The DREAM Act debate: Nightmare for legal immigrant students

Even though you acknowledge the fact that these students "are not responsible for their undocumented status," you do not think they should be given the opportunity to legalize their status. With the DREAM Act, the stage is set up for these students to become successful and productive Americans, and -after the lengthy process is completed- be able to become legal citizens. However, you state that no matter how acculturated they are or how much you "sympathize with their plight," they are simply "illegal." Seems to me like a Catch 22, they don't deserve an opportunity to fix their status or receive benefits because they are "illegal," yet when these undocumented students try to legalize their status, they are told "no, because you are illegal." No matter what, thanks to this it-doesn't-matter-you're-still-illegal way of thinking, these young people are stuck with their status. Is it really the fair thing to do to make it harder for our youth to reach their dreams and be successful? Is it really the healthy thing to do for our country and our economy to prevent people from becoming more prepared? More productive, more prosperous? Now you say that "those benefits should be given only to those immigrants who are already legal residents of the United States." Those benefits are already being given to legal residents, the issue is that our current immigration system is inefficient and obsolte and cannot keep up with the number of petitions and requests of those that WANT to be legal residents. In an ideal world, everything would be orderly, and everyone of good moral character and willingness to work hard would be promptly issued legal residence. But what if you were a mother of three in a little village in El Salvador and your children were hungry? Im sure you would gather your life savings to get to the US Embassy and apply for a VISA. Then get home and tell your family, "well, children, now let's just wait a few years to see if we are accepted. Meanwhile, try not to be too hungry while I go sew sweaters for 50 cents a piece in a factory." You wouldn't. You would seize the first opportunity you have to get out of a cycle of poverty and make sure your children have a better future. For many people, that means they set out to reach the United States. No matter how much we try to simplify it, the truth is that most of these undocumented students come from families fleeing poverty, violence, and only they know what else. But how can we give an opportunity like the DREAM Act to all these people that came in illegaly? Are these people really worthy of such opportunity? How do we know if they're not actually involved in drug dealing, gang violence or trafficking? Simple, there are no 18-year old drug dealers that are going to try to get their degree in biochemistry and then give the government all their information so he/she can get legalized. If you actually get to know the stories of the many AB54O students, you'll see that a path to legal citizenship is not a freebie, a "reward," it is simply what they deserve after so much work. Next, you state: "Because of this, students who qualify for the federal DREAM Act and intend to fulfill their requirements by attending college in California may be allowed to pay lower tuition rates." This statement is misleading, for it makes it seem as though those that qualify for the DREAM Act would pay lower tuition rates than other students in general, which is not true. The idea behind the DREAM Act is that these students have been part of our country socially, culturally and economically for at least five years, and who plan on living in the United States. Thus it makes sense that these students are allowed to pay lower rates than international students, for international students are only here for educational purposes and a brief period of time, they will not be applying their skills and knowledge to give back to the United States but to return to their country of origin. Similarly, it also makes sense for eligible students to pay in-state tuition if they (and most likely their parents as well) have been part of that certain state for at least five years. As opposed to popular belief, most undocumented workers pay taxes, and thus contribute to their state of residence. Thus it is fair for an eligible student in California to pay in-state tuition if she/he has been living in California for quite some time. It would not be fair for CA taxpayers to subsidize the education of someone from another state to be allowed to pay in-state tuition in California simply because he/she is a legal resident or a U.S. citizen, without ever living or contributing to the California economy. Lastly, I don't see how the passage of the DREAM Act "would be a nightmare for legal immigrant students" nor do I see how this idea is conveyed in the article. The only way I can make sense out of this is that now legal immigrant students and eligible DREAM Act students (if the bill passes) would be competing for...

It is estimated that America will need 5% or 15.6 million, more workers by 2015 to maintain the current ratio of workers to the total population. Within the next next ten years, there will be demand for 200,000 workers annually in computer related. Current rates show that American students fill only 56,000 of these. Also, a person with a bacheolor's degree who earns an average $60,000 of taxable income will contribute $9,640 to taxes and welfare annualy; in a 40-year span he/she will have contributed $385,000. Remember we are assuming constant interest rates, no inflation, and no promotions as well as, job transitions.

The overall point here is that the DREAM Act makes sense economically, not just morally. DREAM students will not leave the US, for why leave our home. Leave everything we have fought for. Everyhting we have dreamed. It is not rational, and you insisting on it will further delay a solution.

The comment to above statement the age a dream student must have entered the US before the age of 16 or must be younger than 35 when the DREAM was enacted. Also, he/she must have lived in the US 5 years continously before enactment. Hence if a person enters the US 16 before the DREAM Act is passed, but has not lived 5 years in the US constinously he or she is not eligible.

Finally, the state decides on out of state tuition charges. In addition, if a person has lived in a state for 15 years; paid taxes, has contributed to the community, and is a good overall citizen, that person should be eligle for in-state tuition. That person is taking anything away from a US born citizen, for if the DREAM student decides to study in California, while he/she has spent thier life in Wisconsin that person will be charged out-state tuition as he/she should. Lastly, Universities and Junior Colleges don't have a limit of capacity of students. The person that gets in, is because they are deserving.

Please post Accurate statements, instead of fear mongering tactics. America is better than this, you are better than this. Have a nice day.