Although there are many arguments for the DREAM Act, there are several opinions against the passage of the Act. The first of these arguments start with the thought that the young people who would be impacted by the DREAM Act don’t deserve the privileges of Americans. Opponents say that these people where never entitled to any sort of opportunity, meaning that legislators have no obligation to provide them with the DREAM Act, and because they aren’t entitled to any benefit, nothing is lost if the Act isn’t passed (“Why oppose the DREAM Act?”). They also contest that if these students were granted amnesty under the DREAM Act then they would be able to petition to help get family citizenship, which would end up rewarding the people who came here illegally in the first place (“Why oppose the DREAM Act?”). However these arguments don’t acknowledge the fact that research shows that these immigrants don’t have any place in the countries that they were born in. It would be immoral to send these people to a place where they know no one, and some don’t even know the language or culture (Schwab and Gearhart 23). Also, no proof exists that these students would be able to get their family citizenship if they were not entitled to it. An article from the American Immigration Council best summarizes the right of these students to this Act by saying, “There is already broad recognition that young people who were brought to the United States at a young age by their parents should not be penalized for their lack of immigration status. They have been raised and educated here, and are ‘American’ in nearly every sense of the word” (“A Comparison of the DREAM Act and Other Proposals for Undocumented Youth.”).
The opposition to the DREAM Act also makes claims against the people who would receive benefits. They maintain that the DREAM Act rewards criminals because illegal immigrants would receive benefits such as in state tuition. They continue with the thought that standards for this Act would not prevent the government from identifying people who don’t qualify (McNeill). This statement disregards that the proposed bill requires that “the alien has been continuously physically present in the United States since the date that is 5 years before the date of the enactment of this Act” (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2011). This requirement is just one of the many that protect against these benefits going to people who don’t qualify. Many requirements are in place including different phases, two years of college or military and extensive background checks. This reinforces that the DREAM Act can’t be easily gained by immigrants as amnesty (Miranda). Furthermore, just because an immigrant would receive benefits from the DREAM Act doesn’t mean that our government is providing for criminals. They have to earn the right for this opportunity, work for benefits, pay back loans and can’t receive grants (Miranda).
Arguments are also made regarding the costs that the passage of the DREAM Act would produce. One claim made is that in an effort to help schools with the cost, the cost of the DREAM Act will instead ultimately fall on the American people through taxes (Camarota). They continue by saying if illegal immigrants are granted the right to go to college then that causes problems for natural-born citizens, due to fewer spaces available at schools and possible rises in tuition (Camarota). It can only be assumed that with any new law there will be costs, but in this case it’s important to realize that the benefits will far outweigh the costs. If a system is not in place to give people citizenship, it could result in many being forced to leave the United States because of the system (“A Comparison of the DREAM Act and Other Proposals for Undocumented Youth.”). The passage of the DREAM Act would prevent this injustice from happening. Additional benefits are that over time the earnings of the DREAM Act recipients would increase from $1.4 trillion to $3.6 trillion if the Act was passed (Schwab 46). Information from the American Immigration Council states that, “approximately 61% of DACA recipients surveyed have obtained a new job since receiving DACA… over half have opened their first bank account, and 38% have obtained their first credit card” (Gonzales and Terriques). Results from DACA can be used to predict results of the DREAM Act, proving that the DREAM Act would have countless benefits, considering the results from a law that gives people even more opportunities could only lead to more prosperity.
A final argument that opposes the DREAM Act relates to the reasons behind its support. The opposition argues that senators or other politicians like Harry Reid use the DREAM Act in their campaign only to get the Hispanic vote (McNeill). However, this claim has no evidence to support it. On the other hand, there is evidence that lawmakers are attempting to account for the current system involving immigrants and look for the solution that is the most efficient, benefits the most people, and solves the current problems (“A Comparison of the DREAM Act and other proposals”). Also, how could politicians win votes on an Act if it didn’t have numerous benefits and supporters because it is believed to be the best choice for our nation? Finally, it can be proven that these students are embracing all aspects of our society and are helping our country grow and providing diversity, which clearly shows that there are reasons for politicians to support this Act, and thinking that they are behind it just for votes is illogical (Schwab 77).
The DREAM Act: A Necessity for Our Nation 