DREAM ACT

The Dream Act in California

Table of Contents

DREAM ACT1

The Dream Act in California1

History of DREAM Act4

National and Federal Policies5

California Policy6

Differences in the New 2011 version8

How DREAM Act supports the mission of California community colleges8

Open Access9

American Graduation Initiative9

California Community Chancellors' vision: Advance interest in skilled workforce and educated citizenry11

Implications of DREAM Act11

Political11

Social12

Economic Impact of the Bill12

Unintended consequences12

Examining California DREAM Act vs. other states13

New York13

Illinois14

Maryland14

Implementation of DREAM Act15

Changes in Financial Aid Availability15

Institutional Infrastructure15

What it Means to those who Benefit15

Conclusion16

References18

The Dream Act in California

History of DREAM Act

The legislative history of the DREAM Act during the last decade has been chaotic. The DREAM Act failed in 2001, 2003, and 2005, but it came close to passing in 2007 when it failed in the Senate by a vote of 52-44.281. There were only eight votes that were required to pass the DREAM Act verified to supporters of the bill that pro-immigrant legislation was gaining momentum in the public debate on immigration reform. Therefore, decision to reintroduce the DREAM Act was taken by Senator Durbin and Congressman Berman to the 111th Congress on March 26, 2009.282. However, since S. 729 and H.R. 1751 failed to make it out of committee, Senate version of the bill to the Defense Authorization Bill was attached by Senator Harry Reid and the aim was to pass as an amendment. It was in September 2010 that cloture was defeated for the Defense Authorization Bill and its proposed DREAM Act amendment by votes which were followed by the introduction of Senate version of the bill. Later onwards, the bill was revised, and restrictions were added to it which addressed concerns that were oppositional. One of these included a ten year period of conditional nonimmigrant status, a ban on family petitions, and the prohibition of universities from offering in-state tuition rates to beneficiaries of the act (The Wall Street Journal, 2011).

However, the version did not come to vote, and this was because another version of the DREAM Act was passed by the House in December 2010. However, this final version of the DREAM Act failed in the Senate by a vote of 55-41, just five votes scant of a 60-vote majority. Despite numerous attempts, the 111th Congress failed to pass this landmark legislation, and the battle for the DREAM Act continues as a more conservative Congress enters the 112th legislative session in 2011.

It has been explained by Legal scholar Phyllis Pease Chock that hearings such as these are sites of “cultural reproduction, as canonical versions of national myths and hegemonic ideology encompass the speakers' disparate renderings of events.” There has been a case of immigration policies like the DREAM Act in which the national myth perpetuated in the congressional hearing room is exclusionary nationalism. An example is a hearing that was subjugated by exclusionary nationalism is the House hearing that took place on May 18, 2007 with regards to the future of undocumented students. A brief but significant public space in which subordinated immigrant counter narratives could have challenged the exclusionary discourses of ...