This week, Senators Richard Durbin, Harry Reid, and Robert
Menendez re-introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors
(DREAM) Act. Last fall, the DREAM Act passed the House of Representatives, and
garnered the support of a majority in the Senate, but was ultimately defeated
when the Senate failed to invoke cloture and proceed to debate. The sponsors of
the DREAM Act hope to build on last year’s momentum and continue to highlight
the importance of fully utilizing the talent and potential of thousands of
young people who are Americans in every way but their birth certificates.

First introduced in 2001, the DREAM Act would address the
plight of young immigrants who have been raised in the U.S. and managed to
succeed despite the challenges of being brought here without proper
documentation. The proposal would offer a path to legal status to those who
have graduated from high school, stayed out of trouble, and plan to attend
college or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years.

Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students
graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go on
to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They
belong to the 1.5 generation: immigrants brought to the United States at a
young age who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in
common with second-generation Americans. These students are culturally American
and fluent in English, growing up here and often having little attachment to
their country of birth.

The moral, intellectual and practical rationale for the
DREAM Act is overwhelming. The White House supports it. The Departments of
Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice, entrusted with enforcing and implementing
our immigration laws, support it. The Department of Education and America’s
academic and faith community support it, as well as state legislators,
community groups, and the American public. The DREAM Act is even part of the
Department of Defense’s 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its
recruiting efforts.

 Despite broad
support for the legislative proposal, the divisive political environment around
immigration poses an enormous challenge for the DREAM Act. If Congress fails to
act, the administration can and should take more decisive steps to ensure that
the values driving their legislative agenda are reflected in their
implementation and interpretation of current law.  DHS should ensure that its officers use their prosecutorial
discretion to defer the removal of any eligible student caught up in the broken
immigration system.  

But ideally, the DREAM Act should become law in 2011. Ten
years is enough time to debate legislation almost everyone agrees is in
America’s best interests.