DREAM Act: In Folly Ripe, In Reason Rotten

In my previous blogs, I have made points that appeal mostly to people who already disagree with the DREAM Act. The general response I have received otherwise is "You have valid points, but the principle of the DREAM Act trumps these things." So, I would now like to approach this issue from a different angle.

Beyond the hunger strikes and the trite chants of "No human is illegal", is the DREAM Act likely to live up to its supporters' expectations when put into practice?


While DREAMers are quick to point these figures out to support the legislation (even though they are probably simply extrapolations from current trends), there is also available data which brings the efficacy of the DREAM Act into question. This information does not come from a right-wing publication with a name like "America for Americans" or similar, but rather by the Migration Policy Institute, which is described as an "independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank" on immigration issues. See the study in the link below:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/DREAM-Insight-July2010.pdf

Under the DREAM Act, approximately 2.1 million undocumented U.S. residents would be eligible, a figure with which most on both sides of the aisle are familiar. The Migration Policy Institute Report, however, adds in its report that of these two million eligible, 38 percent (or about 825,000) will complete their educational or military obligations and attain citizenship.
In other words, the DREAM Act is projected to fail in leading to citizenship almost two-thirds of the time. It will fail almost twice as much as it will succeed.

Putting aside the question of whether or not the DREAM Act should pass, when supporters are touting this as the "last chance [for] a long time" (see source) to pass this type of legislation regarding immigration and pathways to citizenship, it would make sense to introduce a piece of legislation with more than a 38% projected success rate.

The numbers found by the Migration Policy Institute are no less credible than the sources who project the DREAM Act to cut the national deficit by $1.4 billion - in fact, many DREAM Act supporters cite this same study in their own arguments. The idea of a 38% success rate nationwide is not outlandish, considering that in California, the state in which community colleges are considered some of the most accessible in the nation, the success rate was hardly even 20% higher than that in Fall 2009 according to the Chancellor's Office of California Community Colleges. Also note that the definition of a "success" case in the Chancellor's Office's estimate is more lenient than the definition of success required for DREAM Act citizenship. In order to be called a "success", one need only have passed all the classes they enrolled in for that particular semester, not completed two years as required by the DREAM Act. When barely 60% pass all of their classes in a semester, that figure will obviously decrease exponentially as the semesters progress. These numbers are grounded in reality, and are probably more reliable than figures that suggest an enormous change occurring thanks to the DREAM act - these figures are often prefaced with "as long as" and "if only."

"The DREAM Act can slash the federal deficit and improve the national economy..."...as long as DREAMers complete the required educational/military commitments.
(38% success rate)
...as long as states enforce the legislation fairly.
(They very well may not.)
...as long as the educational system has the available resources to sustain its students.
(In California, at least, school are already failing at this.)
...as long as the act itself does not create a greater influx of immigrants and skew the extrapolated data.

The success of the DREAM Act relies heavily on these conditional statements. It relies on the presumption, not the creation, of change. These conditions may well become reality. They very well may not, as well. The success of the DREAM Act requires a change in people, in attitude, and economical climate that it cannot create for itself. For all the rewriting and revising that has happened with the DREAM Act, it still has not generated that kind of change. It is still supported by the same demographics as it was before. It has not caused any bridging of the political aisle. Even if the DREAM Act represents a needed change, it does not have the power to create that change.