As an immigration attorney and a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), I’d like
to present my view of the Development, Relief, and Education for Minors (DREAM) Act of 2003, and the
Student Adjustment Act of 2003. This legislation would allow immigrant students who have grown up in
this country, graduated from high school and have no criminal record, to go to college and become lawful
permanent residents. The young people who would benefit from this legislation have done nothing wrong,
yet they are being severely punished by the threat of facing deportation from the U.S., their home for
many years, to countries where they have no ties.
These bills recognize that some of our best and brightest students are being prevented from reaching
their potential. As an immigration attorney, I have seen the impact on hundreds of young people each
year who have been not permitted from pursuing their dreams of going to college because they have no
immigration status and, without the option of in-state tuition, lack the resources to continue their
education.
The parents of these young people, many from the great nations of Latin America, brought the majority of
these children here at an early age. They simply could not decide for themselves to remain in their home
countries. These young men and women are managing to succeed against the odds and make significant
contributions in communities across the U.S. They are class valedictorians, straight-A students, star
athletes, gifted musicians and others who are headed in the right direction. However, the road to which
may cause them to give up achieving their dreams is blocked. They fear that they have no future and drop
out. They may feel compelled to enter into ill-advised marriages or become pregnant, wrongly believing
that simply having a child in the U.S. will automatically lead to immigration benefits.
Therefore, I consider it urgent to act and do something about this situation, by contacting our elected
congressional representatives and expressing our support of the DREAM Act and the Student Adjustment
Act. Specifically, our own U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, who has pledged to block efforts to pass these two bills.
The proposed legislation could benefit not only the young people who face this situation, but our
communities in general, by improving educational opportunities for Hispanic Americans by enabling
students to achieve their "dream" of pursuing a higher education, and by lowering dropout rates.
According to the Interim Report of the President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for
Hispanic Americans*, only 40 percent of foreign born, non-US citizen children finish school. Many do not
finish because they have no hope of ever moving ahead. This legislation provides hope for a productive
future.
It is imperative as well to let our elected officials know that these bills raise the educational achievement
of Hispanic students, a factor that is critical to the U.S. economy. Income is directly related to educational
attainment, and by passing these laws, exemplary students would help double the rate of Hispanic college
graduates by the year 2010, which would produce additional tax revenue of $13 billion into our economy.
These bills can also be seen from the perspective of educational investment. Our educators invest time,
money and valuable resources to educate children in our schools. It does not make sense to stop
investing in our future by deporting these young people after spending their formative years in the U.S.
Finally, and most important, this legislation supports family unity and extends dignity and justice to young
people who are committed to making a difference in our society.
As a member of this community and a law professional, it is my sincere belief that Congress must strive for
immigration policies and laws that are just, humane and realistic. This legislation represents the very
definition of these qualities. Now more than ever, our voice must be heard in support of this important
initiative. We cannot allow the innocent to be punished.
* The report can be found in its entirety at:
www.yic.gov/paceea/finalinterim.pdf
Gerald Burns is an Arizona attorney specializing in immigration law.
to present my view of the Development, Relief, and Education for Minors (DREAM) Act of 2003, and the
Student Adjustment Act of 2003. This legislation would allow immigrant students who have grown up in
this country, graduated from high school and have no criminal record, to go to college and become lawful
permanent residents. The young people who would benefit from this legislation have done nothing wrong,
yet they are being severely punished by the threat of facing deportation from the U.S., their home for
many years, to countries where they have no ties.
These bills recognize that some of our best and brightest students are being prevented from reaching
their potential. As an immigration attorney, I have seen the impact on hundreds of young people each
year who have been not permitted from pursuing their dreams of going to college because they have no
immigration status and, without the option of in-state tuition, lack the resources to continue their
education.
The parents of these young people, many from the great nations of Latin America, brought the majority of
these children here at an early age. They simply could not decide for themselves to remain in their home
countries. These young men and women are managing to succeed against the odds and make significant
contributions in communities across the U.S. They are class valedictorians, straight-A students, star
athletes, gifted musicians and others who are headed in the right direction. However, the road to which
may cause them to give up achieving their dreams is blocked. They fear that they have no future and drop
out. They may feel compelled to enter into ill-advised marriages or become pregnant, wrongly believing
that simply having a child in the U.S. will automatically lead to immigration benefits.
Therefore, I consider it urgent to act and do something about this situation, by contacting our elected
congressional representatives and expressing our support of the DREAM Act and the Student Adjustment
Act. Specifically, our own U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, who has pledged to block efforts to pass these two bills.
The proposed legislation could benefit not only the young people who face this situation, but our
communities in general, by improving educational opportunities for Hispanic Americans by enabling
students to achieve their "dream" of pursuing a higher education, and by lowering dropout rates.
According to the Interim Report of the President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for
Hispanic Americans*, only 40 percent of foreign born, non-US citizen children finish school. Many do not
finish because they have no hope of ever moving ahead. This legislation provides hope for a productive
future.
It is imperative as well to let our elected officials know that these bills raise the educational achievement
of Hispanic students, a factor that is critical to the U.S. economy. Income is directly related to educational
attainment, and by passing these laws, exemplary students would help double the rate of Hispanic college
graduates by the year 2010, which would produce additional tax revenue of $13 billion into our economy.
These bills can also be seen from the perspective of educational investment. Our educators invest time,
money and valuable resources to educate children in our schools. It does not make sense to stop
investing in our future by deporting these young people after spending their formative years in the U.S.
Finally, and most important, this legislation supports family unity and extends dignity and justice to young
people who are committed to making a difference in our society.
As a member of this community and a law professional, it is my sincere belief that Congress must strive for
immigration policies and laws that are just, humane and realistic. This legislation represents the very
definition of these qualities. Now more than ever, our voice must be heard in support of this important
initiative. We cannot allow the innocent to be punished.
* The report can be found in its entirety at:
www.yic.gov/paceea/finalinterim.pdf
Gerald Burns is an Arizona attorney specializing in immigration law.
Unblocking the Road to Success
This measure was approved by Arizona voters on the November 7, 2006 election. The intention of this
legislation is to impede students who lack legal status from participating in state-funded programs. In
plain language, this law means that taxpayer’s money cannot be used to pay for services provided for
those individuals who reside in the United States without a permit. The programs targeted by this Law are:
Voters decided not to allow public funds to be used for these individuals, based on the notion that doing
so diverts money taxpayers intend to be used for American citizens and legal residents. The number of
citizens who voted to approve this measure exceeded one million (1,060,444) versus under half a million
(423,994) who voted against it (see official results by county; page 16.)
Prior to the election, the Social Research Laboratory of the Northern Arizona University made public –
through a press release (see the document, page 7), indicating 70% of the people surveyed supported
the measure, in comparison with only 22% who opposed it. The Proposition passed with a 71% of
approval.
legislation is to impede students who lack legal status from participating in state-funded programs. In
plain language, this law means that taxpayer’s money cannot be used to pay for services provided for
those individuals who reside in the United States without a permit. The programs targeted by this Law are:
- Adult education
- In-state tuition
- Child care and waivers
- Grants and other financial assistance benefits for students who aim to attend a community college
or state universities.
Voters decided not to allow public funds to be used for these individuals, based on the notion that doing
so diverts money taxpayers intend to be used for American citizens and legal residents. The number of
citizens who voted to approve this measure exceeded one million (1,060,444) versus under half a million
(423,994) who voted against it (see official results by county; page 16.)
Prior to the election, the Social Research Laboratory of the Northern Arizona University made public –
through a press release (see the document, page 7), indicating 70% of the people surveyed supported
the measure, in comparison with only 22% who opposed it. The Proposition passed with a 71% of
approval.
INTERPRETING THEIR DREAM: A
student-made poster protesting
against Prop 300.
Photo: Eduardo Barraza
student-made poster protesting
against Prop 300.
Photo: Eduardo Barraza
| Public Program Eligibility (Prop 300) |
The DREAM Act
| The DREAM Act |
| “A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit States to determine State residency for higher education purposes and to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien students who are long-term United States residents.” |
DREAM stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. Known as The DREAM Act, this
piece if legislation intends to remove a part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996, (Section 505.) The rationale of this Act is to not penalize individuals who were brought to the
United States illegally as minors, and who due to their age were not involved in the decision of their
parents or relatives in bringing them here. These children are able to attend from elementary through high
school, regardless of their legal status.
However, to pursue a college or university education, and after graduating from high school, being
undocumented in this country prevents them from obtaining public funding to afford their education. The
inability to access the funding means that the cost of their tuition would be almost prohibitive, and
ultimately, they would not be able to continue with their goals of obtaining superior education. By
overwhelmingly approving Proposition 300, Arizona voters supported the concept that students in this
situation shouldn't receive public funding to allow them to attend a college or university.
The DREAM Act requires students to:
- Establish that they arrived in the United States prior to age 16, and have never left the United States
since.
- Graduate from an American High School, or obtained a GED without having dropped out, failed out, or
been expelled from an American High School (thus, students who gained a GED without having ever
attended high school).
- Have no criminal record –nothing more than minor infractions, none of which may be drug related
regardless of how minor.
- Have the ability to speak and write in a proficient level of English.
- Be able to submit concrete documentation proving their presence in the United States for a least five
consecutive years since their date of arrival.
- Be above the age of 12.
Support for the DREAM Act:
- Beneficiaries will be children who have grown up in the United States, assimilated to the culture, fluently
speak, write and read the English language, have no criminal records, and pursue educational goals to
better themselves and their communities.
- It supports education and promotes an immigration reform.
- These students were too young to have decided by themselves to come to the United States; for them,
the United States is their country, therefore they should not be penalized by preventing them from
continuing with their education by being able to obtain public funding.
Opposition for the DREAM Act
- This measure would be perceived as the government rewarding those who have come to the United
States illegally.
- Minimize the level that students who are American citizens or legal residents have to take advantage of
university or college opportunities, particularly in certain fields of study.
- It’s unfair for those families who have invested a great deal of time, financial resources, and followed the
legal process to enter the country legally. Most of these families have waited a long time to come to this
country by legal means.
- The Act would only help legalize children who are 12 years and older, leaving the vast majority of children
under this age without legal status.
piece if legislation intends to remove a part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996, (Section 505.) The rationale of this Act is to not penalize individuals who were brought to the
United States illegally as minors, and who due to their age were not involved in the decision of their
parents or relatives in bringing them here. These children are able to attend from elementary through high
school, regardless of their legal status.
However, to pursue a college or university education, and after graduating from high school, being
undocumented in this country prevents them from obtaining public funding to afford their education. The
inability to access the funding means that the cost of their tuition would be almost prohibitive, and
ultimately, they would not be able to continue with their goals of obtaining superior education. By
overwhelmingly approving Proposition 300, Arizona voters supported the concept that students in this
situation shouldn't receive public funding to allow them to attend a college or university.
The DREAM Act requires students to:
- Establish that they arrived in the United States prior to age 16, and have never left the United States
since.
- Graduate from an American High School, or obtained a GED without having dropped out, failed out, or
been expelled from an American High School (thus, students who gained a GED without having ever
attended high school).
- Have no criminal record –nothing more than minor infractions, none of which may be drug related
regardless of how minor.
- Have the ability to speak and write in a proficient level of English.
- Be able to submit concrete documentation proving their presence in the United States for a least five
consecutive years since their date of arrival.
- Be above the age of 12.
Support for the DREAM Act:
- Beneficiaries will be children who have grown up in the United States, assimilated to the culture, fluently
speak, write and read the English language, have no criminal records, and pursue educational goals to
better themselves and their communities.
- It supports education and promotes an immigration reform.
- These students were too young to have decided by themselves to come to the United States; for them,
the United States is their country, therefore they should not be penalized by preventing them from
continuing with their education by being able to obtain public funding.
Opposition for the DREAM Act
- This measure would be perceived as the government rewarding those who have come to the United
States illegally.
- Minimize the level that students who are American citizens or legal residents have to take advantage of
university or college opportunities, particularly in certain fields of study.
- It’s unfair for those families who have invested a great deal of time, financial resources, and followed the
legal process to enter the country legally. Most of these families have waited a long time to come to this
country by legal means.
- The Act would only help legalize children who are 12 years and older, leaving the vast majority of children
under this age without legal status.
| ADVERTISEMENT |
Published by the Hispanic Institute of Social Issues in Phoenix, Arizona
|
| HISTORY IS ABOUT TO CHANGE Grassroots Journalism |
| Documented Dreams |
| A collection of letters written by students struggling to continue with their education due to their immigration status. The letters document the socio-economic plight of Arizona immigrant students who were brought to the United States as children, and due to their legal status are forced to abandon college or pay out-of-the state tuition. A fully bilingual book in English and Spanish; includes black and white photographs. $19.95 + $3.99 s/h Total $23.94 |
| ADVERTISEMENT |
| ADVERTISEMENT |
| Operation Immigration Arrests, Protests, and Turmoil in Maricopa County |
| Price: $19.95 + s/h $3.80 Total $23.75 Length: 47 minutes EAN: 978-0-9797814-6-9 |
