A recent blog posting seen on the web contains a number of errors or assertions that are at least in conflict with more reliable sources than were cited. According to the Immigration Policy Center, the report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) cited on the blog “paints a misleading financial portrait of the DREAM Act.”
A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries would range from $1.4 trillion to $3.6 trillion. The amount of taxes paid at all levels is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention the money spent in local economies. This projection does not include the taxes that students pay from part time jobs while in college.
DREAM Act applicants will be required to pay fees to cover the cost of processing. Students would only be eligible for federal loans, which would have to be repaid, and federal work-study programs. They would not be eligible for any federal grants including Pell Grants.
Institutions of higher education overwhelmingly support the DREAM Act. Many conservative Republicans, including presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, Colin Powell, Carlos Gutierrez, and Jim Edgar. Military leaders including David S. C. Chu, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness under George W. Bush, called for action on the DREAM Act to strengthen the Military.
The independent Colorado legislature function that attaches fiscal notes to bill stated that tuition equity would have been a net positive cash flow to the state of about $500,000. Recently the California Supreme Court upheld the legality of tuition equity, ruling that it does not violate federal prohibitions of giving educational benefits to resident illegal immigrants who attend state schools for three years. California is one of ten states, including some of the most conservative states, that have tuition equity laws. The writer of the blog believes SB 1070 would have violated federal Law. I opt to side with experienced conservative jurists. By the way, none of these states have experienced a large influx of students who have displaced other students.
Racism need not be introduced into the DREAM Act discussion. About 70 percent of undocumented students are Latino the other 30 percent are African, Asian, or European. The DREAM Act would apply equally to all. If one wants to be technically correct, for the most part only the African and Asian students are non-Caucasian.
It is interesting that some on the web refer to me as a “local race activist.” Is this disapproval of the fact that I oppose racism? The fact that I see the need to raise the issue about the needs of the under served seems to bother some. Why else draw attention to the number of Latinos at Pubic Invited To Be Heard? Can some in Longmont not see these young people simply as human beings?
It is also disturbing is that there are those who think that it is a “waste of council time” to express an opinion on something that affects the lives of Longmont residents. What is more important than the future of our youth and the benefits of a more highly educated citizenry?
Interesting that the word ‘polarization’ appears in one recent article, especially considering all the “negative current” being pumped into the pubic square by the same source of distortion. -ed