Why I Oppose the DREAM Act

Jun 29, 2011 at 11:36 AM

The DREAM Act is back in the news today as some have accused the Obama Administration of not executing current immigration policy in favor of the still-pending DREAM Act. For those unfamiliar, the DREAM Act is a proposal that would give illegal immigrants, who came to the United States as children, a chance at legal status if they complete two years of college or military service.

While I am all for providing a path to citizenship and ultimately open border style immigration laws, I do not support this proposal and it is my belief that all liberty-minded people should oppose it as well.

If we look past the question of whether or not illegal immigrants should have a path to citizenship, we can see that this proposal is simply another attempt at government led social engineering. Why make the requirement two years of college or military service? Because it is government's belief that attending college or joining the military molds "better" citizens.

Once upon a time (around the drafting of the Constitution), it was thought that government should not determine what makes a better citizen. Better vs. worse was determined by society, culture, religion, etc. and all these institutions had their own way of dealing with it. For example, if you show up for a job interview with a major corporation in a t-shirt and jeans, chances are you're not getting the job. Why? Because our society deems that type of attire inappropriate in that situation.

That was once upon a time however. Fast forward to today. Today government tells us what is better vs. worse. In our government schools we are told to go to college, whether or not our skills cater to a career that requires a college education. Our tax code encourages us to marry, have children and own a home. And, of course, many of our "worst" personal choices are deemed illegal.

Some may ask, what is the difference? Why does it matter if government teaches us better vs. worse as opposed to society? The difference is government has the power to initiate force on those who do not fit their definition of better. If you stay single and rent your whole life you'll end up paying a lot more in taxes than you would if you got married and bought a home. And what if you make a personal choice that is illegal, say owning a gun without a license? Well, you'll end up behind bars.

The DREAM Act is not the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants we liberty-minded people should embrace. It is another attempt by government to mold its citizenry and define better vs. worse.

Posted in:

Blog Policy
Login or register to post comments

While I agree with your objections, I believe those who love liberty should oppose this act for many other reasons.

First, I do recognize that there are libertarians who's anti-state beliefs are so strong that the idea of sovereign nations, and the borders which define them, are considered abhorrent. I respect this viewpoint, but I do not agree with it. I will not go into the reasons why here, simply because whether nations should exist is an entirely separate debate and would hijack the discussion.

That being said, sovereign nations do exist so that different peoples living in different places, with different ideas, different religions, different languages, different traditions, different cultures, and different philosophies can live under whatever system they see fit. If we believe in the idea of national sovereignty, as many do (including Ron Paul), then those peoples living within sovereign countries certainly have a right to decide who they want to invite into their nations. In the United States, American citizens, through their elected representatives have created a set rules, laws, that govern who may enter, how many may enter, and what the entry process is.

It is not unreasonable, or an affront to liberty for the people of a sovereign nation, through their elected representatives, to carefully screen and select what kind of persons they want to allow in. As an individual, you would not simply leave the front door of your property open for any and all to enter at will, would you? Of course not. The same principle applies to nations.

If immigrants from a particular area, or of a particular religion, or philosophy that was antithesis to all the principles of liberty, as an extreme example, let's say Taliban from Pakistan, or Nazis from Germany, were flooding into a country by the millions against the will of the people living there, would you call it wrong or anti-liberty for the natives to reject the immigrants, fearing that liberty would be compromised if they were allowed to stay? The answer to this is self evident, the inhabitants of a nation have a right to determine who joins their society.

Given that the people of a sovereign nation, through their elected representatives set up legal processes to determine who they want to join their society, is it unreasonable for such a people to be annoyed when foreigners ignore those processes? No, I say. The people of a nation should be very annoyed when this occurs.

In The United States today we have a large group of uninvited foreigners who have blatantly ignored the laws and processes which are in place. There is a belief among many of them that they have a right to be here. That nations do not matter, that laws do not matter, that the will of the native inhabitants does not matter at all.

It does matter. Passing the DREAM Act is a mistake. It insults the native people and rewards those who are here uninvited and in violation of the law. It insults those who actually care and respect a nation and it's people enough to follow the law and do it the legal way. It insults our intelligence because the DREAM act provides not just a special path to citizenship, and preferential treatment, but buried deep in the bill are vague qualifications that would easily allow millions of illegal aliens who are not the shining propaganda tools displayed at congressional hearings to come here under the act.

If we make exceptions for a few, then we have to make exceptions for all and the entire system, as well as the entire idea of sovereign nations is destroyed. If borders don't matter, and laws don't matter, and the will of the people of a nation does not matter, you don't have a nation anymore. You just have an area of the map where the natives are replaced, their will disregarded, their nation destroyed, and anyone from anywhere in any numbers, with any beliefs can come and stay and do whatever they want.

Before you pass judgment, and I know some are gnashing their teeth right about now, you should recognize that whatever your thoughts, sovereign nations are not going away any time soon. So, until that utopia of a stateless, borderless, libertarian world comes about (which it won't because man is evil at heart) you must decide what kind of nation you are going to live in. A nation is defined by it's people, and it's people define the rule of law. Therefore, it matters who you allow in through immigration. If those coming are showing no respect for the laws and people, and instead are making demands and requesting preferential treatment, it should cause alarm and make anyone of any ideology question whether such individuals should be rewarded.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on July 1, 2011.

Making the argument for selective immigration policy through property rights is interesting and one I had not ever heard. I can't say I disagree with you. The purpose of my post was to highlight the social engineering aspect of the legislation, not to comment on immigration policy. I do believe America should be a land of opportunity for all and I would have a difficult time defending policies that exlcude some based on political or philosophical view points. However, the property rights argument makes me think.

As an FYI, YAL members do not necessarily agree with everything Dr. Paul says so saying "Ron Paul says so" doesn't mean we must automatically change our position. I am personally a supporter of Dr. Paul but I do disagree with him on select issues

Submitted by P.L. Fraietta on July 1, 2011.

Personsøk

This is one of the most informative information I've read. It really helps a lot. Thanks for sharing this and teaching soem of your Idea's.

Submitted by john (not verified) on September 8, 2011.

No, I must disagree. You are making a fallacy in assuming that the US gov't owns all of the land within the geographical boundaries of the United States. To say that, through "our" elected representatives, the US gov't has a right to force all property owners bordered next to Mexico (0r any other border) to not allow immigrants into America is wrong. Individual property owners have the right to allow or forbid immigrants from crossing their land; the government does not have any moral authority to prevent individual landowners from allowing immigrants on their land. We would not say the government has any moral authority to (through our elected representatives) take the property of one group of people (taxpayers) and give it to others in the form of, say, healthcare, even though individual property owners would certainly have the right to do that with their property if they so wished.

As for immigrants not respecting the rule of law, I have two comments. First, this law is unjust and should not be obeyed, any more than slavery laws should have been obeyed. Second, there is no reasonable way to obey the law and enter into the country. It is just not feasible to do so; our borders are, for practical intents and purposes, closed.

As far as immigrants taking up social services, that would seem to me to indicate that the social services should end, not that the immigrants should stop coming here. If social services are illegitimate, they're illegitimate, regardless of who uses them.

Finally, the idea that immigrants will come here and do whatever they want, and believe whatever they want, should not be so threatening to us. As long as there is no force to impose their beliefs on anyone else, who cares? Isn't that the very idea of liberty, that you can do whatever you want so long as you don't impose upon the property and liberties of others?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on July 18, 2011.

Yes, the idea of liberty is so you can "do whatever you want" in a sense as long as "you don't impose upon the property and liberties of others."

But this idea of liberty should only be protected as long as you're a citizen. A legal citizen.

Once you are a legal citizen, you can DREAM all you want.

Submitted by Anonymous 3 (I am a separate Anonymous) (not verified) on August 31, 2011.

Informative? I did not get anything out of this honestly. Your credibility is well.. quesitoned. Also your facts and reasoning not really supported through research and credible citations. Although this is a ".org" website just by reading this I would be skeptical to use it in future research reference. That is all.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on October 10, 2011.

Most of the domain "org"
has nothing to do with the "organization"

stainless

Submitted by stainless (not verified) on November 3, 2011.

What a brilliant post, thanks so much for sharing this with us.

canvas prints

Submitted by Sue (not verified) on December 16, 2011.

This thing about going to college goes as a main aim life education in every culture of this world. The point is, there are different conditions to facilitate your path into making it, professionaly speaking. Though I assume everything relies on your own ambition in the end. I started my organizational leadership classes last year and I am really proud I got into this. Finally I can fulfill my potential in this area.

Submitted by mya birks (not verified) on February 24, 2012.

If such a bill would be approved, I think we should seeking compensation for work injury. Don't you think? After all, US is still the country of all possibilities.

Submitted by James New on May 2, 2013.