It’s the right thing to do. President Obama has made a bold and historic decision for his administration to use its legal authority to allow DREAMers–young new Americans who were brought into the country as kids—to apply to stay in the only home they’ve ever known, without fear of deportation. The new policy, announced on June 15, 2012,  will affect about 800,000 young Americans.

Basics

According to the Department of Homeland Security,  in order to be eligible for deferred action under the new policy, individuals must:

1. Have come to the United States under the age of sixteen;
2. Have continuously resided in the United States for at least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
3. Currently be in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
4. Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;
5. Not be above the age of thirty.

Individuals must also complete a background check and, for those individuals who make a request to USCIS and are not subject to a final order of removal, must be 15 years old or older.

Why do it?

It’s a humane and common-sense policy decision, and the rationale is simple: Young people who appreciate America and contribute to America, strengthen it. It’s just not right to punish children who’ve done nothing wrong, just because you don’t like what their parents did. It’s not just about where you were born that makes you American, it’s about how you live your life and what you do in the only country you’ve always loved and called home, too.

Issues raised by this decision

Is it a politically motivated decision? To be sure, it has a lot of appeal to Latino voters, a bloc that President Obama needs behind him in his reelection campaign. But to call it a cold, calculated political move isn’t fair. A cold, calculated political move is one that defies a candidate’s previously stated views—a flip-flop, if you will, such as suddenly taking credit for the auto industry bailout when you wrote an op-ed calling for allowing the industry to go bankrupt.

That’s not the case here. President Obama has been consistent in his support for the DREAM Act. The problem has been that the Republican-dominated House of Representatives has been equally consistent in obstructing any progress for DREAM legislation.

Does the President’s policy decision go too far? Is he overstepping his executive authority, as those who have obsessively opposed any and all DREAM proposals say? No, say nearly 100 law professors, who submitted a memorandum that says:

The ExecutiveBranch has the authority to grant … administrative relief to some significant number of DREAM Act beneficiaries, and that it has done so both historically and recently in similar situations.  In fact, the change is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that is consistent with the current law and has decades of precedent.

By the way, the new policy of deferred action is not, as some would have us believe, an executive order designed to circumvent Congress. Rather, it’s prosecutorial discretion, which is a completely different animal. Those who continue to repeat the meme that the policy was issued as an executive order are deliberately creating a false and exaggerated impression.

The President probably wishes that he could go further. But in the face of incessant, mean-spirited obstruction in Congress, deferred action is about all he can do. And as for those on the left who are critical of the President for making a limited policy change, the question is, would you really rather see America elect an anti-immigrant President to the White House?

Also, deferred action is not  amnesty. Right-wing media have attacked the Obama administration’s policy change allowing some young undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States as “amnesty.” In fact, it’s not. But using the term “amnesty” works, if you want to produce negative reactions.  Deferred action lasts only for up to two years, subject to renewal. That’s far from amnesty.

Bottom line

I repeat: It’s the right thing to do. America is strengthened by holding onto young people who love America and its values and are contributing to it. How we treat aspiring citizens reflects our commitment to the values that define us as Americans.

Hat tip to Media Matters Action Network for talking points

The post President Obama’s DREAM decision: Facts and fallacies appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Some states and municipalities aren’t waiting around for Congress to pass the DREAM Act. “Despite the anti-immigration rhetoric of the 2010 mid-term elections, states and municipalities have already begun expanding educational access for undocumented students to attend state universities and community colleges,” says Progressive States Network.

If Congress were to pass it, the DREAM Act would provide a path to citizenship for young people who, as children, were brought into the country by their parents. As they go down that path, they would be required to either serve in the military or attend college.

Despite the strong support of the Obama administration and public opinion, the bill, at the national level, has faced stiff opposition in Congress.

One recent study found that the DREAM Act enjoys strong support across party lines. According to the study, “after hearing a brief description, sixty-six percent of voters support[ed] the DREAM Act, including majorities of Democrats (81%), independents (60%), and Republicans (57%).”

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan says that the DREAM Act would provide 55,000 young people an opportunity to improve their lives and the nation’s economy. It was filibustered by Senate Republicans earlier this year.

“There is a real moment of opportunity for us to do the right thing for young people,” Duncan says.

And that’s exactly what a handful of states and cities are doing. In a November 18, 2010 article, Progressive States Network summarized some of these hopeful developments

Progress toward tuition equity

In a unanimous decision on Nov. 15, 2010, the California Supreme Court upheld the state’s tuition equity law, “which allows all high school graduates, including those who are undocumented, who have attended state schools for at least three years to pay the same in-state tuition rate paid by US citizen and legal permanent resident classmates and neighbors to attend higher education institutions.  The decision, which overturned a lower court ruling and was authored by one of the court’s most conservative justices, underscores the wisdom and validity of the state’s 2001 tuition equity law.”

To date, 10 states have passed tuition equity laws.  They are: Colorado, Utah, New York, Oklahoma, Washington, Kansas, Illinois, New Mexico, and Nebraska.

The rationale for these laws is that they will help the states meet future workforce demands, reduce government expense and increase their tax bases. Progressive States Network cites studies showing that “expanding education access for immigrants translates into greater tax revenue and lower levels of public-benefit expenditures.”

A promise of inclusiveness

New Haven, Connecticut and Yale University officials recently announced plans to expand educational opportunity for all qualifying New Haven public high school graduates, including those who are undocumented, to attend the state’s public colleges or universities, beginning next year.  New Haven has pioneered other common-sense initiatives that seek to integrate undocumented immigrant residents by taking immigration status out of the question with respect to accessing key city programs and services.  In 2007, the city unveiled a municipal identification card, which is available to all residents regardless of their immigration status.

Most states prefer integrating new immigrants

As PSN highlighted in a report last year, a majority of undocumented immigrants now live in states where in-state tuition is available, highlighting the fact that states with the longest experience with immigrant populations recognize the advantage of policies to integrate new immigrants into the economy rather than indulging in punitive policies.  So states like New Jersey, Maryland and Colorado are part of a wave of states which see the value in educating and retaining talented kids who want to stay in state and contribute to their local communities by paying taxes and creating jobs.

The post The DREAM is alive in some cities and states appeared first on Occasional Planet.