The DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act

Name
University Affiliation
Professor's Name
Course Title
Due Date
Issue Background
The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act. Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch, who were U.S senators, first introduced the bill in the Senate in April 2001. The bill did not pass into law and has since been reintroduced in the Senate. The act aimed to allow immigrants to apply for conditional residency, which would later lead to permanent residence if they met all the conditions necessary. The bill proposed in 2001 (s.1291) required the applicants to provide evidence that they came to America before the age of sixteen and have lived there for five consecutive years. The applicant would also be required to have no criminal records, graduate from a high school in the U.S and be of good morals (Johnson, 2018). Passing this process would grant the conditional immigrant residence. For the permanent residence, the applicant needed to have acquired post-secondary education, have served in the U.S military for two years and passed background checks. 
 Proponents of the DREAM Act were fighting for minors who had no control over the actions of their parents to go to America but were facing the consequences. Inability to establish permanent residency would mean risk of deportation of the immigrants to countries of origin, having lived in the United States for years. The opponents saw it as allowing a chain of illegal and undocumented immigration into the U.S. The bill has been reintroduced while failing. In 2010, the bill passed in the House of Representatives but died in the Senate. California enacted the DREAM Act, allowing undocumented immigrant students to access scholarships to state-owned private colleges. In 2012 under the administration of Barrack Obama, the government announced that it would not deport undocumented immigrants who met the criteria in the proposed DREAM Act. By January 2017, 740,000 people were registered under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The two versions of the act before congress are the DREAM Act of 2021 (S. 264) and the DREAM and Promise Act of 2021(H.R.6) (American Immigration Council, 2021). Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham continue to fight for the bill to be enacted. 
Principle 1: Family Responsibility
* Does the policy promote or hinder parents and family members from performing their responsibilities?
Promoters of the DREAM Act intended to allow undocumented minors to apply for conditional residency, which would lead to permanent residence in the U.S. Only the children of those who entered America illegally would be eligible to apply, but their parents would remain undocumented. The children would be able to access quality higher education which would later help them gain meaningful employment and support their families. Those who support this bill argue that most children of undocumented immigrants have attended American schools and graduated high school with good grades. They did not have control over their parents' decisions to enter the U.S illegally and are therefore considered innocent. Furthermore, they possess desirable traits such as hard work and the desire to contribute to the economy (Hammond, 2018). 
Proponents of this act believe that children are more of a national responsibility than a family responsibility. Therefore, the government makes their futures bright by offering them permanent residency. Unlike their parents, they are not familiar with their countries of origin since they have lived most of their lives in the states. Parents are offered no benefits in this act. In any case, they face the risk of being deported back to their countries of origin.  
Principle 2: Family Stability
* Does the act promote or discourage family stability?
* Does the policy encourage or prevent unity among the children, parents, and other family members?
The policy hinders family unity because the children eligible for residency are regarded as American, while their parents are considered criminals (Sirriyeh, 2019). The parents risk being deported and leaving their children behind, which would shake the stability of such families. The act does not consider the family unit and its significance but instead promotes individualism. 
Some children may not meet all the requirements to apply for residency, thus blocking them from being eligible for benefits. No direct assistance is offered to undocumented family members, and therefore the privileged members are bound to lead better lives. Having some siblings qualify and others locked out may breed jealousy among them, thus threatening the family unity. Policymakers formulate laws that only favor and highlight the eligible indi...