Five Moral Arguments Against the DREAM Act

[peejay 327]

Five Moral Arguments Against the DREAM Act

Ira Mehlman

It’s back. Sen. ####### Durbin (D-Ill.) is once again pushing the DREAM Act amnesty. Before a packed room (mostly of illegal aliens), the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing earlier this week stacked with witnesses who favor granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Leaving aside all of the deceitful provisions that have been built into the bill that makes it a much broader amnesty than proponents let on, it is important to address the fundamental premise that passing the bill is a moral imperative because the people who would benefit are blameless for being here illegally.

The DREAM Act fulfills the parents’ principle reason for breaking the law in the first place. Ask the typical illegal alien why he or she came to United States illegally, and invariably the answer is, “I wanted to do better for my family.” This is a perfectly rational and understandable response, but not a justification for violating the law. In essence, what the DREAM Act does is provide the parents precisely what they sought when they brought their kids illegally to the United States: a green card and all of the benefits that America has to offer. Even if the bill were to include a provision that DREAM Act beneficiaries could never sponsor the parents who brought them to the country illegally, it would still fulfill the parents’ primary objective for bringing them here.

The DREAM Act would touch-off an even greater wave of illegal immigration. Because the DREAM Act is being marketed as a moral imperative – as opposed to a more general amnesty, which is sold as bowing to reality – it comes with an absolute assurance that it will be repeated. If we have a moral imperative to provide amnesty to the current population of people who were brought here as kids, won’t we have the same moral imperative for the next generation of people who arrive under similar circumstances? The unmistakable message to people all around the world is: Get over here and bring your kids. America will feel morally obligated to give them green cards too.

The DREAM Act absolves illegal aliens of their fundamental responsibilities as parents. There is a fundamental principle that parents are responsible for the consequences that their actions and choices have on their kids. Unfortunately, children inevitably pay a price when parents make bad decisions or break laws. The DREAM Act carves out a single exception to this universal tenet of the social contract. The message it sends is that if you violate U.S. immigration law, American society is responsible for fixing the mess you created for your kids.

The absence of a reward or benefit is not the same as a punishment. DREAM Act proponents repeatedly argue that by not granting legal status to targeted beneficiaries we are, essentially, punishing children for the sins of their parents. This is an absolutely specious claim. By no stretch of the imagination are the children of illegal aliens being punished. Not rewarding them with legal residence and expensive college tuition subsidies is simply withholding benefits to which they never had any entitlement in the first place.

Adults have the obligation to do the right thing, even if their parents have done the wrong thing. Society glorifies people who do what is right, especially when doing what is right comes at some significant cost. Yes, many would-be DREAM Act beneficiaries have been dealt a bad hand (by their parents). As difficult (even unfair) as it may be, upon reaching adulthood they have the responsibility to obey the law. When, for example, Jose Antonio Vargas proclaims on the pages of The New York Times Magazine, that he knowingly engaged in illegal activities in order to remain and work in the United States illegally, he became culpable in his own right. While he, and others like him, may be more sympathetic than the people who committed the predicate offense, their situation does not excuse their own illegal acts.

Ira Mehlman is the Media Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

http://townhall.com/columnists/iramehlman/2011/07/01/five_moral_arguments_against_the_dream_act

[JoannaV 174]

One thing I wonder about:

Every country has different immigration and citizenship rules, and no country can impose its rules on others. It is conceivable that a child who left their country of birth in infancy could lose any claim to citizenship in their country of birth, and be left stateless. (So that this will not appear quite as unlikely, consider the possibility of a child who was born in country X but whose parents were both citizens of country Y. Then they all went to the USA. Country X does not give citizenship based solely upon place of birth, whilst country Y does not give citizenship based solely on ancestry.) There is no moral imperative, but please someone help this person :-)

[TBoneTX 45,963]

please someone help this person

A quandary, si man. Maybe present them with a list of countries that would accept them, and give them their choice of where to be deported? Not being sarcastic here, no man.

[peejay 327]

One thing I wonder about:

Every country has different immigration and citizenship rules, and no country can impose its rules on others. It is conceivable that a child who left their country of birth in infancy could lose any claim to citizenship in their country of birth, and be left stateless. (So that this will not appear quite as unlikely, consider the possibility of a child who was born in country X but whose parents were both citizens of country Y. Then they all went to the USA. Country X does not give citizenship based solely upon place of birth, whilst country Y does not give citizenship based solely on ancestry.) There is no moral imperative, but please someone help this person :-)

Highly unlikely, but say this happens to one illegal alien in a million. What does this have to do with the other 999,999 illegal aliens?

[JoannaV 174]

Highly unlikely, but say this happens to one illegal alien in a million. What does this have to do with the other 999,999 illegal aliens?

I don't think the case of that one alien is sufficient to mean all million aliens should be given amnesty. However, I do think that such cases should be pondered and given consideration. Perhaps a stateless alien's case is one for international law and not the US.

I appreciate the article. I have not heard much about the DREAM act so I wasn't really aware of how it is being marketed. I agree that it should not be viewed as a moral imperative. If there is any kind of amnesty I would think it important that it be a one-time thing. It would also have to be in conjunction with an overhaul of the whole system, with a tightening of immigration controls.

[Darnell 8,479]

'marketed', imo, is an apt word.

The adverts are sickening.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Five Moral Arguments Against the DREAM Act

Ira Mehlman

It’s back. Sen. ####### Durbin (D-Ill.) is once again pushing the DREAM Act amnesty. Before a packed room (mostly of illegal aliens), the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing earlier this week stacked with witnesses who favor granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Leaving aside all of the deceitful provisions that have been built into the bill that makes it a much broader amnesty than proponents let on, it is important to address the fundamental premise that passing the bill is a moral imperative because the people who would benefit are blameless for being here illegally.

The DREAM Act fulfills the parents’ principle reason for breaking the law in the first place. Ask the typical illegal alien why he or she came to United States illegally, and invariably the answer is, “I wanted to do better for my family.” This is a perfectly rational and understandable response, but not a justification for violating the law. In essence, what the DREAM Act does is provide the parents precisely what they sought when they brought their kids illegally to the United States: a green card and all of the benefits that America has to offer. Even if the bill were to include a provision that DREAM Act beneficiaries could never sponsor the parents who brought them to the country illegally, it would still fulfill the parents’ primary objective for bringing them here.

The DREAM Act would touch-off an even greater wave of illegal immigration. Because the DREAM Act is being marketed as a moral imperative – as opposed to a more general amnesty, which is sold as bowing to reality – it comes with an absolute assurance that it will be repeated. If we have a moral imperative to provide amnesty to the current population of people who were brought here as kids, won’t we have the same moral imperative for the next generation of people who arrive under similar circumstances? The unmistakable message to people all around the world is: Get over here and bring your kids. America will feel morally obligated to give them green cards too.

The DREAM Act absolves illegal aliens of their fundamental responsibilities as parents. There is a fundamental principle that parents are responsible for the consequences that their actions and choices have on their kids. Unfortunately, children inevitably pay a price when parents make bad decisions or break laws. The DREAM Act carves out a single exception to this universal tenet of the social contract. The message it sends is that if you violate U.S. immigration law, American society is responsible for fixing the mess you created for your kids.

The absence of a reward or benefit is not the same as a punishment. DREAM Act proponents repeatedly argue that by not granting legal status to targeted beneficiaries we are, essentially, punishing children for the sins of their parents. This is an absolutely specious claim. By no stretch of the imagination are the children of illegal aliens being punished. Not rewarding them with legal residence and expensive college tuition subsidies is simply withholding benefits to which they never had any entitlement in the first place.

Adults have the obligation to do the right thing, even if their parents have done the wrong thing. Society glorifies people who do what is right, especially when doing what is right comes at some significant cost. Yes, many would-be DREAM Act beneficiaries have been dealt a bad hand (by their parents). As difficult (even unfair) as it may be, upon reaching adulthood they have the responsibility to obey the law. When, for example, Jose Antonio Vargas proclaims on the pages of The New York Times Magazine, that he knowingly engaged in illegal activities in order to remain and work in the United States illegally, he became culpable in his own right. While he, and others like him, may be more sympathetic than the people who committed the predicate offense, their situation does not excuse their own illegal acts.

Ira Mehlman is the Media Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

http://townhall.com/columnists/iramehlman/2011/07/01/five_moral_arguments_against_the_dream_act

The Dream Act fills a definite hole in terms of the humanitarian aspect of our immigration policy. With a few tweaks to the law, I think most of the points above would be irrelevant. If the US made the act of bringing a minor across a border without inspection a very serious crime for the parent - one that would make the parent inadmissible to the US forever, then the law would work. Personally, I think its a great crime for a parent to uproot their children from their native country and put them into a foreign nation illegally. We all know the routes into this country are not safe, people die from the elements or rogue coyotes.

I also think the second to last paragraph is pretty cheeky...it mentions that they are not being punished for their parent's actions and then jumps into expensive benefits to try and stir resentment in the reader. The reason many groups see it as punishment is not related to benefits being removed, its the idea that a person develops an idea of home based on their time in any location. If a child has spent 90% of his life in the US and 10% in Uruguay. They are culturally American and foreign to Uruguay.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

One thing I wonder about:

Every country has different immigration and citizenship rules, and no country can impose its rules on others. It is conceivable that a child who left their country of birth in infancy could lose any claim to citizenship in their country of birth, and be left stateless. (So that this will not appear quite as unlikely, consider the possibility of a child who was born in country X but whose parents were both citizens of country Y. Then they all went to the USA. Country X does not give citizenship based solely upon place of birth, whilst country Y does not give citizenship based solely on ancestry.) There is no moral imperative, but please someone help this person :-)

eh, WRONG!

When a person is inside a country's borders, he/she agrees implicitly to abide by THAT country's rules!

A quandary, si man. Maybe present them with a list of countries that would accept them, and give them their choice of where to be deported? Not being sarcastic here, no man.

You understood perfectly!