dollars would be going to law breakers when it could potentially be used either to repair the school system itself, or offer more scholarships for American citizens. I understand both sides of the argument however I tend to favor the fiscally conservative model. Until a budget is balanced, this fund would increase the debt that New York State possesses by using tax money to cover people who aren’t recognized as legal residents. Besides, granting access to education for illegal immigrants is a fantastic step in immigration reform, however after attending college, the lack of citizenship cripples most of the opportunities they go to college to experience in the first place. It is much more important to allow a path for amnesty and citizenship on a federal level such as the federal version of the Dream Act. Immigration should be a non partisan issue but spending money will always be hotly debated. My reasoning is if a law is created to benefit illegal immigrants seeking college education, the government has a responsibility to tackle the issue head on. These people came here to succeed and are in a limbo of quasi-recognized status, and they deserve at least a method to assimilate if they show the desire to succeed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/nyregion/after-dream-acts-narrow-defeat-focus-is-on-timing-of-the-vote.html
I tend to agree with your evaluation that it could even be misleading to provide this opportunity to immigrant students but not address the greater issue of citizenship for them. Maybe separating the issues makes them more politically feasible, but they are clearly interconnected. The issue of New York’s overwhelming debt is another complicating obstacle, but ultimately it seems to me that some sort of reform is necessary.
I also agree on the fact that the government should focus on creating a viable pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. While arguments that the “Dream Fund” and the possibility of its burden landing on taxpayers are valid, I feel that the students who would benefit from the act deserve the support. The proponents who contrast the aspiring students and the circumstances of their birth highlights the issue that many illegal immigrants may have been extremely young when they came, and shouldn’t be held accountable for their illegal status which they had little control over.
That said, a recent poll by Siena College Research Institute (http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/sri/SNY0314%20Crosstabs.pdf#page=6) shows surprising results, that 56% of the voters oppose the Dream Act (Question 32). It’s interesting analyzing the demographics of the results, as those with higher income, those upstate, males, and older citizens are less likely to support the Dream Act. It would be interesting to find out how the institute chooses their samples. With a state such as New York that is usually considered liberal and democratic, the surprising results of the poll seem to bode difficulty for the passage of the Dream Act on a nationwide scale.
Glenn, I really appreciate your comment because you ask an extremely important question that shows that you are an astute consumer of information. This is what being an educated, active citizen is about. 30 seconds of googling reveals this:
This Siena College Poll was conducted March 16-20, 2014 by telephone calls to 813 New York State registered voters. It has an overall margin of error of +3.4 percentage points. Data was statistically adjusted by age, party, region and gender to ensure representativeness. Sampling was conducted via random digit dialing to landline and cell phones weighted to reflect known population patterns.
The sample is large enough to be representative, and they use cellphone numbers as well as landlines (some polls only use landlines, you can imagine the problems with that). The big question would be what was their response rate. If it was something like 80%, great. But what if only 20% answered their questions? Then I would not believe the results. It’s problematic that they do not report the response rates!
One caveat is that we New Yorkers (from the city) sometimes forget that the rest of the state is quite conservative.
I encourage you to always ask: how do they know that? You would be surprised how often you will have reasons to doubt the results.
I feel wrong for saying this but I’m glad the dream act didn’t pass. However my reasoning is that I think the more important issue is ensuring a pathway for legalization, not throwing money towards education – ironically the one time they want to spend more money on education it’s basically useless in the long term.
I wonder how many are against the dream act solely based on their perceptions of illegal immigrants. I would assume if the opponents knew who the dream act was helping, they would be more okay with it.
As the dream act website puts it:
“Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation—any (first generation) immigrants brought to the United States at a young age who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with second-generation Americans. These students are culturally American, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth. They tend to be bicultural and fluent in English. Many don’t even know that they are undocumented immigrants until they apply for a driver’s license or college, and then learn they lack Social Security numbers and other necessary legal documents.”