Our moderator Eliza Krigman raises an important question: if there appears to be broad support for the DREAM Act, why hasn't it passed yet? Despite the sense that Latinos' political power is growing, immigration issues remain unresolved. Hispanic civic and advocacy groups hope to expand Latinos' role and influence by counting more Hispanics in the new census. In almost half of the House of Representative districts, people of color make up at least 30 percent of the population -- a sizeable proportion that is increasingly difficult for members of Congress members to ignore. As diversity continues to grow, rainbow coalitions are established, and people of color are accurately counted in more and more districts, the political will to pass the DREAM Act may well follow.

Our moderator Eliza Krigman raises an important question: if there appears to be broad support for the DREAM Act, why hasn't it passed yet? Despite the sense that Latinos' political power is growing, immigration issues remain unresolved. Hispanic civic and advocacy groups hope to expand Latinos’ role and influence by counting more Hispanics in the new census. In almost half of the House of Representative districts, people of color make up at least 30 percent of the population -- a sizeable proportion that is increasingly difficult for members of Congress members to ignore. As diversity continues to grow, rainbow coalitions are established, and people of color are accurately counted in more and more districts, the political will to pass the DREAM Act may well follow.

Let me add my amen's to the chorus of support to the Dream Act. I've spent too many unhappy days with bright and ambitious high school youngsters who, because they couldn't get federal support, found themselves at a dead end. Since these kids are our future, their personal tragedies reflect policy idiocy.

So why hasn't the Dream Act flown through Congress? The answer 's obvious--these kids are the hostages in the battle over immigration. To be "soft on immigration" is political death in too many districts--too many marginal districts, at least--and opponents have been able to paint the legislation as the first step down the slippery slope to an open border. With the GOP in no mood to deal on anything, this measure isn't going anywhere--that is, unless they are confronted with another political reality. For Republicans to keep saying no on any immigration-related topic is the surefire path to being the party of white conservatives--that's no way to win an election. In that context, DREAM isn't just right on moral and policy grounds. It is also the politically easy case.

Push the "educational opportunity"' message by all means--I believe in it heart and soul. But , the threat of losing at the ballot box is likely to sway lawnmakers to vote for DREAM.

I don't support the passage of the DREAM Act, but I'll get to that in a bit.

As I read through the experts' responses, I couldn't help but be reminded of the 1995 album "Stairways to Heaven" - 12 different versions of exactly the same classic song. Several commenters so far have waxed eloquent on the DREAM Act's promise and potential: that the Act's passing is a rights issue, that it's a moral obligation, etc. Such rhetorical flow has even produced more than one reference to apple pie. But there's been remarkably little real discussion of immigration [legal or otherwise], education or the responsibilities of civic leaders.

I fully understand why so much of the world wants a life in the United States for themselves, their families and their progeny; I won't go over all the reasons underlying their willingness to risk everything - including life itself - to secure a place in America. And the United States has, by weak policy, poor implementation/administration, and general incompetence, honored that risk to an unreasonable degree.

That's why we need the DREAM Act. And that's also why the DREAM Act is the legislative equivalent of a can of Fix-A-Flat.

Unfortunately, we can't just hump it to the nearest gas station and call AAA. We either fix the problems that led to this Act's necessity, or we pile on program after program, dollar after dollar, entitlement after entitlement. [Hint: I vote for the people who work toward Option #1,
and I speak out against those who take solace in Option #2.] But this is Education Experts, so let's talk education, not immigrants playing a game of Red Rover with a limbless United States.

First, let's get serious - and probably more importantly, let's get honest - about improving the overall quality of our education system. To relate this to the DREAM Act, we need to, and can, improve education in urban/minority populations that serve so many undocumented children and reign in soaring higher education costs.

And here's where the honesty comes in.

When the NEA's Dennis Van Roekel says, "In honor and recognition of that proud immigrant heritage, the National Education Association has long supported policies and programs that welcome and lift up immigrant students," was he referring to seniority rules that allow the best teachers to flee from the worst performing, minority/immigrant-filled schools as soon as they're able? Or was he referring to the safety net of tenure that keeps even abysmal teachers not just in the profession, but in front of classes of the kids who need them most? Such hollow rhetoric, with mountains of evidence to disprove such a statement, offends anyone who values intellectual
honesty in this debate.

When we talk about throwing state and federal funds at students - DREAM kids or otherwise - do we address candidly a rise in the cost of higher education that can leave a student in six-figure debt for a four-year degree? Perhaps talk about government intervention in financial aid offerings that has fueled such growth? A motivated college kid used to be able to work his way through school, albeit with an unenviable schedule. Now he's got to hope a combination of financial aid sources, including private wealth and future obligation, hits $45,000/year, no small portion of which goes to diversity coordinators, sustainability campaigners and a broad range of programs
unlikely to have anything to do with his educational plans. Oh, and that's all *before* a graduate or professional degree.

When we consider that passionate argument about the economic utility of the DREAM Act, put forth by George Boggs and others, do we acknowledge how poorly we're converting our current citizens' economic potential? The truth is that US companies spend about $25 billion per year on training and remediation of basic skills and an almost incalculable amount on entitlements for folks mangled by the education system. Couldn't addressing that economic potential/economic
achievement gap be an effective use of our efforts? Surely it would, but rural underperformers from rural West Virginia to urban Detroit don't have La Raza to lobby for them [Unfortunately, they just have elected representatives].

As everyone reading this knows, I've just scratched the surface. We're bleeding out and the DREAM Act is a Band-Aid. I want time, money and resources - and that near-mythical thing known to some as "political courage" - to go toward fixing the underlying problems the DREAM Act addresses: immigration reform, quality of education and fiscal sense. I don't support the DREAM Act because it does nothing to address those three issues on any meaningful scale. Congress must think, act and legislate in a more comprehensive way, or we'll just be talking about the DREAM Act 2 in 2020.

Oddly enough, when we commit to meaningful steps to improve our reality, we don't need to place all our hopes in dreams.

The “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2009” is a sensible and essential piece of legislative reform that would greatly improve the lives of those students whose chances of success are currently restricted by our nation’s broken immigration system. Having grown up in this country, these youth have spent years striving to distinguish themselves through their hard work and talent, yet they encounter enormous barriers that prevent them from pursuing higher education and fully contributing to our country because they lack legal status. These individuals have embraced American values and would make exceptional contributions to our country if given the opportunity to do so. Instead, they are forced to live in the shadows of society, in constant fear of deportation.

The stories of these students, and the urgency for action on this issue, have fostered a powerful movement among immigrant youth toward passage of the “DREAM Act.” Some inspiring individuals behind this movement are the leaders of the United We DREAM (UWD) coalition, an alliance of youth, education, immigration, civil rights, faith, and labor organizations. The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the nation’s largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization, has an extensive history of advocating for issues affecting immigrant youth. Along with our UWD allies, we have worked tirelessly to advance the “DREAM Act” in Congress. We will continue to build support until we successfully achieve reform that grants immigrant youth an opportunity to attend college and contribute fully to our society once and for all.

We support the “DREAM Act” because we know that our nation gains nothing by suppressing the talents of these students or subjecting them to deportation, especially when their only desire is to realize their potential in the only country they have ever called home. In today’s economy, it is in our best interest to retain and cultivate the best talent, ensuring that our country continues to educate future leaders that will help us achieve progress. The “DREAM Act” embodies this principle—it is a measure that would greatly benefit our nation by providing upstanding students who wish to obtain an education with the opportunity to do so, advancing themselves and their communities.

We will continue to support the “DREAM Act” because we believe that our nation can no longer afford to tolerate broken and outdated immigration laws—laws that shut down the future ambitions of immigrant youth. Congress has a chance to change this by establishing a path to legal status for these youth and making it possible for them to continue their education, contribute to our economy, and serve our country. The “DREAM Act” has lingered in Congress for far too long. It is time to take up reform so our country does not lose another generation of exceptional young men and women who have the willingness to advance and enrich our nation with their contributions.

I sympathize with the widespread support for the DREAM Act. As Checker fairly and powerfully writes, "The current law is an outrage, punishing genuinely innocent young people who had nothing to do with the decision to enter the United States, who have typically grown up here and know no other home, and have kept their noses clean, attended school, graduated, etc." I get that. I do.

But...I also worry that we live in a nation where we enjoy creating and dispensing new rights and entitlements without much attention as to the perverse incentives or costs. In this case, happily, it's easy to argue that costs would be minimal-- and that the returns will more than compensate. What's harder for me to accept is the notion that this won't signal more adults with children that they should consider illegally immigrating to the U.S.

I sympathize with the desire of parents to do better by their children. But I believe there are right ways and wrong ways to do that. The wrong way is to have illegally immigrated to the U.S. in order to give your child access to taxpayer-funded services that U.S. officials are providing with borrowed dollars. The right way is to play by the rules, either in one's native land or by emigrating legally. If, in Tom Rudin's phrasing, this means I'm "fixated on the past," so be it. Substantially expanding the services available to parents who bring their children to the U.S. illegally seems to me to send a troubling message and even to reward law-breaking behavior.

Like I said, I sympathize with the rationale for the proposal and embrace the spirit of the law. It's an easy measure to like. But I fear that dream-based policymaking has brought us to a pass where we're much more enthusiastic about rights than responsibilities, and more attuned to what feels right in the here-and-now than to long-term consequences. I fear we are too often dismissve of legitimate concerns and more inclined to ladle out noble sentiments and economic rationales than to wrestle with them. So, I'm of two minds. I'd welcome a reaction that could put these concerns to rest and allow me, in good faith, to join the full-throated support of my colleagues.

Tom Rudin, Senior Vice President, Advocacy, Govt. Relations and Development, The College Board, submitted the following:

For too long the issue of undocumented students has been framed in terms of immigration, but it is really about educational opportunity and human development. The DREAM Act would open the door to college and beyond for thousands of deserving, motivated students currently living in the United States.

First, it’s important to state that these young people have done nothing wrong. In fact, in many ways they're doing everything right. To benefit from the legislation, they must graduate from high school, stay out of trouble, and attend college or join the military. Opponents of the DREAM Act are fixated on the past, when these minors were brought to the country illegally. But here’s the current reality: It’s highly unlikely that the estimated 2 million undocumented youth living here today will return to their countries of origin ― countries they may not even remember. Most will surely continue to live here, where they have great potential to contribute to our economic recovery and social well-being.

According to the College Board’s report, Young Lives on Hold: The College Dreams of Undocumented Students, the DREAM Act would provide about 360,000 students with the legal means to work and attend college. It would also encourage approximately 715,000 youngsters to finish high school and pursue higher education. Data from the College Board’s Education Pays (2007) report demonstrate that society as a whole benefits when its members attain higher levels of education. In contrast, how does society benefit from creating a lost subset of young people, forced to participate in an underground economy, with few opportunities for advancement?

To download Young Lives on Hold and learn more the College Board’s advocacy for the DREAM Act, visit www.collegeboard.com/dreamact.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act is a fairly straight forward piece of legislation when it comes to higher education. It has two primary provisions that apply to colleges and universities.

First, the DREAM Act grants states the freedom to set public college and university tuition for its residents. This seems fairly sensible: given that states are constitutionally responsible for higher education, they ought to have sole responsibility to set the level of tuition charged at their institutions.

Second, this legislation would allow limited access to federal student loans for those who have lived in the United States for an extended period of time and have reached federally specified levels of academic success. The importance of educating students in this country to ensure our future competitiveness is fairly well universally accepted. If a well-educated populace is indeed the best hope for the future of our country, doesn’t it follow that we should be investing in the human capital that lives here?

America has welcomed generation after generation of immigrant students into its public schools, and these generations of students have gone on to help build America into a great nation. In honor and recognition of that proud immigrant heritage, the National Education Association has long supported policies and programs that welcome and lift up immigrant students.

As part of our broad commitment to all immigrant children, the NEA in 1982 supported a legal challenge to a state statute that allowed schools to close the doors on undocumented immigrant students. In that case, Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that denying these children a public education violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The bipartisan DREAM Act would allow today's undocumented students, who come to the U.S. through no decision of their own and often know America as their only home, to come out of the shadows and fully join our society if they graduate from high school, go on to college or serve in the military for two years, and fulfill other strict requirements.

As educators, we invest in these young, promising children every school day, and these students are ready to make important contributions to our society if we let them fully participate after graduation. Congress should pass the DREAM Act and finally allow these students to fulfill the dreams of a better life that we as educators have shared with them.

Nothing makes more common sense than passing the DREAM Act. The bill has been languishing before Congress for nearly a decade, and it’s tragic to think about the number of young lives and dreams that have been put on hold. What is ironic is that these students are as American as apple pie—they know no other home than this country, they play on the local high school football team, they study the American classics and Shakespeare side-by-side other young Americans. What’s more, they embody America’s values and take to heart that if you get a good education, work hard, and stay out of trouble, you’ll make it in this country. It’s time that we remember what this country is about and pass the DREAM Act. These students have done what they’re supposed to do; it’s our turn—and Congress’s—to hold up our end of the bargain.

At its core, passage of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act would answer the question: “Do we really believe what we preach?” If you work hard in America, abide by the law, do well in school, and get a college degree, your opportunities will be boundless and your future will be bright. Right?

That theory holds true for many young Americans, but that’s not the case for tens of thousands of high school graduates who came into this country as young children with their undocumented parents. When these children become adults, that rhetorical bright future can be perilous. Having lived as Americans for years, they can’t legally work; they face onerous costs of pursuing secondary education and, at worst, can be arrested and deported to what may be their unfamiliar country of origin.

Congress should pass the DREAM Act and lessen the burden on those who came here unknowingly, acculturated as Americans and add value to their communities. It would allow them to become eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship after high school if they complete at least two years of secondary education, or join the military.

As Chester Finn rightly noted, the circumstances that hamstring more than 65,000 undocumented high school graduates in our country each year are, indeed, “a blot on our national character.” What if 65,000 native-born students faced the same circumstances? Americans would not tolerate the potential loss of economic, social and intellectual capital, and we should not tolerate such a loss regarding the children of undocumented parents.

We have seen the studies that tell us college graduates usually end up much better off than non-graduates, from their earning potential to their civic participation to the taxes they pay. From that perspective, the DREAM Act makes sense.

But beyond that, Congress has a moral imperative to pass the DREAM Act. Its passage will affirm the boundless future that we promise in our rhetoric but do not support with our policies.

I worked for three years with high school students in an urban district serving many children of Mexican immigrants. Getting to know these kids made it hard for me not to support the DREAM Act. High school in America makes little sense if you can’t go to college. In most cases, college is a kid’s best route to the better life their parents want for them.

As Mr. Finn will attest, up close and personal, the DREAM Act is a no-brainer. But for those more removed, I have found it to be quite a struggle. Believing as I do in the rule of law, I am not unsympathetic to their arguments. Their ideas don’t change my position on the DREAM Act, but I have realized that their opposition rests not on the Act itself but on what it symbolizes in the larger debate over US immigration policy.

The DREAM Act pokes at the sore tooth that is our country’s schizophrenic attitude toward immigration. The presence of a large number of undocumented immigrants living in our country seems to anger many of us. The thought of “amnesty” or a “path to citizenship” grates on our sense of right and wrong. The DREAM Act pushes the immigration debate in a direction that probably feels like a slippery slope to some, just as it feels like long overdue progress to others.

If the DREAM Act is passed it would represent a new and unique stream of thought in our national dialog on immigration: a new category of quid pro quo legal status based on personal development and service. The DREAM Act says that we’re happy to provide a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants if they’re well educated or if they serve in the military. This has significance far beyond the 65,000 kids the Act is projected to affect.

The DREAM Act should become law. But if it does, why can’t the notion of “a path to citizenship” be extended to others? Just as Mr. Finn is moved by his own personal experience with this issue, I am moved by mine. I worked with many fine young men and women who graduated high school but who would be unlikely to attend college or serve in the military. Are they any less worthy of a path? And what of the undocumented kids who don’t make it out of high school? Even if it rubs up against our sense of fair play, how does denying them a path improve their situation or that of our nation as a whole?

Many people cite the unjust punishment of children as a reason to support the DREAM Act. But does this mean we support punishing their parents? The people who wrote the DREAM Act clearly intended that it should apply only to a small number of kids. Perhaps this is just smart politics. But I think it’s reasonable to ask ourselves why we feel good about letting some undocumented immigrants become citizens but not others.

If we are comfortable using education and military service as criteria for citizenship, perhaps we could be comfortable with other types of service and personal betterment as a way of providing a path for more people to become US citizens. Or maybe we could simply accept people as they are, just as my grandfather was accepted when he landed at Ellis Island in 1910.

It isn’t just children who chase the American Dream. Just about everyone does. While I’m happy to support the DREAM Act, and while I feel fortunate to understand its importance through my experience of having spent time working with kids whose lives it might transform, I can’t help but think of the kids who would be left out—and the adults, too. Virtually everyone who comes here comes to pursue a better life. This is not a bad thing, and the people I have met who aspire to it are not bad people, even if they have broken the law.

The DREAM Act makes sense not just because it helps innocent kids, but because it establishes the concept of a path to citizenship that contributes to the well-being of the individual and the vitality of our nation as a whole. After the DREAM Act passes, we’ll have just one question left to answer: “What will it take to make the dream come true for everyone?”

The current law is an outrage, punishing genuinely innocent young people who had nothing to do with the decision to enter the United States, who have typically grown up here and know no other home, and have kept their noses clean, attended school, graduated, etc. Through an odd sequence of circumstances, my wife and I have found ourselves supporting the education of one such young person in a state that (mercifully) still permits them to pay in-state rates. But it still isn't cheap and this person is ineligible for grant aid, loans and jobs. Indeed, this person's life in the shadows--replicated in tens of thousands of other cases--is a blot on our national character. Unable to get a legitimate Social Security number or driver's license, unable therefore to get a proper job (on or off-campus), unable to see an honorable, legal future even after completing college, which our young friend is bent on doing. The inability of the United States Congress to solve this sort of problem in a rational, humane way is also the single most vivid example of its institutional dysfunction.

In The United States, we don't typically punish people, especially children, for the actions of others. But today more than 65,000 undocumented students graduate from our high schools each year with literally nowhere to go.

The Supreme Court has guaranteed those students the right to a free public education through the 12th grade, but once they graduate from high school, national policies stymie their pursuit of higher education at every turn, forcing most of them to the fringes of society, where they will never fulfill their potential and never be able to contribute fully to society.

Congress has failed repeatedly to overhaul the nation's immigration policies, getting bogged down in the politically sensitive issues surrounding illegal immigrants, guest workers, and border security. Given the divisive atmosphere that has engulfed this debate, these complex problems are unlikely to be solved soon.

But of all the socially, morally, and economically compelling issues in this debate, there is one that I believe Congress should, and can, do something about this year.

Congress should act immediately on legislation to right the wrongs done to the children of many undocumented immigrants. The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the DREAM Act, which has languished in various versions in Congress for approximately seven years, would grant conditional legal residency to certain undocumented students, who would then have to complete two years of higher education or military service within six years to achieve legal residency.

The legal status that the DREAM Act would provide to those students would open several doors now closed to them. They would be able to enroll in colleges and universities that require legal status to matriculate, pay in-state tuition in states that only provide that benefit to legal residents, and receive some state and federal financial aid for which they are not now eligible — and without which college is financially infeasible for most.

Despite what the bill's opponents claim, the DREAM Act would not encourage illegal immigration. It would apply only to people brought to the United States before the age of 16 and living here five years before the law is enacted. The DREAM Act would extend a lifeline to students who came to this country through no fault or agency of their own, grew up here and consider America home, and now face deportation to unfamiliar countries to which they have no connection or allegiance.

The DREAM Act also would directly affect our nation's economic competitiveness. As a community-college leader, I deal every day with the challenge of meeting the economy's demand for more college-educated workers. With more than 70 million baby boomers starting to retire, this is a daunting task and one that requires us to pursue every opportunity to move more people into higher education. America's economic competitiveness depends on it.

The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the DREAM Act would make upward of one million undocumented high-school graduates eligible for conditional legal status, and the path to permanent legal status travels straight through higher education or military service. Furthermore, the population that the DREAM Act would affect the most — low-income Hispanic students — is one for whom college-attendance rates are historically low.

The nation's business leaders must be made to see clearly the potential of the DREAM Act to help produce the skilled workers they so desperately need, and they must act on that insight. While much of the business community supports comprehensive immigration reform and increases in the numbers of highly skilled foreign workers brought into the United States, it has remained largely silent on the DREAM Act. But if industry were to join the wide spectrum of interests urging Congress to pass the DREAM Act, 2010 could be the year we clear the final hurdle and enact this vital piece of legislation. I urge college administrators, faculty members, and students to educate their local business leaders about the importance of the DREAM Act in their communities.

We must pass the Dream Act now, both to serve individual justice and for our collective best interest.

(Adapted from a March 28, 2008 Opinion Editorial in the Chronicle of Higher Education by the author)

Since 2001, various iterations of the DREAM Act have been introduced in an effort to provide a pathway to citizenship for college-eligible students who live in the U.S. but who are not citizens. In general there are two perspectives that have defined the political debate on the DREAM Act. On the one hand, there are those who believe children should not pay for the sins of their parents. For them, support for the DREAM Act is clear cut. On the other hand, there are those who do not believe benefits of any kind should be provided to those who are not here legally. For them, support of the DREAM Act would only encourage further lawlessness.

What both perspectives neglect to consider is the economic and societal value to our country of passing the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act is targeted to provide a path to citizenship for a relatively small group of students that are both college-eligible and potentially college-going. Economically, we know college-educated citizens earn more and thus pay more in taxes. Socially, we also know college-educated citizens are more likely to participate in civic events and to vote. At a time when about 35 percent of high school graduates in the U.S. are college-eligible, offering a clear pathway to citizenship for students who have been educated in our K-12 system and who are college-eligible, who are willing to invest in their own education, and who are willing to contribute to the financial and societal success of our country makes sense from an economic and social perspective. In the end, this legislation requires little government investment for the economic (through taxes) and societal (through community involvement) benefits that may result.

Each year, supporters of the DREAM Act believe this will be the year the legislation will pass. In fact, in the last several years, more than eight states have enacted complimentary legislation to allow in-state tuition for students who are not U.S. citizens but who meet multiple criteria. But the current iteration of the DREAM Act has yet to pass. The challenge will be to get past simplistic perspectives and see the benefits to our community from an economic and social perspective . Maybe this will be the year.