Dream Act: Pros and Cons

The Dream Act is one of those most controversial issues in the immigration debate.

With Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust recently endorsing the Dream Act, I thought it'd be a good opportunity to hear from some of the leading minds on both sides of the debate.

Some of you probably read the New York Times’ recent series on immigration “Remade in America.” If you haven’t, you should consider checking it out.

I’m going to point you toward a sidebar to the series: The editors’ running commentary that posted online.

In one of the discussions, the editors invited three immigration specialists to weigh in on the Dream Act, which many of you know would give some young illegal immigrants a chance to become permanent residents if they join the military or attend college.

You can read their full statements here. I'm including a boiled down version of what I found most interesting.

Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for stronger immigration enforcement.

The issue is what to do about illegal aliens who were brought here as children and have grown up here. They made no decision to leave their native land and break another nation’s laws. And yet this may be the only country they’ve ever known.

Amnesty advocates use the predicament of such people (many of them adults at this point) to try to engineer a broad legalization of illegal immigrants. This, in fact, is the strategic purpose of bill, which would give amnesty to certain illegal immigrants brought here before age 16. Though its scope is not nearly as narrow as advocates would have you believe, it is nevertheless a targeted amnesty. But it is one designed to politically leverage the dilemma of the most sympathetic group of illegals into a more general amnesty.

A legislative package that might actually make sense would have a rigorous legalization process for longtime residents brought here illegally as children (unlike the Dream Act, which is so lax as to virtually guarantee massive fraud). To compensate for such an amnesty, and to ensure its finality, the package must also permanently end chain migration and turn off the magnet of jobs for illegal immigrants.

Tamar Jacoby is president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a federation of employers seeking an overhaul of immigration law.

…. Our fear and misplaced moralism are blinding us to our own interests.

Immigrants are assimilating, and we ought to reward them for it. The kids who would be covered under the Dream Act have mastered English. They’ve graduated from high school, often in families and neighborhoods where that’s difficult and discouraged. They’ve learned enough about America not just to fit in, but to succeed here. And many are willing to risk their lives for their new country.

But millions of newcomers, legal and illegal, are taking similar steps — although we do virtually nothing to help or encourage them. On the contrary, if they entered the country illegally — responding to our mixed signals, half-forbidding but half-inviting them to come do work we need done – we bar them from the very steps we say we want most from them: moving up the socioeconomic ladder and becoming fully participating members of society.

Photo: Paulina is a top student at her Charlotte High School. She wants to attend either UNC or Harvard. She recently visited Washington D.C. to lobby for the Dream Act. DAVID T. FOSTER III-dtfoster@charlotteobserver.com

Harvard president supports college for illegal immigrants

The president of Harvard University caused a stir last week when she pledged support for a federal bill that would provide legal residency to some illegal immigrant students.

The Boston Globe reports that President Drew Gilpin Faust’s backing of the Dream Act surprised students and drew criticism from opponents of the act.

In a letter to federal lawmakers, Faust called the legislation a "life line" for some students. The legislation would allow young illegal immigrants a path to legal residency if they attend two years of college or military service. She acknowledged that students with "immigration status issues" attend Harvard.

Last year in North Carolina, the board of the state’s two-year college system stopped a longtime practice of allowing illegal immigrants to enroll at 58 campuses under out-of-state tuition rates.
In a preliminary report, a board consultant said the state could profit from admitting undocumented students because they would pay $1,650 more in tuition than it costs to allow them to attend.

Faust is the latest leader to pledge support for the controversial bill. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently told Congress she supports the bill. Last month, the College Board, made up of more than 5,000 colleges and universities, announced its backing of the legislation.

"I believe it is in our best interest to educate all students to their full potential - it vastly improves their lives and grows our communities and economy," Faust wrote in a letter to members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation who support the bill.

Opponents of the legislation, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said Harvard should not admit illegal immigrants because they displace students here legally.

"Maybe the elites at Harvard should come down from their ivory tower and get some ground perspective on what kind of cost and competition that legal U.S. residents are actually incurring these days," said Bob Dane, spokesman for FAIR.

Senator: No health insurance for illegal immigrants

Congress is drafting a major health overhaul that would cover nearly everyone, but not illegal immigrants.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee, told reporters last week that covering undocumented workers is “too politically explosive."

The finance committee is drafting the sweeping legislation that would cover up to 96 percent of the population. The legislation is expects to be introduce by mid-June.

Baucus told the Associated Press that his bill would build on the current system in which employers, government and individuals share in paying health care costs. It's likely to include a requirement that individuals get insurance coverage, either through an employer, a government plan or on their own. He said the plan will include "incentives" - and perhaps requirements - for employers to help pay.

Even though illegal immigrants won't be able to get benefits under the legislation, they can still get health care at hospital emergency rooms and through federally funded community health centers.

Sotomayor: Appeals court where "policy is made"

Questions about a statement the high court nominee made at a Duke forum may be the first test she needs to overcome before getting confirmed.

Thanks to our friends at the News & Observer for this tip.

Critics say this statement she made at 2005 forum while explaining the difference between district and appeals court justices shows she'll be a judge who legislates from the bench.

“All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is – Court of Appeals is where policy is made,” she said. “And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't ‘make law,' I know.”

The audience laughed.

“OK, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know,” she said to more laughter.

“Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It's interpretation, it's application.”

She is not without her defenders. The former Duke University law professor, who moderated the forum, has already dismissed criticisms over the remark.

“Judge Sotomayor's comment was innocuous and true,” Erwin Chemerinsky, now dean of the University of California-Irvine law school, wrote in an e-mail to The (Raleigh) News & Observer.

“Appellate judges and Supreme Court justices must make choices about the law that include consideration of policy issues. Every first-year law student knows this. I am amazed that anyone is making anything of this comment.”

In a blog post for the New Republic, Chemerinsky writes Sotomayor would be “terrific for the Supreme Court and the future of constitutional law.”

“As a woman, a Latina, a person who has faced a lifelong serious illness (diabetes), and a person who grew up in modest circumstances, Sotomayor brings experiences that are unrepresented or largely absent from the current court. These certainly will influence her rulings and they also may help in the most important task for a Democratic appointee on the current court: persuading Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing justice on almost every closely divided issue. Sotomayor's background, as well as her intellect and experience, make her ideally suited for this role.”

Karl Rove on the Sotomayor pick

Mexican Census: Fewer Mexicans migrating north

Much attention is being given to a report about census data out of Mexico revealing a decline in Mexican migration to the United States. The data appears back up what many U.S. experts – and the Observer -- have been saying for months that the bad economy is slowing the flow of illegal immigration.

The New York Times reports that Mexican data show that immigration from Mexico to other countries declined by 25 percent in the year that ended in August 2008 from the preceding year. Some 226,000 fewer people immigrated from Mexico. Most come to the United States.

As with their American counterparts, Mexican researchers say the decline is largely a result of the lack of jobs in the ailing American economy.

"If jobs are available, people come," Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, told the paper. “If jobs are not available, people don't come."

Other researchers argue the drop in crossings from Mexico proves that tough law enforcement at the border and in American workplaces can help reduce illegal immigration.

"The latest evidence suggests that you can reverse the flow," says Steven A. Camarota, a demographer at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for stronger enforcement of immigration laws. "It is not set in stone, so with some mix of enforcement and the economy, fewer will come and more will go home."

Photo: NEWS & OBSERVER staff/Ted Richardson.

Taco truck flap unfair to east Charlotte?

Ed Garber doesn't like what the taco truck controversy is doing to his neighborhood.

The chairman of the Eastside Political Action Committee says allegations are off base that the clampdown on the taco trucks operating on Central Avenue is a form of ethnic discrimination.

Garber, a longtime Eastside resident who graduated from Garinger High, called me yesterday concerned about a story I posted about similar efforts to reduce the number of taco trucks in Los Angeles, Houston, and Des Moines.

In a Los Angeles Times story, UC Davis law professor Kevin Johnson said the fight against taco trucks in Charlotte and Des Moines is another way to express anti-immigrant views.

Garber says that’s not true and wrongly makes Eastsiders out to look like racists. He said the working class community has long been diverse, made up of African Americans, whites, and Hispanics who have lived together peacefully for years. The only thing people in East Charlotte hate, he says, "is an unproductive person."

And he says the taco truck controversy fails to recognize all the work neighbors have done to highlight local diversity. He noted the popular Taste of the World tour, which showcases area Latino, Asian, African, and Greek restaurants.

"It’s not an ethnic thing," he said. "If you look at how people in East Charlotte live. They eat in these restaurants. We're known for the restaurants. The community is supporting the restaurants. We’re trying to market the restaurants. So for the whole community to be labeled as not accepting of Latino people and diversity it is a slap in the face."

Garber said the clampdown on mobile food vendors is really about enforcing existing laws and protecting established businesses -- some owned by Latinos -- that were losing customers because mobile food vendors didn’t follow city rules.

He stressed the 9 p.m. curfew, which many taco truck owners find egregious, was already in existence but not strictly enforced.

Another new ordinance though requires mobile food vendors to stay 400 feet from each other and from residential neighborhoods, eliminating most of the sites where trucks can park on Central Avenue.

Photos: Yalonda James/The Charlotte Observer, Ed Garber, and Gary O'Brien/The Charlotte Observer

Charlotte taco troubles get attention in L.A.

Charlotte is not the only community cracking down on taco trucks. Similar efforts have taken hold in Los Angeles, Houston, Des Moines, and Hillsboro, Ore.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that as the Latino community has grown in the United States, so have the number of taco trucks catering to them.

We reported in March that dozens of taco trucks in Charlotte have shut down since the city passed an ordinance curtailing hours and where they operate.

Read the Observer story here.

In the LA Times story, Kevin Johnson, dean of the UC Davis law school and a professor of law and Chicano studies, says the fight against taco trucks in Charlotte and Des Moines is another way to express anti-immigrant views.

"It's hard for me to see how this whole taco truck controversy is separate and apart from the continuing clash of cultures in the U.S.," Johnson told the paper.

Here is an excerpt about Charlotte from the LA Times story:

In Charlotte, which has a fast-growing Latino population, residents complained last year that taco trucks were camping out in office parking lots past midnight, bringing crowds and crime to nearby neighborhoods.

"They were transitioning from a place for food to a place for folks to congregate," said John Lassiter, an at-large city councilman. "A lot of these neighborhoods are older, struggling with the changing demographic, so they perceive the taco truck and the related use as negatively impacting their quality of life and potentially impacting the value of their primary asset, which is their house."

The City Council responded by passing an ordinance forcing taco trucks to shut down at 9 p.m. and ensuring that several of them could not gather in the same parking lot.

Photos: DIEDRA LAIRD/Charlotte Observer