By snoadmin
The United States was founded under the assumption that merit should define a person’s future. This assumption, while misguided in the 18th century — it only applied to white males — has grown to become an integral part of American society.
Merit, not the titles of Duke, Sir, King, or the color of one’s skin, black or white, ensures success.
American society is increasingly individualistic. And in a system where the buck stops at you, little attention should be paid to the actions of your mother or father, whether good or bad.
Yes, the foundations of this country are idealistic and, yes, the sincerity of these might even be debatable, but should that really matter? We strive to form a “more perfect union,” and in this effort we admit we are not perfect. However, our lack of perfection does not dismiss this country’s ideals.
With this understanding, the Daily 49er made a case against affirmative action last week. In the spirit of last week’s campus campaign for the DREAM Act, we will attempt to make a similar case in support of this act.
The DREAM Act is a name given to a number of proposed Senate bills aimed at amending the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The bills carry language creating paths to higher education, military service, as well as citizenship for undocumented residents. These bills, introduced to apply to undocumented U.S. residents of “good moral character” who have presumably been brought to this country by their parents illegally, operate under the same ideas of merit discussed in the opening paragraphs of this editorial.
Ethnic diversity, diversity of thought and all other forms of diversity are what make this country what it is. Accordingly, immigration will always be a part of this country. Who better to grant citzenship to — adding to the strength of this diversity — then to successful members of our community?
Opponents of the DREAM Act forget that this legislation fights for members of our community — young adults who have graduated high school, or gained a GED, and plan to enroll in a two or four year college, or serve in the military.
To deport such individuals or to deny them an opportunity to build upon their successes would violate moral and social order. Moral order would be violated in that these young men and women would be held accountable for actions they did not commit. Social order would be violated in that our communities would lose valuable members.
According to the Library of Congress Web site, undocumented residents who benefit from the most current DREAM Act legislation are people who meet the following criteria: First, they have been “physically present in the United States” at least 5 years prior to the passage of the legislation; second, they are of “good moral character,” i.e.they have not been convicted of an aggravated felony or a federal offense; and three, they have earned a high school diploma or a GED or have been “admitted to an institution of higher learning.”
In a country that strives for a state of meritocracy, when can we ever boast of such a merit-based system?
However, even with overwhelming promise, the DREAM Act should not be passed alone. Within an argument framed around merit, the DREAM Act must be passed alongside other immigration reform. In a system that is already broken this act will most certainly exacerbate U.S. immigration policy. Who is to guarantee that this act would not get in the way of allowing other, also worthy, immigrants from naturalization? How will the families of these undocumented students be dealt with?
The people who fall under the provisions of the DREAM Act committed no crime, but it is apparent that the problem with granting them a path to citizenship transcends their innocence.
Provisions of the DREAM Act were included in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform of 2007. However, the bill failed to overcome filibuster in early June of that year. A vote for cloture failed to pass, 34-61.
The problem many undocumented students face in this country is rooted in the lack of fair immigration reform, not in the failures of the DREAM Act.
The language provided in the act is most certainly a solution to the problems these students incur but it is not the fix-all of immigration. We are not saying that this is at all argued by supporters of the DREAM Act, but what we are saying is that any mention of the act should be alongside comprehensive and fair immigration reform. We’re also saying that this system is broken and needs to be fixed.
