2Center for American Progress | Myth vs. Fact: The DREAM Act
DREAM-eligible youhs would no be eligible or healh care subsidies, includingMedicaid, or oher ederal means-esed benes like ood samps or Pell grans.More imporanly, he alernaive o removing he 700,000 eligible kids wouldcos axpayers$16.2 billion over ve years.Te ar sronger argumen is: “America can’ aord no o pass he DREAM Ac.”
Myth: The DREAM Act would reward illegal behavior.
Fact: This isn’t amnesty. Eligible youth who had no say in the decision tocome to the United States would have to work hard to earn permanentresidence, and the earliest they could gain citizenship would be 13 years.
Opponens grasp or he moral high ground wih hiseeble conenion. Te dubi-ous claim ha providing a pah o legal saus somehow violaes our commimeno he rule o law is sandard are or opponens o immigraion reorm. Bu hisired “ani-amnesy” argumen lacks all resonance when applied o his populaion.Tese kids were brough o he Unied Saes beore hey had a say in heir liecircumsances. Denying hem hope and opporuniy is punishmen or an ac beyond heir conrol. Enabling hem o work hard and earn he privilege o cii-zenship is hardly “rewarding” illegal behavior.Moreover, he hypocrisy o some o he eleced ocials who would condemnhese kids o marginalizaion is shameul. Sen. David Viter (R-LA), who hasconessed omoral waywardness , complains wih a sraigh ace ha hese kids aresubvering he rule o law.
Myth: Passing the DREAM Act would encourage more illegalimmigration.
Fact: The bill has strict requirements that make only a discrete one-timeuniverse of individuals eligible for relief.
When immigraion reorm o any sor is under consideraion he“magne” excuse reurns o vogue like clockwork. o be sure, his bill is no a soluion o heproblem o illegal immigraion. Bu neiher is i a magne or more undocumened