Author: Raja Ishwarya B,
a student of Sastra University
To the Point
A legislative proposal called the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act seeks to give undocumented immigrants who entered the country as minors a route to legal status. The major legal, social, and economic issues that these people—many of whom identify as Americans in all respects save their formal documentation status—face are addressed by this legislative proposal. If the Act’s provisions are implemented, they will not only affect the lives of these young immigrants but also influence the national conversation on immigration reform.
Abstract
Since it was initially proposed in 2001, the DREAM Act has been a vital part of the US’s continuous effort to change its immigration laws. The Act, which is aimed at undocumented immigrants who entered the country as youngsters, provides a conditional route to citizenship in the long run. This article explores the possible advantages and difficulties of the DREAM Act by delving into its complex legal framework. This article attempts to provide a thorough overview of the DREAM Act’s effects on children of undocumented immigrants through an analysis of pertinent case laws and legislative history. The Act’s capacity to change these young people’s lives emphasizes how urgently it must be passed in the context of the complicated political and social environment surrounding American immigration policy.
Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors is the acronym for the DREAM Act. This proposed legislation would allow undocumented immigrants who entered the country as minors to obtain legal status through a multi-phase process. The Act would establish a sequence of events that would lead from conditional residency to permanent residency and, ultimately, citizenship. A person must fulfill a number of requirements in order to be eligible, such as being in the nation for a predetermined amount of time, entering before a particular age, and fulfilling any requirements related to military service or education. The DREAM Act has been tried and failed throughout the years, even with strong bipartisan support and multiple iterations. The continuous fight to address the legal status and rights of undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children is highlighted by the DREAM Act’s continued introduction and debate.
The Proof
Since its first submission in 2001, the DREAM Act has been a reoccurring proposition in the United States Congress. It aims to give undocumented immigrants who satisfy certain requirements an organized route to legal status. In order to be eligible, people had to have entered the nation before a specific age, usually before turning 16 years old, and they have to have lived there continuously for a considerable amount of time. They also need to have a clean record and be of good moral character, having completed high school in the United States or earning a GED. The Act has experienced several parliamentary challenges despite its obvious advantages and the moral case for its enactment. Political differences have frequently prevented it from moving forward, especially when it comes to more expansive immigration laws. The Act’s inability to become law serves as a stark reminder of the intricate and divisive nature of immigration reform in the US.
Different iterations of the DREAM Act have been proposed over time, taking into account the changing political climate as well as the changing agendas of legislators. Senators Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch first proposed the Act in 2001 with the intention of granting conditional residency to young undocumented immigrants who had entered the country before the age of sixteen, had lived here for at least five years, and had finished high school. Since then, the Act has undergone numerous revisions, many of which were attempts to win over more people by addressing issues with national security, economic effect, and the rule of law. Deep partisan divisions and the larger, more heated discussion surrounding comprehensive immigration reform are the main reasons why the Act has never been able to garner enough support to become law, despite these best efforts.
The DREAM Act’s recurrent introduction and the numerous other immigration-related initiatives highlight how urgently and persistently the issue of undocumented youth in the United States needs to be addressed. While the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and other temporary measures have offered some respite, they have also brought attention to the vulnerable and unpredictable status of these young immigrants. The ongoing discussion surrounding the DREAM Act is a reflection of a larger effort to create a humane and equitable approach to immigration policy that addresses concerns about border security and the enforcement of immigration laws while also acknowledging the rights and contributions of illegal immigrants.
Case Laws
- Plyler v. Doc (1982):
Understanding the educational rights of illegal children in the US is based on this Supreme Court judgment. According to the Court’s ruling, states are not allowed to refuse children free public education because of their immigrant status. This ruling highlighted the fact that depriving children of an education would negatively impact society overall by causing lifetime challenges for them, irrespective of their legal status. A fundamental tenet of the DREAM Act, Plyler v. Doe established a precedent emphasizing the value of giving all children access to education. A Texas law that prevented local school systems from receiving funding for teaching children who were not authorized immigrants to the country was the subject of Plyler v. Doe. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated, according to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that invalidated the Act. The Court reasoned that by preventing these kids from attending school, a class of illiterates would be created who would probably continue to live in poverty and marginalization, which would be detrimental to both the people and society as a whole. Since then, discussions concerning the rights of illegal immigrants—particularly with regard to access to education and other vital services—have relied heavily on this historic ruling. Plyler v. Doe established the foundation for the arguments in favor of the DREAM Act, which aims to further integrate undocumented youth into American society through education and legal status. The case established that all children have the right to public education.
- Arizona v. United States (2012):
The state of Arizona’s SB 1070, which aimed to impose stringent immigration controls, was at the center of this legal dispute. The Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s primary authority over immigration policy by overturning multiple significant parts of the legislation. Because it emphasizes the necessity of federal remedies to immigration concerns rather than a patchwork of state laws, this opinion is essential for the DREAM Act. This judicial viewpoint is supported by the federal legislative proposal known as the DREAM Act, which provides young illegal immigrants with a standard route to legal status. The case of Arizona v. United States investigated the compatibility of state-level and federal immigration regulations. A number of SB 1070’s sections were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, including the ones that made it illegal for unauthorized immigrants to look for work or to fail to carry identification. In its ruling, the Court upheld the federal government’s sole jurisdiction to control immigration, reasoning that letting individual states enact their own immigration legislation would result in a disjointed and uneven strategy. The DREAM Act, which suggests a federal solution to the status of undocumented kids, exemplifies the notion that immigration challenges require a coordinated national strategy, which is highlighted by this case. The goal of the DREAM Act is to guarantee that all eligible people nationwide, irrespective of their state of residence, receive equal treatment under the law by offering a consistent route to legal status.
- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Litigation:
DACA, which was implemented by the Obama administration in 2012, gives qualified undocumented youngsters temporary protection from deportation and access to work. Despite being an administrative decision rather than a legislation, as the DREAM Act is, DACA’s legal challenges highlight how divisive and politically volatile immigration policy is in the United States. The legitimacy of the program has been contested in numerous courts, and its future is still unknown. The presence of DACA and the legal obstacles it faces demonstrate how important it is to have a long-term legislative solution, such as the DREAM Act, in order to give undocumented kids stability. President Obama created DACA via executive order, providing work permits and temporary protection from deportation to those undocumented immigrants who entered the country as minors. About 800,000 people were somewhat relieved by the program, which allowed them to pursue job and educational possibilities without always worrying about being deported. Nonetheless, DACA has encountered numerous legal obstacles, especially during the Trump administration’s attempt to end the program. DACA recipients are apprehensive and anxious as a result of the ensuing litigation, which includes cases like Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. Given how easy succeeding administrations can undo executive acts like DACA, these legal challenges highlight the need for a more long-term solution. In order to give undocumented kids the security and permanency that DACA does not, the DREAM Act offers a legislatively mandated pathway to legal status. This way, they may establish their lives in the United States without worrying about abrupt policy changes.
Legal Implications
The DREAM Act has wide-ranging and significant legal ramifications. First and foremost, the Act provides a formalized process for obtaining citizenship, starting with conditional residency and ending with permanent status. Through job, military service, or further study, grantees will be able to demonstrate their commitment to assimilating into American society. This tiered method is intended to ensure this. Those who meet the requirements would be granted legal status during the conditional residence phase, enabling them to live, work, and study without having to worry about being deported. For these young immigrants to feel a sense of community and to be able to make plans for the future, their legal security is essential. Furthermore, the DREAM Act aims to end the state of uncertainty that many young people without legal status experience by giving them access to a clear legal path and the rights and obligations of lawful residents, eventually leading to citizenship.
Impact on Children of Undocumented Immigrants
For children of unauthorized immigrants, the DREAM Act may have a profoundly positive effect. A significant advantage is the heightened availability of educational prospects. Many undocumented students now face major obstacles to pursuing higher education, such as their inability to qualify for in-state tuition rates in some states and their ineligibility for federal financial aid. By addressing these problems, the DREAM Act would increase access to and affordability of higher education. These young people would be able to fulfill their academic and professional potential by doing this. Economically speaking, the Act would permit young people without documentation to lawfully join the labor and support it with taxes and consumer spending. Individuals would gain from this economic inclusion, but it would also have a favorable knock-on effect on the overall economy. Social integration would be facilitated by the DREAM Act, which would lessen the stigma and anxiety related to being undocumented. These young immigrants would feel more comfortable and welcomed in their communities if they were granted legal protection and recognition. Furthermore, by shielding young immigrants from deportation and enabling them to provide both financial and emotional support for their families, the Act would strengthen family stability.
Challenges and Criticisms
The DREAM Act is criticized and confronted with a number of obstacles despite its potential advantages. One major obstacle has been the legislative deadlock, which has prevented the Act from passing Congress on several occasions due to political differences. Many undocumented immigrants are left in a dangerous situation with unknown futures due to this ongoing impasse. Moreover, the Act’s qualifying conditions are strict, which may exclude a sizable portion of those who do not fulfill the prerequisites. Although these requirements are meant to make sure that recipients are devoted to assimilating into society, some contend that they are overly onerous. Another complaint is that because the conditional residence period does not offer complete and instant security, it breeds doubt. Before gaining citizenship and permanent residency, beneficiaries still have to traverse many years of conditional status, which some see as an unneeded and onerous delay. Finally, some proponents of immigration reform contend that the DREAM Act is really a patchwork solution, even though it is a positive step. They argue that in order to solve the more general problems impacting undocumented immigrants and the immigration system as a whole, comprehensive immigration reform is required.
Conclusion
A major legislative attempt to address the particular difficulties experienced by children of unauthorized immigrants is represented by the DREAM Act. The Act seeks to unleash these young people’s potential and give them a way to become lawfully recognized members of American society. The Act has the capacity to change lives and advance greater justice, as seen by its provisions for social integration, economic inclusion, and educational opportunity. Nonetheless, the Act’s repeated failures to pass serve as a reminder of how complicated and divisive US immigration law is. The DREAM Act is a crucial topic in the current discussion about immigration reform because of its ramifications for the law, the economy, and society. In order to guarantee that young people without documentation can follow their goals and ambitions without fear or uncertainty, a consensus on this issue must be reached.
FAQ
- What is the DREAM Act?
The DREAM Act is a proposed law that would give undocumented immigrants who entered the country as minors a path to obtaining legal status. For those who qualify, it provides a methodical route to conditional residency, permanent residency, and eventually citizenship.
- Who is eligible for the DREAM Act?
To be eligible, a person must normally have been in the country prior to the age of sixteen, have been there continuously for a considerable amount of time, have completed high school or earned a GED, and have a clean record free of serious crimes.
- What benefit does the DREAM Act offers?
The Act provides conditional residency, enabling qualified people to live, work, and study lawfully in the United States. It also offers a route to citizenship and permanent residency, as well as access to higher education through eligibility for in-state tuition and financial aid.
- Has the DREAM Act been passed into lay?
No, since 2001, several iterations of the DREAM Act have been proposed in Congress; however, because of political polarization and deadlock in the legislative process, none of them have been signed into law.
- How doe the DREAM Act impact children of undocumented immigrants?
The Act grants legal status, which lessens young immigrants’ fear of deportation and enables them to seek chances for employment and higher education. By safeguarding these individuals and granting them the legal right to support their families, it fosters economic contributions, social integration, and family stability.
- What are the main criticisms of the DREAM Act?
The Act’s failure to pass because of congressional deadlock, strict qualifying requirements that would bar many people, the ambiguous and transient nature of conditional residency, and the necessity for comprehensive immigration reform as opposed to a piecemeal approach are some of the criticisms leveled against it.
