What’s the difference between “amnesty” and “comprehensive
immigration reform”? In theory, the answer is simple: Under the
latter, an illegal immigrant must satisfy strict requirements to
qualify for the former. Various enforcement measures designed to
deter further illegal immigration — i.e., future comprehensive
reform beneficiaries — are also thrown in.
In practice, the answer is even simpler: Not much. Scrutinized
carefully, the conditions for legalization that are supposed to set
comprehensive reform apart from a blanket amnesty are usually
riddled with loopholes or totally unenforceable within the shambles
that passes for America’s immigration system. So instead of
targeting a small, sympathetic subset of illegal immigrants, the
legislation would wind up benefiting a much larger population —
not much different from the 1986 amnesty.
That brings us to the Development, Relief and Education for
Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act for short, now pending before the
lame-duck session of Congress. (The bill was a key Harry Reid
campaign promise.) Supporters say it is designed to help high
school students whose parents brought them into the United States
illegally when they were small children. Guilty of no crime of
their own, under the DREAM Act these youths could adjust their
legal status by attending college or serving in the military.
An American Immigration Council
fact sheet in support of the bill says, “The DREAM Act is not
an amnesty. No one will automatically receive a green card. To
legalize, individuals have to meet stringent eligibility criteria:
they must have entered the United States before age 16; must have
been here for five years or more; must not have committed any major
crimes; must graduate from high school or the equivalent; and must
complete at least two years of college or military service.”
Hardly anyone wants to deport young people who have only known
the United States as their home, did not voluntarily break our
immigration laws, and do not even speak the language of their
country of origin, even if they didn’t have bright futures ahead in
either college or the U.S. military. The trouble is, as usual, the
DREAM Act’s “stringent eligibility criteria” fall apart on close
examination and its possible implications stretch far beyond
youngsters caught in this unfortunate set of circumstances.
First, an illegal alien doesn’t have to provide real evidence
that he meets these criteria to keep the immigration authorities at
bay. Simply filing an application is good enough. Until the
application process is complete, the potential DREAM beneficiary
cannot be removed from the United States for any reason. If the
application is rejected and amnesty is denied, the applicant
reverts to his previous immigration status — and none of the
information gathered during this process can be used against the
illegal immigrant in future deportation hearings.
DREAM thus provides a huge incentive to apply for amnesty and
see what happens. The burden of proof falls on the federal
government, not the illegal immigrant. The Migration Policy
Institute estimates that about 2.1 million people would qualify,
but as staffers for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) point out (see their
fact
sheet about the bill), “we have no idea how many illegal aliens
will apply.” There are no numerical limits on potential
beneficiaries and currently no end date for the application
process. Sessions argues: “Clearly, the message sent by the DREAM
Act will be that if any young person can enter the country
illegally, within five years, they will be placed on a path to
citizenship.”
Then there is the question of how “stringent” the bill’s
requirements really are. DREAM doesn’t require applicants to finish
any degree program or even be particularly good students. For those
who go the military route, honorable discharge is not required.
“Good moral character” can include up to two misdemeanor
convictions, including drunk driving. In any event, if the DREAM
beneficiary can prove that their removal from the country would
result in hardship to themselves or someone here legally who is a
spouse, child, or parent, both the college and military service
requirements can be waived.
Finally, those who are amnestied under the DREAM Act and
ultimately become U.S. citizens can sponsor their siblings and
parents for immigration — including the parents who brought them
here illegally. As the bill’s supporters point out, this is not a
speedy process. But the parents would at least have the advantage
of not having to petition from overseas like other prospective
legal immigrants.
DREAM is being tweaked to satisfy skeptics’ objections. The
maximum age for applying has been reduced from 35 to 30 (past
versions of bill have had no age requirement). Another sticking
point is in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. DREAM
retroactively repeals a federal ban on the practice, but it would
allow states to retain their prohibitions on such tuition
breaks.
In the end, all comprehensive immigration reform packages and
their DREAM-style mini-mes falter on this challenge: they rely on
an already overtaxed immigration bureaucracy to enforce their
elaborate conditions for legalization. So applicants must either be
buried in a morass of paperwork or the conditions have to be so
full of loopholes to make the distinction between reform and
amnesty almost meaningless.
It’s the stuff that DREAMs are made of.
