1
The Dream Act: A Flawed Patch for the Cracked
and Pothole-Filled Road to Citizenship
For a piece of legislation like the DREAM Act to work effectively, it would have to
provide multiple paths to citizenship while making sure these paths are easily accessible to
immigrants. A support structure would have to be proposed that helps the immigrants integrate,
become proficient in English, and overcome the social, administrative, and cultural barriers that
may get in their way. At the same time, it would have to provide measures for swaying public
opinion in favor of educated, skilled immigrants and away from the ideas that immigrants steal
valuable jobs and leech from the government. Along with doing all of this, it would have to
provide financial measures to ensure that immigrants can afford the path to citizenship while also
ensuring the process does not cost the government billions of dollars. As it currently stands, the
DREAM Act has many flaws that prevent it from achieving this ideal vision. The Act offers
pathways to citizenship focused on education and military service, neglecting other ways that
immigrants could be beneficial to American society. While it promotes education, the Act does
not ensure immigrants have the English mastery needed for schooling. The Act also has no
financial measures to help immigrants afford an education and relieve the government of the
costs incurred supporting illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act does not sway Americans’
perspectives to favor immigrants or comfort those who feel immigrants threaten American
culture, thus leaving room for severe tension between immigrants and native-born Americans.
The DREAM Act’s plan to establish an effective path to citizenship for illegal immigrant
children is far from ideal due to its narrow focus on education and military service as well as the
lack of support provided for the children; however, the addition of financial plans to offset
immigrant education costs, a broadening of the bill’s focus to include employment and expertise
as pathways to citizenship, and the creation of a strong support system for children could greatly
increase the effectiveness of the legislation.
Hundreds of thousands of foreigners migrate to the United States each year for many
poverty, economic, personal, and health reasons, but the DREAM Act has a bias for those who
immigrate due to educational reasons. The Civil Society’s website lists many motivations for
immigration to the United States. One of these motivations is poverty; many immigrants are
escaping the crushing poverty of their former countries. Another motivation listed is economic
advantage. Many immigrants come to America in search of better job opportunities that are
more advanced and pay more than those in their home country. Others still come for personal
reasons including: to live with their families, to gain access to better healthcare, and to acquire
the personal liberties granted to Americans (Civil Society). Some groups claim that America
itself is a cause of immigration to the States. In a recent report, the Public Citizen Organization
claimed that failed trade policies of the United States (such as NAFTA) have created terrible
economic conditions in Mexico that force some Mexican farmers to immigrate to the U.S.
(Public Citizen 2013). Understanding these motivations is important for understanding how
2
immigrants will perform in American society and for producing good legislation regarding
immigration reform. A 2010 study produced by the Journal of Social Issues looked at how
parents’ motivation for immigrating affected their children’s academic performances. Immigrant
children whose parents came over for educational reasons were more likely to have higher
GPAs, while those whose parents came over for employment opportunities were more likely to
have a rapid decline in GPA throughout high school (Larsen 2011). The DREAM Act favors the
children of those who came to the United States for educational purposes by making education a
requirement for citizenship – a requirement most likely to be met by those with higher GPAs and
a greater motivation to pursue education. It provides no means by which employment or skill
can gain an immigrant child citizenship. This bias leads to certain children having an easier path
to citizenship than others, which might lead to some children not gaining citizenship and
remaining illegal. As a result, the U.S. would lose valuable potential citizens and have to support
more illegal immigrants than if the DREAM Act had no bias. If the United States wants to grant
citizenship to those who are most willing to work hard, become skilled laborers, and be
economic assets to the country, it needs to provide options for children of motivated immigrants
who might focus on something other than education.
While the DREAM Act provides motivation for immigrant children to get an education, it
does nothing to remove the barriers preventing them from doing so or to alleviate the financial
burden that immigrant children pose to the education system. A report by the Foundation of
Child Development shows that 45% of undocumented immigrants fail to reach the status of a
high school graduate, and only 19% ever acquire a college degree (Capps 2004). This data can
make one think that illegal immigrants just do not put the same effort into schooling that
Americans do, because many venues exist through which all people in the U.S. can get an
education. At the same time, one can see that many barriers stand in the way of immigrants
obtaining a good education. Along with monetary, linguistic, administrative, and political
barriers, immigrants are obstructed by the American people themselves. A recent Gallup Poll
found that 55% of Americans oppose providing free public education to illegal immigrant
children (Bushaw 2013). These Americans are not without basis for their opposition. A report
by Pew in 2008 showed that illegal immigrant children comprise 6.8% of students grades K-12
in public schools, and these students cost state governments a total of $44.5 billion annually
(Izumi 2010). The cost lies on the backs of legal U.S. taxpayers – not on the backs of the
immigrants themselves – who might not be able to easily accommodate the extra costs of illegal
immigrant children. Thus more money is taken from Americans who could make better
contributions to their families, their communities, and the economy if they did not have to
support illegal immigrants. While immigrants do face many barriers, the DREAM Act would
help solve the issue by giving immigrant children motivation (in the form of citizenship) to strive
for a college education. A report by the Pew Research Center claims that the younger an
undocumented immigrant moves to the U.S., the higher the chances of that person gaining a
high-level education (Passel 2009). By targeting immigrant children, the DREAM Act attempts
to tap into these younger immigrants who are more likely to attain college educations than their
3
older counterparts, which will lead to more educated, integrated illegals becoming citizens of the
United States. Even though it provides motivation for and supports the younger immigrants, it
doesn’t help relieve the other barriers in their way. Bilingual schools, language mastery
programs, and extracurricular programs should be instituted to help these immigrants overcome
these barriers and get used to the U.S. education system. Also, the Act proposes no way by
which to decrease the costs that immigrant children incur upon local governments and education
systems. The Act tries to motivate immigrant children to get an education, which leads to more
children in school and subsequently more costs for education. It does not, however, provide a
method by which to keep education costs low for these immigrant children, so documented
taxpayers would have to pay even more to cover these costs. Settling these problems would
relieve taxpayers of extra monetary strain and improve their views of public education for
immigrants, thus making the DREAM Act a more productive piece of legislation.
The financial burden that immigrants put on the education system is only a fraction of the
total amount that immigrants cost the government in social services; costs that tax revenue
gathered from the DREAM Act’s new citizens could not cover. According to the Institute on
Taxation and Economic Policy, immigrants pay a decent amount of taxes. In 2010,
undocumented immigrants paid an estimated $10.6 billion in taxes, which means they paid on
average 6.4% of their income. This is only slightly less than the 7% paid by documented
taxpayers (ITEP 2013). Another report by the Immigration Policy Center estimates that at least
half of illegal immigrants pay income tax. According to the report, $8.4 billion of taxes paid by
illegal immigrants was sales tax, which is unavoidable for anyone buying something within the
U.S. (IPC 2011). The ITEP report pushes this a little further by saying that allowing illegal
immigrants to work in the U.S. legally would increase their tax output by $2 billion. This would
increase their tax rate to 7%, putting them in line with documented taxpayers (ITEP 2013). This
information shows that undocumented immigrants are currently paying a large amount in taxes
(albeit less than actual citizens), and this amount would only increase if they were allowed to
work legally in the U.S. The DREAM Act allows many undocumented immigrants to start work
legally, so, according to the information provided in these reports, the DREAM Act would have
a positive effect on the tax revenue of the United States government by increasing the amount of
legal workers. But then one must question how much these immigrants cost the government in
social welfare. As stated above, the estimated total tax revenue of illegal immigrants lies near
$10.6 billion. A report by FAIR shows that illegal immigrants cost the federal government
approximately $29 billion annually, which is more than double the amount they currently pay in
taxes. At the same time, they also cost state and local governments an estimated $84 billion a
year (Martin 2010). According to the FAIR report, immigrants cost the government
approximately $102 billion that they don’t pay back in taxes. Naturally, this burden falls on
documented U.S. taxpayers. This information betrays a vital flaw in the DREAM Act. Even if
illegal immigrants were made into citizens and contributed the extra $2 billion a year, they still
would not nearly pay for all of their social welfare benefits. Compared to the $113 billion that
immigrants cost federal and local governments annually, an extra $2 billion contribution to taxes
4
is miniscule and does nothing to help the financial situation. Even though citizenship in the long
run might lower the costs of an immigrant on the U.S. government, no short term solution is
proposed by the Act.
Beyond the financial problems surrounding immigrant education and citizenship, the
DREAM Act does not address Americans’ concerns about the growing number of non-English
speaking people in the U.S. and does not provide sufficient language mastery training for
immigrants who need it. The 2000 Census showed that 21 million people in the United States do
not speak English well, and this number is up from 14 million in 1990 (MPI). Non-English
speakers are having communication issues with medical personnel, and many believe that nonEnglish speakers’ language barrier prevents them from passing accurate decisions on juries
(Davenport 2013). These problems, along with many others, have led Americans to believe it is
essential for immigrants to learn the English language, as shown by a recent Gallup Poll in which
72% of Americans said immigrants need to learn English. However, the same poll shows that
the amount of Americans who think this has decreased from 77% in 2001 (Jones 2013). This
could show that Americans are becoming more comfortable with non-English speakers. In a
recent Pew Research poll, 70% of Americans believed that children need to learn a foreign
language to succeed in the world (Pew 2002). While Americans want immigrants to learn
English, the evidence shows they may be opening up to the idea of a bilingual country. The
DREAM Act, due to its education and military requirements, is bound to be beneficial for both
lines of thought when it comes to language in the United States. By going through a U.S.
education or serving in the United States military, immigrant children are sure to learn a great
deal of English while retaining their first language. This would decrease the number of nonEnglish speakers in the U.S. while also providing America with a source of language professors,
international business associates, government workers, etc. who have knowledge of multiple
languages. At the same time, however, the Act would not provide language schooling that many
immigrant children need. Some children are not at the level of English proficiency needed to
perform successfully in college or the military, so language programs should be established to
help bring them to this level. Without these, many children who have the intelligence and drive
to complete college or join the military might be blocked by a language barrier, which would
reduce the effectiveness of the Act and the positive benefits that these immigrants can have on
American society.
The DREAM Act doesn’t just fail to provide immigrants with lingual aid, but also fails to
sway American opinion – which is currently split – away from the idea that immigrants are a
burden to American society and toward the idea that they are a benefit. Polls by Fox News
(help: 42%, hurt: 30%), the Wall Street Journal (help: 45%, hurt: 45%), and Pew Research
Center (Strengthen the country: 41%, Burden the country: 52%) show that Americans are equally
divided between the ideas of immigrants being helpful and immigrants being harmful to America
(Pew 2006). This division can act as a source of tension between Americans when debating the
topic of immigration, and it could mean that internal strife will appear no matter what legislation
is put in place. However, it could also mean that Americans are at a swinging point; a majority
5
could be persuaded to support or oppose immigration. The majority of Americans believe that
immigrants should be allowed to stay if they follow a set procedure to become permanent
residents and continue to contribute to the economy (Pew 2006). If Americans could be ensured
that immigrants are substantial contributors to the economy and pay their fair share of public
expenses, their opinions would change drastically. This would lead to greater immigrant
acceptance in American society, less workplace discrimination against immigrants, and possibly
greater economic opportunities. This makes it seem like most Americans would approve of the
DREAM Act, because it gives some illegals a path to citizenship while also ensuring that those
who become citizens are educated and will be good contributors to the economy. However, this
is the only thing the Act is doing. Measures would have to be taken to promote acceptance, and
costs for these measures would have to be covered by the legislation. Also, the Act does not
actively promote individual responsibility among immigrants. It takes a step by requiring them
to get an education or serve in the military, but it makes no attempts to wean them off
government programs or make them accept responsibility within their communities. Currently in
Germany, the German government is trying to take care of this issue by cracking down on elitist
groups, promoting the idea that immigrants are a vital part of Germany, establishing effective
education for immigrant children, and ensuring that immigrants are productive part of the
German workforce. While the government performs these solutions, the general German
population is slowly becoming more accepting of immigrants, and the immigrants are becoming
major contributors to Germany’s booming economy (Kern 2010). Perhaps such efforts on the
part of the U.S. government and DREAM Act could produce the same effects within the United
States, but as of now those efforts are not being taken.
Americans are also split when it comes to deciding whether immigrants enrich American
culture or threaten it, and this could pose problems for the DREAM Act, which would lead to
immigrants with different cultures becoming citizens while only partially Americanizing them.
Americans are decisively split on the topic of immigrants in relation to American culture, with
half believing they strengthen American society, and the other half believing they are threatening
traditional American values. A poll released by the Brookings Institution shows that a slight
majority of Americans (54%) believe immigrants strengthen American society (Jones 2013).
This shows that a large portion of Americans do not feel threatened by immigrant culture, which
means they might be more open to immigrant citizens. However, a Pew Research poll found that
location plays a large role in determining what an American believes about immigrants. The poll
shows that in areas with high and medium concentrations of foreign born people, 48% of
Americans believe immigrants strengthen American society and 47% believe they threaten
traditional American customs. These higher concentration areas are much more likely to think
that immigration is a big problem in their community. For areas with low concentrations, the
populations were not so split, with 33% believing immigrants strengthen society and 60%
believing they threaten society (Pew 2006). This data shows that the presence of immigrants in a
community has a large positive impact on the ideas about immigrants that community members
have. This could show that exposure to immigrants causes Americans to think more positively
6
of their impact on American society, because they see firsthand how culturally beneficial
immigrants are. At the same time, however, the increased opinion could be the result of the fact
that communities with more immigrant members have a higher number of immigrants
responding to the poll. If this is the case, it makes sense that the immigrants would vote in favor
of immigrant culture. The variance in opinion among Americans expressed by these two polls
shows just how split Americans are over this issue. This can create a tense situation, because
there is no clear majority, and any legislation that supports one side would be met with
aggression by those who support the other. Therefore, it is a good thing that the DREAM Act
caters to both sides by encouraging the naturalization of illegal immigrant children (thus bringing
their cultures out from the shadows and into public American society) while also putting the
children through an education system that will help Americanize them. At the same time, the
DREAM Act’s apparent neutrality is also a fault, because it does not provide a definitive solution
for the problems posed by both sides of the debate; it only solves a few from each side. This
leaves room for future tensions and debates that might bring immigration back to the forefront of
American politics. To prevent this, the DREAM Act must either enact measures to comfort
those who believe immigrants are a threat to American culture or to more fully integrate
immigrants, thus eliminating the perceived threat.
While American opinions are split, immigrant opinions are united about wanting to
naturalize; however, financial, lingual, and cultural barriers contribute to immigrants’ struggle
for citizenship, and the DREAM Act does nothing to help alleviate these barriers. When asked
about the subject of becoming naturalized citizens, non-citizen, Hispanic immigrants
overwhelmingly answered in favor of the idea. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center
showed that 93% of Hispanic non-citizens would like to become U.S. citizens. Of the illegal
immigrants polled, 92% wanted to become citizens (Lopez 2013). This information is
promising; if the immigrants themselves want to become citizens, then any reasonable
naturalization policy should be well received and followed by the immigrants. Even though an
overwhelming majority of immigrants want to become citizens, the amount that actually do is
quite small. Only 46% of Hispanic immigrants eligible to naturalize have, which is startling,
seeing that 93% wanted to naturalize (Lopez 2013). This raises the question: why haven’t they
naturalized? The reasons given vary, but in the same survey by Pew, the reasons ranged from
language or cultural barriers standing in the way (26%), to financial and administrative barriers
preventing them (18%), to immigrants just not being interested or not trying (26%) (GonzalezBarrera 2013). This information shows that desire is not enough to push immigrants to
naturalize; practical things such as knowing the English language and the American culture or
paying the monetary fine ($680) can get in the way. The fact that 26% of eligible immigrants
have not tried or aren’t interested in naturalizing is confusing seeing that 93% said they wanted
to naturalize. They may think they get more benefits for less by remaining illegal; they pay
fewer taxes while still getting many of the same welfare benefits. The immigrants might also
have just lied about their intentions to naturalize. On the other hand, the lack of interest and
trying might be the result of the barriers they face when trying to naturalize. The hassle that it
7
takes to become a citizen might make immigrants lose interest in going fully through the process
and decide to live in the U.S. as a legal resident instead of a citizen. These barriers are not
currently addressed by the DREAM Act; the Act allows for the naturalization of immigrants, but
not for their integration. This is a flaw in the bill, because without integration to accompany
citizenship, the immigrants will fail to reach their full potential as citizens. As integrated
citizens, the immigrants will have the ability to become informed voters, culturally attuned
workers, and overall better contributors to American society than if they weren’t integrated. As
seen by the immigration situation in Germany, integration is necessary for immigrants to truly be
successful and accepted by society. If no parts of the DREAM Act address integration, it could
pose huge problems for immigrants when they try to move into U.S. society. For the DREAM
Act to be good policy, integration needs to be addressed.
While the DREAM Act tries to open up a new avenue for illegal immigrant children to
become citizens, it quite obviously fails on multiple levels to achieve an ideal solution. Whereas
an optimal piece of immigration legislation would provide multiple paths to citizenship, provide
measures to successfully integrate immigrants, promote acceptance of immigrants among the
native population, and ensure that immigrants face no impassable barriers on their way to
naturalization, the DREAM Act does not. Also, the DREAM Act fails to promote individual
immigrant responsibility, enact measures offsetting the costs of accepting immigrants into the
country, and ensure immigrants will be positive contributors to the U.S. economy. Due to these
flaws, the DREAM Act needs a major overhaul before being put into action. If these problems
go unfixed, the DREAM Act will not only fail to solve the illegal immigrant problem, but may
also create more problems by granting insufficiently prepared immigrants access to a society
that is itself unprepared to receive them. This would not do the immigrants or current U.S.
citizens justice, because it creates a risk for tension between the two groups, which is harmful to
both sides. Thus a solution that prepares both immigrants and native citizens for life together in
U.S. society is needed, and the DREAM Act just is not that.
8
Works Cited
“Adult Language and Literacy.” Migration Policy Institute. Web. 10 October 2013.
“America’s Immigration Quandary: No Consensus on Immigration Problem or Proposed Fixes.”
Pew Research Center. 30 March 2006. Web. 10 October 2013.
Bushaw, William; Lopez, Shane. “Which Way Do We Go?” Gallup Poll. August 2013. Web. 10
October 2013.
Capps, Randy; Passel, Jeffrey S. “Describing Immigrant Communities.” Foundation for Child
Development. December 2004. Web. 9 October 2013
Davenport, Karin. “U.S. English Expresses Concern Over New Mexico Ruling on Non-English
Speaking Juries.” Market Wired. 14 August 2013. Web. 10 October 2013.
“Failed Trade Policy & Immigration: Cause & Effect.” Public Citizen. 2013. Web. 10 October
2013.
Izumi, Lance. “Educating Illegal Immigrants is Costly.” Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 17
August 2010. Web. 6 November 2013.
Jones, Jeffrey. “Most in U.S. Say It's Essential That Immigrants Learn English.” Gallup Poll. 9
August 2013. Web. 10 October 2013.
Jones, Robert; Cox, Daniel; Navarro-Rivera, Juhem; Dionne, E. J.; Galston, William.
“Citizenship, Values and Cultural Concerns: What Americans Want From Immigration
Reform.” Brookings Institution. 21 March, 2013. Web. 10 October 2013.
Kern, Soeren. “Germany Debates Muslim Immigration.” Gatestone Institute. 15 September
2010. Web. 10 October 2013.
9
Larsen, Rozanne. “Migrating to Opportunities: How Family Migration Motivations Shape
Academic Trajectories among Newcomer Immigrant Youth.” Journalist’s Resource. 10
June 2011. Web. 10 October 2013.
Martin, Jack; Ruark, Eric. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States
Taxpayers.” Federation of American Immigration Reform. July 2010. Web. 4 November
2013.
Passel, Jeffrey S; Cohn, D’Vera. “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States.”
Pew Research Center. 14 April 2009. Web. 9 October 2013.
“Pew Global Attitudes Project Poll.” Pew Research Center. August 2002. Web. 10 October
2013.
“Reasons for Immigration.” The Civil Society. Web. 10 October 2013.
“The State of American Public Opinion on Immigration in Spring 2006: A Review of Major
Surveys.” Pew Research Center. 2006. Web. 6 October 2013.
“Unauthorized Immigrants Pay Taxes, Too.” Immigration Policy Center. 18 April 2011. Web. 7
October 2013.
“Undocumented Immigrants’ State and Local Tax contributions.” Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy. July 2013. Web. 7 October 2013.