Talk:DREAM Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Question

In the beginning it says"The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (also called "The DREAM Act") is a bill that has been introduced several times in the United States Congress that would provide a path to American citizenship for immigrant students and those wishing to join the United States military." This is confusing because it says "immigrant students" and "and those wishing to join the United States military". Is the article talking about illegal immigrants? The article is pretty vague and hard to understand so hopefully someone who knows about the main article can clear this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark667 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a follow up question because the beginning was changed again and it is still confusing. The beginning says,"The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (also called "The DREAM Act") refers to a proposed immigration legislation in the United States Congress that is intended to cancel the removal of and adjust the status of certain long-term residents who entered the United States as children." I want to know specifically what this means"intended to cancel the removal of and adjust the status of certain long-term residents who entered the United States as children." Is the article speaking about illegal immigrants? I think this needs to be clear so that people can understand the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark667 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The article now says "The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (also called "The DREAM Act") is an immigration bill pending in the United States Congress which provides a path to legalization to children of undocumented immigrants living in the United States.". This article is going to be confusing for people because the term "undocumented immigrant" because it is not the actual legal term. People who are unfamiliar with the term "undocumented immigrant" are going to be confused and the article will be technically incorrect until the actual legal term is used in the article(illegal alien). Mark667 06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In response the the above questions/suggestions, I would contend that using the term "undocumented immigrant" is most proper as this description of the legislation is taken from the legislation itself as its description. As for illegal alien being the actual legal term, I would like to see some proof of that fact as I would assume if that was a necessary legal term, it would have been used in the legislation instead of undocumented immigrant. Xandohu 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Xandohu. I edited the main article with information that I found on http://www.usa.gov/. I felt that I had to add this information to the article so that people will understand that these "undocumented immigrants" are in the USA illegally and are breaking the US laws by being in the USA. If one were to only describe these people by the term "undocumented immigrant" im assuming that most people would not understand this term and might possibly assume that legal immigrants may not get these full benefits that are described in the article. Which is why I felt that it is important to make the distinction that undocumented immigrants are illegal immigrants and they are in the country illegally. Mark667 (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topics

Several People will only read the first sentence of this article and then proceed to edit it. STOP and read the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.51.71 (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you ASSume so much? It's insulting. Likwidshoe 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thricepunker99 Vandalism is against Wikipedia rules as is commentary. No one here cares what anyone of us thinks, they just want to know what the DREAM ACT is. Go make a blog if you want to express your opinion, Wikipeida is not the place for it.

--67.130.145.210 14:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Someone Removed the Support Sites and just left the ones that on opposition to the Act I posted some Support sites again.


This article needs to be amended away from advocacy and towards being an informative and NPOV source.--Folksong 02:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I challenge the accuracy of this article, mainly additions by the user SmthManly. For instance:

"*Be between the ages of 12 and 21 at the time of the signing of the bill (ineligible before their I agr12th and after their 22nd birthday)."

Could you cite the source of where you quoted that from? I have read the full text and that requirement is nowhere to be found.

"During these six years, the eligible immmigrant must then either enroll in an institute of higher education and attend it for 730 days (two years)"

If the age limit requirement was true, then this one contradicts it. How can a 12-year-old complete 2 years of higher education in the next 6 years?--MaxSpiderX 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, you don't have to use an angry tone in your inquiry here, there's nothing to be outraged about here, it could easily be just a mistake on my part. The age 22 requirement thing I head recently on C-Span when the discussion of the bill was going on, and have heard the same from a few lawyers. I don't have a source for it, but included it anyway in my writting as it was my general understanding of the bill from what I've read and heard from what i consider credible sources, if there's no source, go ahead and remove it as you have a valid argument. The bill was available for eligible students who are over the age of 12, it seems this has been changed to age 15, so you can changet that as well, but either way, 15, 16, and 17 year olds who are eligible will be given a longer status than high school graduates who are eligible. I believe that they have been wanting to cap the age at a certain point and from what i had been told it was going to be age 22, to gain more support for the amnesty but i can't source you since this i've heard from word of mouth not from reading. I figured wrongly it had already been implented into the newly outlines bill ecently since the last time i read the text. Like i said though, there's no need to be outraged at me personally, you can always remove or fix or inquire with me about anything you disagree with nicely, i'm not going to get into a fight with you over it. Sorry, I just found your tone a bit insulting, perhaps it wasn't but I'm still voicing my concern. Anyway, feel free to reply here or on my talkpage and we can improve the article togetjer. Thanks -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 00:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Wow! I came here first to read up on the Dream Act in the hopes that Wikipedia could give me some unbiased information to start me out on understanding this piece of legislation. Instead, all I find is an obviously biased piece of garbage that doesn't even make an attempt to appear impartial. Way to go guys! Keep up the good work! I guess I will have to go and look elsewhere, or download the entire stinking thing and read it myself. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.9.63 (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree (though it sounds like you wanted to hear a negative description). The background has biased language but I see no factual errors. Someone add links, anyone up for research? I might be able to later but not right now. Darneit39 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions

"Support" states "It would not place the eligible students in competition for the decreasing amount of university openings against current eligible citizens as international and undocumented students are presently allowed to apply to all universities in the US." while "Opposition" states "It would place the eligible students in competition for the decreasing amount of university openings against current eligible citizens." Obviously both of these can't be right. Sources?

Another contradiction is the statement "It would be difficult for these former undocumented children to be able to afford a college education without any federal funding, so many of them would have no other option but to serve in the military before even becoming voting citizens." Based on my understanding, this amendment is meant to allow those eligible to serve in the military so this argument doesn't make much sense. JRWalko 21:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, your first concern is supposed to contradict itself, the support says the exact opposite of its of oppossition, whether you want to reword it or omit one side is different. I agree with yur second paragrph. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just browsing through articles on current legislation and that sort of stuck out. I did a quick search on this issue and I found that the National Immigration Law Center supports the idea that these students don't compete with US citizens [1]. From the few fact sheets I saw on THOMAS and other sites I don't see any info to contradict this. How should we proceed with this? I understand that because the opposition uses this as an argument it should perhaps be noted but it also appears to be a fallacy that propagates misinformation.
I'll fix the second issue shortly for above mentioned reasons. JRWalko 21:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the contradictions given the lack of sources for the opposing view. JRWalko 23:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

This is a pending US Congress legislation and yet things are being added without any sources. Some of the recently added information again clearly contradicts the text of this proposal. The burden of proof is on the editor adding new info so please source your edits instead of adding false statement. I understand that some of these statments are indeed "used by the opposition" but that does not constitute their presence here unless they are verifiable. Pages on legislation should not be vandalized in this manner. JRWalko 19:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me: it is rather the accuser who is guilty of vandalism. Is this a trick, immediately falsely labeling material to which you object as "vandalism" so as to set up a new editor for banning? The NumbersUSA organization, source of my original additions, and which I referenced fruitlessly three times in an external link, attempts to reveal the weaknesses, long-term implications, and likely misuse of this proposed legislation by its beneficiaries. This viewpoint by no means constitutes "false statements" unless you work for National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy organization backing this Act. The statements cannot be "false" in the Wiki context anyway, since they are accurate formulations of Opposers’ arguments. Wiki readers must ultimately weigh all arguments pro and con and decide validity for themselves. Furthermore, three (!!!) deletions in three days, presumably by Mr. Walko, of an external link to a prominent national organization (NumbersUSA) that has over 100,000 members and focuses on immigration issues, is clear vandalism. Nor could the entry and re-entries constitute 3RR on my part as charged by Mr. Walko (History page), even if these reverts were illegitimate, since they were added and re-added over a period of 3 days, not 24 hours. The 3RR violation threat is completely inappropriate, as are Mr. Walko’s repeated deletions. Unlike Walko, I censored nothing. I merely attempt to expand the information opposing this proposed legislation and thereby balance the picture for Wiki readers. These deletion acts and accusations of Mr. Walko have the appearance of an attempt to maintain what commenters above – since April of 2006 -- have charged as obvious open-borders advocacy dominating this article. I now add, for the second time, several Opponent objections to the legislation, with full reference to the Heritage Foundation source. They are concisely formulated, cited, and verifiable, entirely in the Wiki spirit of fairly representing multiple points of view. I add links to several other organizations that also oppose this legislation. These balance six (!) existing links supporting the legislation. If these additions are again removed, it will demonstrate Walko’s or others’ deliberate censorship of legitimate opposing views and I will have to appeal to Wiki Administrators to intervene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.27.77 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


1-Register as a user.
2-Sign your comments.
3-My issue was NOT with censorship or arguments but rather verifiability. Statements previously added to the article were blatantly contradictory to the text of this legislation. Even the Heritage Foundation (obviously POV though I don't have an issue) statements claiming "instant amnesty" are simply wrong. If that was the case then the text would be one sentence long. Just to clarify, I am a lawyer and a lobbyist. I deal with financial markets reform but I am very familiar with the composition of these bills and there is a reason they are worded one way and not the other. I think the Heritage Foundation statements do a disservice to wikipedia but that's really not up to me to judge.
4-Please do appeal to wikipedia administrators so they can back up my reasoning on this. Once they tell you what constitutes a RS this article can finally be fixed. I eagerly await your action on this issue.
5-I am not Mr. Walko, please use my username when talking about me. JRWalko 04:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed it due the fact that I felt the sheer length of the edit created an "undue weight" on the article as well as some issues with regard to commentary. Anyway, I've also now removed the two "support" and "oppose" sections because they were entirely made up of original research and commentary. I don't mind a statement such as "groups like the Heritage Foundation oppose the bill" and then linking their report. However claiming their statements as statements of fact is incorrect.--Jersey Devil 05:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is probably the best solution. JRWalko 03:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Understandability, Factual correctness, Political Agenda?

If we’re going to try to be the purveyors of truth then we need to say it better.

This is a long rambling sentence and it contains inaccuracy. “The DREAM Act would provide a path to legality for persons brought illegally to the United States by their parents as children, or whose parents attempted to immigrate legally but were then denied legality after several years in application, and whose children thus derived their legal status solely from their parents (the child also becoming illegal upon the parent's denial).”

First, they don’t have to be brought to the United States “by their parents” They often come with relatives or friends of the family. Also who brought them to the US is irrelevant to the discussion.

Second, “parents attempted to immigrate legally but were then denied legality after several years in application” is also based on a wrong assumption. Most illegal immigrates do not even bother with the immigration process. This bill does not provide distinction between children who’s parents attempted to become legal but where denied and those that just did not bother with trying to become legal.

I recommend that we shorten the opening sentence and take out all of the stuff that clouds understanding. It could be shortened to the following:

“The DREAM Act provides a pathway to citizenship for children of illegal immigrates. “ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeAgiotage (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You are partly correct, indeed they are not often brought by parents but nevertheless they do derive their status from the person in whose care they were. As far as the other problem goes please reread that statement and note that it says "OR whose parents..." This bill is not for children of illegal immigrants. Many of those who are covered by this legislation are children of legal immigrants whose legality has expired or was lost for other reasons (such as age). Because of this your proposed sentence is incorrect. JRWalko 16:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links & NPOV

There seems to be a bit of an edit war with adding/deleting pro/anti DREAM-Act sites in "External Links". It might be better to omit them altogether, but in the alternative, let us simply label the pro- and anti-sites, then let the reader decide. rewinn 21:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree about edit war, but disagree about deletion of all of them. Whatever the subject, the discerning reader wants to know where to find more information. A balance of pro and con links would be appropriate. But supporters of this Act are making a mockery of Wikipedia's objectivity goal. We are now down to one anti-Act site link, where there were half a dozen. Gone is all reference to the Heritage Foundation study which pointed out probable fraud that weaknesses in the Act would encourage. Repeated references to NumbersUSA and Grassfire, which vigorously oppose this veiled amnesty bill, have been deleted by self-appointed gatekeepers. This is crass censorship. There is sanctimonious talk of "facts" on this discussion page, but how can a newcomer to the topic judge material presented here and elsewhere by supporters as "facts" when these supporters (or is it just Mr. Walko?) quickly delete almost all substantive objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.117.244 (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the last deletion. Personally, I don't like the site it links to, but this is wikipedia, not my personal preferences. If someone wants to replace it with an appropriate number of "con" links please go ahead.
Partisans please note: This is only wikipedia. Deleting links to sites you don't like will not advance your cause, it'll just waste your time as the edits are reverted. If you must delete a link, give a reason for it. And preferably, offer an alternative. Have Faith In The Process For If Your Cause Is Just You Shall Prevail! rewinn 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing the links

  • There has got to be a better way to link the legislation. --evrik (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

Attempted minor corrections in format and with comment. All were deleted by someone who is obviously obsessed with personal opinions. Recommend that wikipedia remove this subject until a proper format is obtained from a reliable, verifiable source that would not be modified. Controversial material can be documented properly while still allowing for varied opinions on material. 63.227.11.195 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


i deleted the background section. it is nothing more than a pro-illegal alien essay. it is completely biased towards the dream act - hence the title 'background' is completely misleading. if anything the heading should be 'Reasons Illegal Aliens want the Dream Act'. it is NOT, I repeat NOT the background of the Dream Act. now go back to 5th grade and learn the difference between fact and opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.239.2 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some of the content here seems to contradict valid sources

Currently, in the United States a child can only obtain their immigration status though their parents, there does not exist an independent method.

The Special immigrant status for certain aliens dpendent on a juvenille court would apply in certain cases where the child is under 21 years of age. http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=16a8647d63a59b1ac8d8fd0b2505b86c

My initial reaction to the statement was why would a country grant an immigration status independent of the parents to minor children normally? How would it be benefical to have a case where the child is a legal permanent resident of 14 for example, and the parents were on a visitation visa?

Especially in light that the Dream Act applied to "children" from at least 12 to not yet 30 years on the date of enactment, the statement does not seem meaningful. At the higher end, they are no longer children.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmb1957 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More questionable content

Another quote I question from the article. The author apprently had a poor grasp on the complexity on immigration law or is trying to summarize it and in so doing cutting substantial parts of how the law works. As it stands now it is not factual.

Many individuals brought here as children remain without a permanent status despite having naturalized citizen or legal permanent resident parents or spouses. If the child was brought into the country illegally there is no method of legalizing. Even a return back to the birth country does not guarantee a path to legal status. If they attempt to come back legally they are often subject to decade long bans and student, tourist, or work visas are rarely given to people with such strong connections to the US.

While it is true if they have a deportation order against them there may be a long ban, if the government does not know they were here illegally, there is no long ban. Further if the parents are here legally now, the parents can sponsor them as can a spouse. "Immediate Relatives" are exempt from the visa number requirements. The problem is that there are complications when a person is not legally here in the first place. Incidentially the bar for illegal entry can be wavied in cases where a U.S. citizen spouse, parent, or child will suffer extreme harship. http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=35e417d8d673e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=ca408875d714d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1____#imm

LYING ABOUT PRIOR ENTRIES IS A FELONY. DO NOT ENDORSE SUCH BEHAVIOR ON WIKIPEDIA.

Upon entering the country, a back ground check is done to see if the name shows up on public records. Individuals must show school records and other data accounting for their entire life before being let in. Even if you were only in the US for a year, the government would know because there would a glaring year of missing documentation in your history.

Also, they cannot adjust if the child is over the age of 18 when the parent adjusts or if adoption papers are not filled out before the child turns 16. Hardship is very difficult to prove and even then technicalities in laws regarding misrepresentations on behalf of the child can prohibit the child from adjusting.

[edit] Suggestion

Background should be dropped as it stands now, and a rewrite focus on the actual background of the bill. The part above the background provides more of an actual background on the bill and could be updated with current info to cover. It is disappointing to come to wikipedia hoping to read facts on an issue. While I was reading the bill itself, the bill itself is a struggle to read, especially where it references current law. Yet, I find nothing in wikipedia to clear up those areas. There are plenty of partisan sites on this issue, that is not what I came to wikipedia to read, I was hoping for valid and factual information.

[edit] Armed Services

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2006/July/Chu%2007-10-06.pdf This pdf is a prepared stated by David S. C. Chu to the Senate Armed Services committee. Notice that the pdf does not mention this as a way to meet recruitment goals , rather the statement reflects the view that the Dream Act would provide opportunity to young people.

Also notice that the pdf specifically mentions that if there is a vital national interest the military may authorize the enlistment of those not specifically allowed, including illegal immigrants. "Notably, that amendment to section 504 also establishes that “…the Secretary concerned may authorize the enlistment of a person [other than one listed above] if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.”

the Armed Services have met their goals for several years, 2007 in particular. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47748

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.62.188 (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background - unsupported

The background is POV. There is no recruiting crisis, the military is meeting its goals and has for several years http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47748 It would also be good to mention that some activists specifically critisize the Dream Act as a draft for illegal immigrants. http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/10/07/news/top_stories/15_41_4410_6_07.txt http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=14146 http://www.latinola.com/story.php?story=4240 Also noting that non-citizen enlistments were dropping from 2000-2005, I could not find more current information, seems pertinent. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=us+military+non-citizen+enlistment+decline&btnG=Search


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46369 The link above regarding Bill Car, acting deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy mentions support of the Dream Act provisions after the comprehensive immigration bill fell through this summer. The article also seems to suggest that Bush supported the Dream Act, yet Bush opposed the Dream Act on the latest vote apparently.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/chi-dream_25oct25,0,5608844.story?coll=chi-ed_opinion_publiced-utl

Although Bush supported the comprehensive immigration measure that included the Dream Act, he now opposes Durbin's plan, according to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Sessions said the White House believes the bill would provide an incentive for continued illegal immigration and provide a path to citizenship unavailable to other prospective immigrants who are following the law.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmb1957 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

first link goes to the 2003 bill - the time it had 47 sponsors - perhaps that should be noted in the text of the article the second link doesn't work nor does the fifth.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmb1957 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC) *