Democrats’ latest DREAM Act should be called ‘False Hope Act’

President Barack Obama established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on June 15, 2012. It was supposed to be a stopgap measure to provide relief to undocumented immigrant youth after Congress had failed repeatedly to pass a DREAM Act to make lawful status available to them.

Despite the fact that the Democrats have introduced at least 11 versions over the last 20 years,

Congress still hasn’t passed a DREAM Act — and DACA just had its tenth anniversary

Missed opportunity

The Democrats could have passed a DREAM Act without a single Republican vote when Obama was president: From January 2009 to January 2011, the Democrats held the majority in the House, and until Scott Brown’s special election in 2010, they had enough votes in the Senate to stop a Republican filibuster. Even then, they only needed one Republican vote. 

Why didn’t they take advantage of this opportunity?

And why have the bills they have introduced when they needed Republican support been written in a way that made it unrealistic to expect such support?

Too much

The DREAM Act of 2021 is a good example

It would make legalization available to migrants who have been physically present in the United States continuously since Jan. 1, 2021, were under the age of 19 when they entered the United States, and have continuously resided in the United States since their entry. 

They can have a criminal record so long as they are not inadmissible under specified criminal or national security grounds.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, this would make lawful status available to approximately 2.7 million undocumented immigrants, not counting the family members they likely would bring into the country when they acquire permanent resident status or citizenship. 

And the Democrats didn’t stop there. They included provisions that would make lawful status available to 393,000 Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Enforced Departure participants, and 190,000 “Legal Dreamers” (migrants brought here legally as children who are aging out of their lawful status).

The bill would have been much smaller — and much more likely to pass — if it had been limited to migrants with situations similar to that of DACA participant, Eddie Ramirez. Eddie grew up in the United States. It is the only country he has ever known. He was brought here from Mexico in 1994, when he was just one and a half years old. Eddie is in his last year of dental school, but he may not be able to practice dentistry in the United States. 

Why aren’t the Democrats limiting eligibility to migrants like Eddie who were brought here when they were very young, grew up in this country, have not been convicted of criminal offenses of any kind, and have become successful members of our society? 

This would leave out migrants who are less sympathetic but nevertheless should be included, but bills that include as many migrants as possible haven’t passed, which leaves out every potential DREAMer.

The parents who brought them here

Undocumented immigrants who receive lawful status under a DREAM Act, become citizens, and are 21-years of age or older will be able to use their immediate relative status to confer permanent resident status on their parents.

Immigrants who were brought here by their parents when they were young children elicit sympathy because they are blameless. They had no choice in the matter. But the parents who brought them here violated our law. The DREAM Acts the Democrats have introduced would let those parents benefit from their illegal act.

This could be avoided by making legalization available to the DREAMers through a modified Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program. Migrants who obtain permanent resident status through the SIJ program cannot confer an immigration benefit on their natural or prior adoptive parents, even after naturalization.

Border security

The Republicans historically have opposed legislation to legalize undocumented immigrants without measures ramping up border security. They are not likely to support a legalization program of any kind until the crisis at the border has been brought under control. 

There were 159,121 apprehensions of illegal crossers in October 2021, and apprehensions have risen to 222,656 in May 2022, which included surges in migration from nationalities once rarely seen. This brought apprehensions for the first eight months in fiscal 2022 up to more than 1.4 million.

If this trend continues, apprehensions for fiscal 2022 will reach 2 million.

These numbers only give a general idea of how bad the situation is at the border. They do not take into account the apprehensions of migrants who make multiple attempts to cross the border without being apprehended, or the number of “got-aways” who were detected but managed to evade apprehension. And there is no way of knowing how many illegal crossers succeeded in crossing the 1,933-mile border without being detected. 

Nevertheless, it’s apparent that there is a crisis at the border, and it is expected to get much worse when the Title 42 order is terminated.

If the Democrats are serious about passing a DREAM Act, they should include strong border security measures.

False hope

If the Democrats continue to make the same mistakes they have made with the DREAM Act bills of the past 20 years, the bills they introduce over the next 20 are likely to fail as well.

At some point, it’s got to become clear the Democrats know that. At some point, it’s got to become clear they wouldn’t keep introducing bills guaranteed to fail if they were serious about the issue, as opposed to the simple “optics” or the politics of it. At some point, the DREAMers themselves will realize they’re being played.

DREAM Acts that are likely to fail should instead be called “False Hope Acts.”

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him at https://www.blogger.com/blog/posts/2306123393080132994