Most readers of my blog are aware of the fact that I was a vocal critic of the DREAM Act. However, out of Christmas spirit, I wanted to write a blog that would help the DREAM movement rather than say only what I think is wrong with the legislation they are supporting.
Locally, there is still a great deal of rattle about the DREAM Act's failure to pass in Senate, and what the movement's next move should be. In particular, a great deal of online communities have been trying to strategize how to continue pressuring legislators and keep the DREAM Act fresh in their minds.
However, the harsh reality is that leaving the DREAM Act as is would make it highly unlikely to be seen again for a vote anytime soon. That being said, an immigration bill that puts aside demographic pinpointing and votegrabbing and takes a pragmatic approach is more likely to be able to garner support from both sides of the aisle. Just an example, I've written a sample of what a pragmatic, nonsensationalized DREAM Act would look like - I do not necessarily like the requirements or think they are the ones which would gain the most public support, but I do think that the changes would help the DREAM Act pass.
Showing posts with label DREAM Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DREAM Act. Show all posts
December 24, 2010
December 18, 2010
Lessons Learned: Where the DREAM Act Movement Went Wrong
For those among us who did not watch the C-SPan coverage of the DREAM Act cloture vote this morning, especially those of us on the West Coast who may have had a hard time being up early on a Saturday, the results were a 55-41 vote, with the DREAM Act falling five votes short of success.
Those of you who follow my blog will know that I have been a staunch critic of the DREAM Act, though not of immigration in general. I do believe that maintaining the influx and efflux of people is part of what will pull the United States out of its slump. However, should the DREAM Act come up for a vote again any time soon, there have been some important lessons in this failure:
Those of you who follow my blog will know that I have been a staunch critic of the DREAM Act, though not of immigration in general. I do believe that maintaining the influx and efflux of people is part of what will pull the United States out of its slump. However, should the DREAM Act come up for a vote again any time soon, there have been some important lessons in this failure:
December 06, 2010
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.
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.
December 04, 2010
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?
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?
December 01, 2010
DREAM On: Why the DREAM Act Cannot Work
In my previous blogs, I voiced a “big picture” objection to the DREAM Act, which is probably a bit more conceptual than advocates would like because the legislation, for so many people, is not conceptual - it is something that affects them deeply and personally. In this blog, I would like to instead critique the assumption that the DREAM Act, if passed, is going to succeed in practice.
First, it should go without saying that just because I feel a piece of legislation is flawed does not mean that I find it inherently wrong. Many of our laws our flawed - they are flawed because while they may have correct intentions, they do no work. Our educational system itself is flawed, and this, in fact, turns out to be the cornerstone of my objection to the DREAM Act.
Right now, my concern is not so much whether or not the DREAM Act will pass, or will succeed. My concern is whether or not it can succeed.
To set the stage, let me tell you a little bit about myself. In September of 2007, I started working as a peer mentor at City College of San Francisco, for a student organization called “Students Supporting Students’, which made a point of reaching out to student students of marginalized ethnic and economic backgrounds. (The specific term they use is ‘students of color’, which is a title that I do not like, so I will refrain from using it.) From day one, I was given one thing to keep in mind: retention rates for these groups in college were terrifyingly low, and consequently, dropout rates were disconcertingly high. (For anyone unfamiliar with the jargon, retention rates are simply the rates at which students are retained and complete their stated goals in college). This is not a matter of immigration, per se. It was not about residency or status.
It was about infrastructure.
Putting immigration aside for a moment, our postsecondary education system does not operate in a way that fosters success at large, even in community colleges which are supposed to be the most accessible option to “marginalized groups” of students. Specifically, one should look at the placement and testing process for English and Mathematics classes - for those who have not been subjected to the process, placement tests dictate a level at which a student must begin their classes in these areas, and they must work their way up. The low-placers are placed at the very beginning of a track where they must start a chain of classes, up to four or five which have to be taken one by one, not concurrently, and are largely non-transferable to four-year institutions because they are too remedial. Finishing these string of classes will get them enough Math and English to begin the sequence of classes needed to transfer to a university.
Moreover, even if the classes were designed to foster success, there are not enough of them. A student may enter the system highly motivated, highly intelligent, fully prepared -- and still, through no fault of their on, not get a single class that they need for an entire year or more.
Now, back to the DREAM Act.
I am not making a value judgment as to who is entitled to an education and who is not. I am taking a step back and attempting to make a pragmatic judgment of whether or not the educational system can sustain such an influx of new students as would be caused by the passage of the DREAM Act. Can a system that is already overburdened and leaving thousands of students to fail realistically handle an increase to that burden?
When the Titanic hit an iceberg and was starting to sink, should it have picked up more passengers?
This is not to say that undocumented students are inherently any less capable, but it is to pose the question: do supporters of the DREAM Act think that undocumented students will be more capable than their documented counterparts? Will students under of the purview of the DREAM Act somehow be immune to marginalization and low retention rates that are rampant if not universal in postsecondary education.
If the DREAM Act passes, immigrant youth will indeed be given a chance. They will be given a chance to enter a fundamentally flawed educational system that generally yields more failures than successes. The DREAM Act is a move towards equality -- immigrant youth will partake in an equal share of success, and failure. However, while the failure of a citizen or legal resident in school means one more person on welfare, or one more person working minimum wage in retail or food services, the failure of a student provided for by the DREAM Act means costly deportation procedures.
From point A to point B, let’s follow the potential path of an immigrant youth who we will refer to as Juan Doe.
Juan Doe enters community college and begins at lower level Math and English classes. He is not discouraged by this, because there are a lot of people who tested at the same level as he has. However, semester after semester, Juan finds that he is staying in school much longer than he would have liked, because all of the people who tested into the same level as he had are trying to get into a handful of class sections - some semesters, he is lucky if there’s more than one section of the Math class he needs. As he continues through school, the government continues to invest its money and resources into him as a student. Jaded, he, alongside many other non-immigrant students, drop out. The system simply cannot sustain all of them, regardless of their immigration status. The difference with Juan Doe, however, is that now the government must again invest money and resources into him in the form of his deportation proceedings.
DREAM Act proponents place the burden of their argument on the successes of immigrant youthm of which I am sure there will be many. However, there will also be failures, many of which will not be the fault of the students, but nonetheless, these failures will be doubly costly.
First, it should go without saying that just because I feel a piece of legislation is flawed does not mean that I find it inherently wrong. Many of our laws our flawed - they are flawed because while they may have correct intentions, they do no work. Our educational system itself is flawed, and this, in fact, turns out to be the cornerstone of my objection to the DREAM Act.
Right now, my concern is not so much whether or not the DREAM Act will pass, or will succeed. My concern is whether or not it can succeed.
To set the stage, let me tell you a little bit about myself. In September of 2007, I started working as a peer mentor at City College of San Francisco, for a student organization called “Students Supporting Students’, which made a point of reaching out to student students of marginalized ethnic and economic backgrounds. (The specific term they use is ‘students of color’, which is a title that I do not like, so I will refrain from using it.) From day one, I was given one thing to keep in mind: retention rates for these groups in college were terrifyingly low, and consequently, dropout rates were disconcertingly high. (For anyone unfamiliar with the jargon, retention rates are simply the rates at which students are retained and complete their stated goals in college). This is not a matter of immigration, per se. It was not about residency or status.
It was about infrastructure.
Putting immigration aside for a moment, our postsecondary education system does not operate in a way that fosters success at large, even in community colleges which are supposed to be the most accessible option to “marginalized groups” of students. Specifically, one should look at the placement and testing process for English and Mathematics classes - for those who have not been subjected to the process, placement tests dictate a level at which a student must begin their classes in these areas, and they must work their way up. The low-placers are placed at the very beginning of a track where they must start a chain of classes, up to four or five which have to be taken one by one, not concurrently, and are largely non-transferable to four-year institutions because they are too remedial. Finishing these string of classes will get them enough Math and English to begin the sequence of classes needed to transfer to a university.
Moreover, even if the classes were designed to foster success, there are not enough of them. A student may enter the system highly motivated, highly intelligent, fully prepared -- and still, through no fault of their on, not get a single class that they need for an entire year or more.
Now, back to the DREAM Act.
I am not making a value judgment as to who is entitled to an education and who is not. I am taking a step back and attempting to make a pragmatic judgment of whether or not the educational system can sustain such an influx of new students as would be caused by the passage of the DREAM Act. Can a system that is already overburdened and leaving thousands of students to fail realistically handle an increase to that burden?
When the Titanic hit an iceberg and was starting to sink, should it have picked up more passengers?
This is not to say that undocumented students are inherently any less capable, but it is to pose the question: do supporters of the DREAM Act think that undocumented students will be more capable than their documented counterparts? Will students under of the purview of the DREAM Act somehow be immune to marginalization and low retention rates that are rampant if not universal in postsecondary education.
If the DREAM Act passes, immigrant youth will indeed be given a chance. They will be given a chance to enter a fundamentally flawed educational system that generally yields more failures than successes. The DREAM Act is a move towards equality -- immigrant youth will partake in an equal share of success, and failure. However, while the failure of a citizen or legal resident in school means one more person on welfare, or one more person working minimum wage in retail or food services, the failure of a student provided for by the DREAM Act means costly deportation procedures.
From point A to point B, let’s follow the potential path of an immigrant youth who we will refer to as Juan Doe.
Juan Doe enters community college and begins at lower level Math and English classes. He is not discouraged by this, because there are a lot of people who tested at the same level as he has. However, semester after semester, Juan finds that he is staying in school much longer than he would have liked, because all of the people who tested into the same level as he had are trying to get into a handful of class sections - some semesters, he is lucky if there’s more than one section of the Math class he needs. As he continues through school, the government continues to invest its money and resources into him as a student. Jaded, he, alongside many other non-immigrant students, drop out. The system simply cannot sustain all of them, regardless of their immigration status. The difference with Juan Doe, however, is that now the government must again invest money and resources into him in the form of his deportation proceedings.
DREAM Act proponents place the burden of their argument on the successes of immigrant youthm of which I am sure there will be many. However, there will also be failures, many of which will not be the fault of the students, but nonetheless, these failures will be doubly costly.
Labels:
Daily Life,
DREAM Act,
Education,
Politics
November 28, 2010
DREAM Act: A Compilation of Editorials
As most people who I've spoken to know, I have a lot of opinions about the DREAM Act, which is currently still up in the air. As such, I felt that it would be helpful for people who have not kept up with the legislation quite as much to compile some editorials both for and against it. Below, find a collection of some helpful editorials I have looked up, with a quote from each. Whichever side of the issue you are on, I think it is important to have a balanced view. I would also like to take the opportunity to plug my earlier blog post with my own opinion on the issue, which you can read either by scrolling down if you are accessing my main blog page, or by clicking here.
(This listing will be updated as I find more articles, so check back periodically. Also, if you have an editorial you have written or felt strongly about, send it my way!)
FOR:
"If you knew that by passing legislation to allow 2.1 million American students to pursue higher education or military service, our government could collect $3.6 trillion over the next 40 years, would you do it?"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45524.html
"This law allows students to pay in-state tuition in the public university system if they have attended a California high school for three years and have graduated. That means students like Arthur and Rodrigo are exempt from more expensive nonresident tuition."
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/17/3190948/dream-act-should-be-the-law-of.html
"Sure, there are other priorities, such as extending tax cuts and unemployment insurance. But there always are. Only squeaky wheels get the oil, and the squeak among Hispanics is getting loud and angry."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111803068.html
"The DREAM Act promises a pathway to citizenship if these young people enroll in higher education or commit themselves to military service -- in short, to give back to America more than we expect native-born American citizens to do. And, for what it's worth, these youth want to do it."
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/11/why-we-need-the-dream-act-and-what-you-can-do-steve-lis-story.html
"If the bill, known as the Dream Act, does not pass before a more conservative Congress takes power in January, it is unlikely to pass for years to come."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dream-act-20101128,0,5057601.story?track=rss
Even if they lack the right papers, the young people who would benefit from the DREAM Act are unquestionably American.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/28/3214064/dream-act-holds-promise-of-economic.html
Coming from a family of simple means, there is no one stepping up to pay for his college. He is an illegal immigrant not by choice but by virtue of transport - his parents brought him here.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/88691977.html
AGAINST:
"...its prognosis for the future might be better if citizenship were reserved for those who earned it through true sacrifice or public works rather than giving it away to anyone willing to spend a couple of years in college building his or her own résumé or skills."
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/fix-the-dream-act-so-it-can-work-937572.html
"Under no circumstances must the DREAM act for Illegal Immigrants become law. This unwise and foolish plan can and must be stopped now before it destroys our country."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-11-23/news/bs-ed-dream-act-20101123_1_dream-act-lame-duck-illegal-immigrants
"The real victims are the children of illegal immigrants. However, it doesn't change the fact that their parents knowingly broke the law when migrating to the United States. The DREAM Act is putting a band-aid over a bigger issue on immigration."
http://media.www.sdcitytimes.com/media/storage/paper1083/news/2010/10/26/Opinion/The-Dream.Act.Con.Dream.Act.Could.Become.A.Nightmare-3950052.shtml
"Many people are under the false impression the Dream Act would grant citizenship to children born here of illegal immigrant parents. But such children are, at present, automatic U.S. citizens at birth. Instead, the Dream Act would grant legal status to immigrants younger than 36 who arrived in the U.S. as children, have lived here for five years, and are currently either in college or serving in the military."
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/harry-s-dreaming-103606819.html?ref=819
"Six years after their legalization, amnestied aliens can apply for citizenship and petition to bring relatives, including the “seed” criminals (their parents who brought them here illegally), to the United States. This makes the effective size of the amnesty much larger."
http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_dcdc5082-acc7-11df-b9c0-001cc4c03286.html
Unfortunately, Americans are excluded from the benefits of these bills but they will be expected to foot the tax bill and incur some other penalties.
http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/dream-act-could-become-nightmare-for-us-taxpayers-and-students/
ILLEGAL ALIEN advocates are pressuring the government to grant them amnesty, and Liberals are happily going along with their request!
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010112112147/us/homeland-security/dream-act-will-equal-nightmare-for-american-taxpayers.html
(This listing will be updated as I find more articles, so check back periodically. Also, if you have an editorial you have written or felt strongly about, send it my way!)
FOR:
"If you knew that by passing legislation to allow 2.1 million American students to pursue higher education or military service, our government could collect $3.6 trillion over the next 40 years, would you do it?"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45524.html
"This law allows students to pay in-state tuition in the public university system if they have attended a California high school for three years and have graduated. That means students like Arthur and Rodrigo are exempt from more expensive nonresident tuition."
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/17/3190948/dream-act-should-be-the-law-of.html
"Sure, there are other priorities, such as extending tax cuts and unemployment insurance. But there always are. Only squeaky wheels get the oil, and the squeak among Hispanics is getting loud and angry."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111803068.html
"The DREAM Act promises a pathway to citizenship if these young people enroll in higher education or commit themselves to military service -- in short, to give back to America more than we expect native-born American citizens to do. And, for what it's worth, these youth want to do it."
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/11/why-we-need-the-dream-act-and-what-you-can-do-steve-lis-story.html
"If the bill, known as the Dream Act, does not pass before a more conservative Congress takes power in January, it is unlikely to pass for years to come."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dream-act-20101128,0,5057601.story?track=rss
Even if they lack the right papers, the young people who would benefit from the DREAM Act are unquestionably American.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/28/3214064/dream-act-holds-promise-of-economic.html
Coming from a family of simple means, there is no one stepping up to pay for his college. He is an illegal immigrant not by choice but by virtue of transport - his parents brought him here.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/88691977.html
AGAINST:
"...its prognosis for the future might be better if citizenship were reserved for those who earned it through true sacrifice or public works rather than giving it away to anyone willing to spend a couple of years in college building his or her own résumé or skills."
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/fix-the-dream-act-so-it-can-work-937572.html
"Under no circumstances must the DREAM act for Illegal Immigrants become law. This unwise and foolish plan can and must be stopped now before it destroys our country."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-11-23/news/bs-ed-dream-act-20101123_1_dream-act-lame-duck-illegal-immigrants
"The real victims are the children of illegal immigrants. However, it doesn't change the fact that their parents knowingly broke the law when migrating to the United States. The DREAM Act is putting a band-aid over a bigger issue on immigration."
http://media.www.sdcitytimes.com/media/storage/paper1083/news/2010/10/26/Opinion/The-Dream.Act.Con.Dream.Act.Could.Become.A.Nightmare-3950052.shtml
"Many people are under the false impression the Dream Act would grant citizenship to children born here of illegal immigrant parents. But such children are, at present, automatic U.S. citizens at birth. Instead, the Dream Act would grant legal status to immigrants younger than 36 who arrived in the U.S. as children, have lived here for five years, and are currently either in college or serving in the military."
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/harry-s-dreaming-103606819.html?ref=819
"Six years after their legalization, amnestied aliens can apply for citizenship and petition to bring relatives, including the “seed” criminals (their parents who brought them here illegally), to the United States. This makes the effective size of the amnesty much larger."
http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_dcdc5082-acc7-11df-b9c0-001cc4c03286.html
Unfortunately, Americans are excluded from the benefits of these bills but they will be expected to foot the tax bill and incur some other penalties.
http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/dream-act-could-become-nightmare-for-us-taxpayers-and-students/
ILLEGAL ALIEN advocates are pressuring the government to grant them amnesty, and Liberals are happily going along with their request!
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010112112147/us/homeland-security/dream-act-will-equal-nightmare-for-american-taxpayers.html
If I can D.R.E.A.M...
The DREAM Act is something that I have been thinking about a lot, after first hearing about it pre-news hype. While I feel that anything that encourages pursuing an education is a step in the right direction, I have come to the conclusion that the DREAM Act is not what we need.
In essence, the DREAM Act will allow undocumented immigrants the ability to pursue an education or military service as an avenue towards citizenship. The highly politicized name in and of itself makes me feel wary - while the intentions are admirable, the manipulative aspect of the name makes me cringe. It automatically wants to attribute stigma to anyone who disagrees with it:
"You're against the DREAM Act?"
"You want to kill the DREAM?!"
It's a little bit hypocritical to tout adages about freedom and equality, and at the same time try to stigmatize anyone who disgrees with you.
I also think the wording of the legislation itself is somewhat vague, and leaves a lot of room for corruption in its enforcement. There's a lot of room for paperwork to be lost or unaccounted for. Even if the intention is right, enforcing the DREAM Act could get messy, because something like this is unprecendented, and leaving it up to the states instead of creating federal regulation does not seem to be realistic.
My biggest peeve with the legislation, however, is the fact that while the United States does need to improve its educational system, there is something about the DREAM Act that our economy does not need: further concentrating the population of individuals with postsecondary education within the United States.
I don't think that it has evaded anyone's notice that the American economy and job market are going through a low point - and a great deal of this is due to the outsourcing of menial labor and manufacturing jobs to less developed nations where the labor can be contracted for cheap. Meanwhile, "underemployment" is becoming widespread in the United States, a circumstance which requires educated individuals to take jobs that require less than their education level in order to have jobs at all.
Allowing more people to be educated in the United States and to stay here will only exacerbate this conditon - more educated individuals becomind citizens and staying in the United States means more people competing for jobs which are already few and far between. Passage of the DREAM Act will discourage immigrants from pursuing an education in their home countries and these countries, especially in the developing world, will continue to be looked to as simply sources of cheap labor.
What is needed for a worldwide economic recovery is a worldwide effort to improve educational standards, not merely shepherding all of the educated individuals into the United States. If the Asian nations where American companies outsource the majority of their labor were to transition to countries in which more individuals were more educated, that labor would not be as cheap, and those jobs could be brought back to the United States. Concentrating postsecondary degrees in the United States as the DREAM Act would do, however, would have the opposite effect.
While I recognize that the DREAM Act is a valuable contribution to the people to whom it applies, I also feel that it only puts a bandaid over the problem the world economy faces. If we want to keep up this system of having a global economy, we have to think on a global scale.
In essence, the DREAM Act will allow undocumented immigrants the ability to pursue an education or military service as an avenue towards citizenship. The highly politicized name in and of itself makes me feel wary - while the intentions are admirable, the manipulative aspect of the name makes me cringe. It automatically wants to attribute stigma to anyone who disagrees with it:
"You're against the DREAM Act?"
"You want to kill the DREAM?!"
It's a little bit hypocritical to tout adages about freedom and equality, and at the same time try to stigmatize anyone who disgrees with you.
I also think the wording of the legislation itself is somewhat vague, and leaves a lot of room for corruption in its enforcement. There's a lot of room for paperwork to be lost or unaccounted for. Even if the intention is right, enforcing the DREAM Act could get messy, because something like this is unprecendented, and leaving it up to the states instead of creating federal regulation does not seem to be realistic.
My biggest peeve with the legislation, however, is the fact that while the United States does need to improve its educational system, there is something about the DREAM Act that our economy does not need: further concentrating the population of individuals with postsecondary education within the United States.
I don't think that it has evaded anyone's notice that the American economy and job market are going through a low point - and a great deal of this is due to the outsourcing of menial labor and manufacturing jobs to less developed nations where the labor can be contracted for cheap. Meanwhile, "underemployment" is becoming widespread in the United States, a circumstance which requires educated individuals to take jobs that require less than their education level in order to have jobs at all.
Allowing more people to be educated in the United States and to stay here will only exacerbate this conditon - more educated individuals becomind citizens and staying in the United States means more people competing for jobs which are already few and far between. Passage of the DREAM Act will discourage immigrants from pursuing an education in their home countries and these countries, especially in the developing world, will continue to be looked to as simply sources of cheap labor.
What is needed for a worldwide economic recovery is a worldwide effort to improve educational standards, not merely shepherding all of the educated individuals into the United States. If the Asian nations where American companies outsource the majority of their labor were to transition to countries in which more individuals were more educated, that labor would not be as cheap, and those jobs could be brought back to the United States. Concentrating postsecondary degrees in the United States as the DREAM Act would do, however, would have the opposite effect.
While I recognize that the DREAM Act is a valuable contribution to the people to whom it applies, I also feel that it only puts a bandaid over the problem the world economy faces. If we want to keep up this system of having a global economy, we have to think on a global scale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)