DREAM Debunked: The Source of my Skepticism

First of all, I would like to thank those with whom I have been able to disagree with respectfully. I have, however, received a handful of threatening and less than eloquent responses (if we qualify the term "handful" with hands the size of frying pans.)

I understand that a lot of people who disagree with the DREAM Act are roaring ideologues, spouting charged nativist chants such as "No Amnesty!" and "America for Americans!". I am not one of them. What I am, however, is a skeptic. I am not against immigration, but I am against the DREAM Act because I feel that it was poorly constructed in the rush to have legislation of its kind introduced and passed, and I cannot see it as being pragmatic or effective legislation because of what it lacks.

Another fellow blogger criticizes my use of estimates from the Migration Policy Institute in my previous blog, which I will recognize as a very valid criticism. I will respectfully point out, however, that figures in general which aim to predict what will happen in the future (including those used by DREAM supporters to predict the reduction of the deficit to be made by DREAMers in the next ten years) can also only be qualified as estimates. These figures are equally speculative and abstract because they are based on data which does not yet exist and phenomena which have not yet occurred. Therefore, the use of these abstractions on both sides is not entirely reliable.

I will instead refer first to another figure that I have seen - not a prediction, or a description of a singular case which may very well be an outlier in the statistics as a whole. I briefly mentioned it in my previous blog as well, the data from college success rates in California community colleges in Fall of 2009. My interest is mostly in the California community college system because of the time I spent both studying and working in one.

I will recognize the truth in the pro-DREAM argument that DREAM-eligible students are already present and accounted for in data that pertains to the student bodies of these institutions.

Potential DREAMers are mostly already accounted for in the approximately 60% success rate show in the data for Fall of 2009. The term "success rate" in this data is quantified by the number of credit-earning marks over the number of enrollments or total marks (including failures, drops, etc.)

I will recognize that it is a myth that the DREAM Act will give blanket in-state tuition to DREAMers. It is the prerogative of the states to determine if this is an appropriate measure to take, and as such, there will be instances when DREAMers need to work harder to support themselves, rather than be lazy and piggyback off of citizens' taxes as others claim.

The previously mentioned 60% success rate includes all enrollments, including students who are easily capable of sustaining themselves, including receipients of Pell Grants and, in the case of California community colleges, the Board of Governors fee waiver. Recognizing the truth stated above, many DREAMers will not receive these types of assistance and will need to work to support themselves by working or enrolling only part time. If one were to calculate the success rates of working students and students who are unqualified for financial aid, the rates are much lower, regardless of immigration status.

Moreover, the DREAM Act requires the completion of two years of college, which I find to be a very vague requirement and indeed the basis for a lot of my skepticism. There is no requirement to complete a certificate or an associates degree, and the legislation itself does not specify a level of proficiency in any area of study which a DREAMer should be able to attain. Specifying only a time and no required progress level or enrollment status (full-time, half-time, etc.) detracts highly from the credibility of the DREAM Act as a piece of legislation. For example, a student who places low in Math or English, considering how difficult it is to even get into a class, may not even reach transfer- or graduation-eligible levels in those classes after two years of college. A student who tests high, on the other hand, may not have to take any Math or English courses at all, and immediately be transfer or graduation eligible in these areas. The point is, we cannot make a presumption that DREAMers as a group will fall predominantly into either category, so we can only logically presume that since DREAMers are already included in our present statistics and were among those surveyed in order to generate them, that these trends apply to them as well.

A study by California State University-Sacramento released in October 2010 showed that, regardless of financial aid and immigration status, only 30% of students who declared a goal of transferring or completing a two-year degree - far below even the 60% estimate of the Office of the Dean of Community Colleges - were able to do so within six years.

So in the case of the DREAMers among the 30% of all students who do succeed in the community college system, the DREAM Act will have been their champion. But for the DREAMers among the 70% who do not succeed if current trends persist as they have for decades, the DREAM Act will have failed them.

Perhaps it is because I am a dreamer but not a DREAMer. Many automatically assume I live a privileged life, that I am an elitist and must have it pretty easy if I am against the DREAM Act. Definitely not the case. I have paid my own way through school for the most part. Next semester, I am going to be enrolled full time at a State University and taking an ROP class for Medical Assisting so I can make ends meet.

While the DREAM act will help those who already defy the trends I have described, of low success rates across the board due largely to the inefficiency of the educational system, the DREAM Act does nothing to reverse the trends to which most of its students will fall prey, and does not do enough to prevent DREAMers from following them.

I do not disagree with the DREAM Act because of sensationalized chants or a nativist ideology. I disagree with it because I cannot see it being effective in making good on its claims.