Dream Act and Illegal immigrant childrens citizenship - Essay Example

?Your Dream Act and Illegal immigrant children’s citizenship Introduction The Dream Act is a bill proposed and debated in Senate and supported by Democratic leadership and President Obama. It is immigration reform bill that offers over 12 million illegal immigrants to become legalized U.S. citizen, in addition to heightened security on Mexico border, and introducing guest worker program to assist employers in working out low paying jobs. Despite the fact that, it is costly legislation, has direct negative impact on already worse employment market, challenge for balancing budget on not only state but also federal level, additional tax burden on Americans, work as invitation for future illegal immigrants, and threat to not only immigration law but to the rights of law abiding legalized U.S. citizens. It is immoral and unethical approach of illegal immigrant who seek U.S citizenship for themselves or their children born or grew up here, as its basic purpose was to protect slave children not illegal immigrant's children. The paper argues against the Dream Act and denies the right of citizenship of illegal immigrant's children granted under 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution. The Dream Act President Obama with liberal Democratic Party leadership is determined to pass the Dream Act which will grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants (King, 2010).U.S. Senate blocked “the Dream Act” this December, the bill, if passed, would have allowed young children of illegal immigrants to attain a legalized citizenship of United States of America. These illegal immigrants came to America as children but their criminal record and other requirements are clear. Moreover, they have completed two years of military service or college education in America. The bill could not gather the support of required 60 senators to cross the filibuster which delayed it for one year with an uncertain future (Herszenhorn, 2010). Fundamental objections The implemented version of 14th Amendment’s interpretation encourages other nation’s citizens to enter United States jurisdiction and give birth. The legalized children access social services and support their parents to become legalized. Presence of legal immigrant as immediate relative shortens the otherwise lengthy process of immigration (Rau, 2010). Its results can be far-reaching as we can infer it from Pew Hispanic Centre’s study (qtd. in Rau,2010) which reports about 340,000 births to illegal immigrants in United States only in 2008.In most of the cases, parents were residing in America form one year or more. It is unethical rather criminal as Lillpop refers it, to use infants or “anchor babies” to avoid deportation or other punishment, such as, jailing. Moreover, it is immoral manipulation and use of not only newborns but U.S. constitution for illegal immigrants’ personal interest. It offers short cut to legalization and unjust for those who go through a longer process for attaining United States citizenship in a legal way. A common justification is the humanistic stance that wants to keep the families united. It is suspicious and needs reconsideration because illegal immigrant initially left their families in their homeland just to reside illegally on American land. Moreover, a criminal cannot be judged upon on the basis of whether he has a family or not. Illegal immigrants are not less of criminals because they invade another nation’s soil without their legal permission. Dream Act permits illegal immigrants to feed on law abiding taxpayers’ money for their law breaking act. Opponents attributed the Dream Act to be too broad in its interpretation and it would lead to give amnesty to illegal immigrants (Herszenhorn, 2010). Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama (qtd. in Herszenhorn, 2010) accuse Democrats of not only tolerating lawlessness but certain policies encourage it, he led the Dream Act’s opposition in Senate and highlighted the lack of efforts in improving the situation at borders to inhibit illegal migration. He further attributed the law as “reward for illegal activity” in its essence (qtd. in Herszenhorn, 2010).Krikorian also expresses his concern about Dream Act and other amnesties that it will attract new illegal immigrants seeking amnesties. They will be more encouraged when any of their predecessors will finally make it under Dream Act. In 1986, from about five million illegal immigrants three millions were granted amnesty. Today, we have over 10 million who are ensured to legalize repeatedly (2). With current rate of unemployment reached at 9.8 percent, the Dream Act will make the job market even worse by granting amnesty to millions of aliens and increase the competition in job market leaving millions or Americans unemployed because amnesty recipients took their jobs(King,2010). In addition to limiting job opportunities for Americans, it seems nearly impossible for state governments and federal government to strike a balance in budgets (King, 2010).According to the Centre of Immigration Studies (CIS) report, Dream Act will cost state and local taxpayer about $2.6 billion per year. The law will compel local colleges and universities to provide discounts on in-state tuition. Higher tuition rate and additional tax burden will be incurred on American due to the fact that federal government does no provide funds for covering such discounts (qtd. in King, 2010).In depth calculation about tuition fee expose the extent to which Dream Act will benefit illegal immigrants and cost Americans. The Dream Act will not spare federal government as deficit spending federal government will be subjected to enormous increase in expenses. King highlights that when advocates of Dream Act and resulting amnesty referred to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis which has predicted short-term positive impact in budget deficit, their sole purpose is to divert taxpayers’ attention from long-term and severe impact that can be anything but positive.CBO also found that Dream Act amnesty will increase the expenses of welfare programs to over $5 billion in 2020.The advocates of Dream Act and seekers of amnesty for illegal immigrants’ children completely ignore the additional burden on American taxpayers and their children in future years. Moreover, it is highly likely that CIS and BPO analysis are understated because of the assumption that Dream Act will grant amnesty to 1.1 million illegal immigrants. It is because other versions of Act are calculated to grant amnesty to more than 2.1 million. Several versions are circulated by Democrats in order to create confusion on voter issue. In addition, cost of “backdoor amnesty” is not estimated in any of the analysis which will be granted to the family members of these illegal immigrants. It is often ignored that children getting amnesty at 21 of their age will be considered eligible to sponsor their family members for citizenship. In this way, this “chain migration” will inflict enormous expenses (King, 2010). King (2010) highlights the additional cost incurred by Dream Act because it challenges the Rule of Law. Discussing the fact that, amnesty bill was converted into law once before 24 years but it allowed millions of illegal immigrant year after year. The history proves that amnesty proved to be a path for further lawbreaking. Since the Dream Act prohibits deportation of illegal immigrants seeking amnesty, any applicant of amnesty under Dream Act will be allowed and automatic and legalized stay in United States until the decision is made. It is evident that courts are overloaded with cases; therefore, millions of application under Dream Act will serve as a de facto visa to illegal immigrants for time unknown. Consequently, the Dream Act is an unaffordable legislation for Americans. Most important is the message that enactment of Dream Act will convey to every teenager on the plant. It works not only for illegal immigrants currently residing in America but becomes an open invitation forever. It is just like asking all the aspiring Indian, Indonesian, and Chinese teenagers to come here illegally, we will give you amnesty soon and you don’t need to waste time in getting education because we will educate you on our own expense (Frum). Political maneuvering The Dream Act cannot gain required vote and it should not pass because it is brought to the house to serve political interests. The sole purpose is to mobilize and excite Latino community for 2012 elections. It is deceptive and the consequences will be threatening (Frum). Ladd (2010) also expressed his concerns over Democratic Party’s disinterest in illegal immigrants’ deportation because they are seeing millions of democratic voters in future elections. Even if it is not the sole purpose, possibility of manipulation of United State’s Constitution for political gain is quite evident. Efforts to pass Dream Act have triggered protests nationwide. In Arizona,Sen. Russell Pearce and group of Republican lawmakers want court to reconsider the current interpretation of 14th Amendment and stop legalizing illegal immigrant’s children. Pew Hispanic Centre’s report says about four percent of illegal immigrants are in Arizona, it can be inferred that 13,600 illegal immigrants’ children were born in Arizona only. John Kavanagh expressed his concerns on the financial burden these newborns will cast on taxpayers through their access to social services, such as, health care and welfare. Arizona offers public school service for non-citizens, but legal citizens are eligible to access food stamps, driver’s license, in-state college tuition, and cash assistance for certain programs, such as needy family program (qtd. in Rau, 2010). Amendment of U.S. Constitution and its interpretation 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution was authorized in 1986.The amendment entitle all those people who are born or naturalized in United States and “to the jurisdiction thereof” as legal citizens of United State and State where they live(qtd. in Rau, 2010). Fundamental purpose for this amendment was to ensure citizenship to African-American and most importantly former slaves. However, legalization and citizenship of illegal immigrants’ children under 14th amendment has been questionable since its inception. The disputed element in the amendment is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in addition to subsequent Congressional acts passed to legalize citizenship of Native Americans with reservations about their birthplace (Rau, 2010). It is evident that illegal immigrants are not subject to United States jurisdiction. According to Rau, this interpretation of 14th Amendment started to apply with U.S. Supreme Court’s 1898 decision when son of immigrant Chinese couple was entitled to United States citizenship because he was born in U.S. despite his parent’s ineligibility of citizenship at the time of decision. Therefore, the ruling is interpreted to serve for all the illegal immigrants’ babies born in United States. Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce and a group of Republican lawmakers (qtd. in Rau, 2010) objected such interpretation and announced a nationwide effort to convince the court to reconsider 14th Amendment’s interpretation. Pearce attribute this interpretation as hijacking of 14th amendment, robbing African American legacy, and misapplication. Moreover, illegal immigrants are not subjected to U.S. jurisdiction because of their inability to subject to military draft and serve on jury. John Kavanagh also entitled this interpretation as “nonsensical policy of awarding citizenship…on the irrational criteria of your GPS location” (qtd. in Rau, 2010).Kavanagh further explained that in 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” referred to those who owed their allegiance exclusively to United States, therefore, Native Americans were not granted citizenship because they were sovereign to their own tribe (qtd. in Rau, 2010). It is crucial to remember that prior efforts to reconsider birth certificate handling in Arizona were failed. In 2007, Birthright citizenship Alignment Act demanded hospitals to consider the citizenship illegal immigrants’ newborns but the efforts proved futile. In 2008, a proposed reconsideration of birth certificate handling was not heard in committee (Rau, 2010). Conclusion The Dream Act is an expensive, burdensome, unrealistic, and deceiving legislation which does not deserve further consideration from United State’s government. Its enactment will spur more illegal immigration and will do little or nothing to curb it. Its reforms unethically allow illegal immigrant’s children a legalized status which can encourage further illegal immigration and chained migration. Illegal immigrants are criminals and criminals should be punished and deported rather than facilitated to stay in American soil and feed and educate on American taxpayer’s money. Deporting or jailing illegal immigrants is in no way human rights violation as it saves the rights of those who abide by the law and are legal U.S. residents. Work Cited Frum, David. “A DREAM bill that’s more like a nightmare.”theweek.com. The Week Publication INC.25 Nov. 2010. Web.28 January.2011. Herszenhorn, David M. “Senate Blocks Bill for Young Illegal Immigrants.”NYtimes.com.The New York Times Company.18 December.2010.Web.28 January.2011. King, Steve. King Op-ED: The DREAM Act is an Amnesty Bill that American Cannot Afford.steveking.house.org, Dec.2010.Web.29 Jan.2011. Krikorian, Mark. “Dream On.”nationalreview.com.National Review Online.Dec. 1, 2010.Web.1 Feb. 2011. Lillpop, John W. “Deport Them All—Including Anchor Babies.” Newsblaze.com.Newsblaze, n.d.Web.30 Jan.2011. Ladd, Williams. “Ladd: It isn’t impossible to stop illegal immigration.”sdnn.com.San Diego News Network, LLC.20 Feb. 2010. Web.30 Jan.2011. Rau, Alia Beard. “Proposals to deny citizenship to illegal immigrants’ children in the works, lawmaker says.”azcentral.com.Azcentral, 19 Oct.2010.Web.30 Jan.2011. Read More