The College Fix

The DREAM Act is headed for a procedural vote in the Senate Wednesday morning — and it will likely fail.

The bill has failed to secure the necessary support among centrist Democrats and Republicans, including former sponsor Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who has said he will not vote for the bill, which would allow the children of illegal immigrants not born in this country a path to legal citizenship.

Students across the country have been rallying recently in support of the DREAM Act with hunger strikes in San Antonio and student senate resolutions—but opponents of the legislation have been loud as well.

“I think this is a matter of national survival,” said William Gheen, President of ALI-PAC (Americans for Legal Immigration), an organization opposing the bill that would provide permanent residency to undocumented immigrants for attending an institution of higher education.

The DREAM Act would allow illegal aliens who were brought to the US before the age of 16 to apply for citizenship, on the condition that they attend college or serve in the military for at least two years. There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Estimates on how many would qualify for citizenship under the DREAM Act range from 1.3 to 2.1 million.

The Congressional Budget Office reported that the current version of the bill would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion, assuming these students went on to get jobs and pay taxes.

The Center for Immigration Studies, however, has estimated DREAM would cost taxpayers $6.2 billion a year, based on a number of factors, but particularly the cost of higher education — a core element of the bill.

The latest version of the bill, the fifth, introduced a number of compromises in an attempt to win back support from centrists including barring illegal immigrants from receiving in-state tuition, dropping the eligibility from age 34 to age 29, and limiting the ability of DREAM applicants to sponsor family members’ legal immigration.

The bill’s struggles are a setback for the Obama administration, which has spent the past weeks expressing their support for the bill.

“It fits into the larger strategy of immigration enforcement,” said Janet Napolitano in a conference call with journalists on Dec. 2, “as it will complement enforcement resources of removing dangerous criminals and help the Department of Homeland Security do its job enforcing laws.” Napolitano called DREAM a “priority for the administration.”

“You can’t make the argument that the DREAM Act will act as a magnet for people to come here in the future,” Cecilia Munoz said in a Nov. 30 White House online chat on the DREAM Act.

“If enforcement by itself worked as a strategy, we wouldn’t be having this discussion (about DREAM),” Munoz said, pointing to the 1996 immigration reform.

Opponents feel differently.

“Any bill that changes federal law to accommodate lawbreakers is wrong, destructive, and will lead to more lawbreakers,” Gheen said.

On campus, the mood has tended to be more pro-DREAM than anything, but there are some hold-outs.

“To solve the problem of illegal immigration in our country, our government must first stop the flow of illegal immigrants into our nation,” said Brian Koziera, vice-chairman of the University of Michigan College Republicans. “(There are) two primary ways: proper and effective border security and a review of incentives and benefits that illegal immigrants may receive that incentivize their presence here in the United States.”

According to Michigan student Priscila Martinez, of One Michigan, a student-based, volunteer-run organization dedicated to getting the DREAM Act passed, the group, along with other local groups, has made over 50,000 calls to Congress urging senators and representatives to vote yes on the act. The organization also sent students to Washington to lobby for the bill. Members of One Michigan have also taken part in a number of “mock graduations” in an effort to raise support for the bill.

Opponents of the bill, like Sen. Jeff Sessions, have expressed feelings that it is unfair for the lame-duck Congress to pass the bill. In a December 2 letter addressed to his colleagues, Sessions also called it highly suspicious and against the will of the public.

However, Jose Franco, a leader of One Michigan and undocumented student, disagrees.

“The lame-duck session is appropriate,” said Franco. “The bill is only 26 pages long, which means debate time shouldn’t be long.” He added that the bill has had past bipartisan support and hopes some of those Republicans (who supported the bill) can vote on its merits without thinking about re-election.

Concerns from the opposition also come because of the number of versions of the bill which have been released in the past two weeks.

Franco believes the newest version of the bill addresses Sessions’ arguments in depth. Still, Sessions’ December 2 letter to his colleagues urges them to vote no on the bill. He writes that the four versions of the bill are extremely similar, and “all grant nearly unrestricted amnesty.”

“The bill is not amnesty,” Franco said, “as it is tailored specifically at a certain group, and has rigorous requirements which can’t be met by just anyone.”

With a roll call vote on the way and Democrats up for reelection in 2012 in more conservative states, any vote perceived as amnesty could be dangerous for reelection bids.

“If they pass this Act, the intensity of the public backlash will be unprecedented,” Gheen said.

Stephanie Wang is a staff writer for the Michigan Review. Daniel Walmer contributed reporting to this piece. They are both members of the Student Free Press Association.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter