The DREAM Act: Myth v. Reality

First introduced in 2001

Introduced several times throughout the past decade: 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010

Most recently re-introduced May 2011

DREAM History DREAM Provisions DREAM: Myth v. Reality Future of DREAM??

Conditional non-immigrant status if:

Under 29 years of age Arrived in U.S. at age 15 or younger Have been in U.S. for at least 5 years

Conditional non-immigrant status if: Graduated from American HS or obtained

GED “Good moral character” as defined by DHS Registers for Selective Service Underwent security and law-enforcement

checks

EXCLUDES non-immigrant status if:

Committed one felony or three misdemeanors

Engaged in voter fraud or unlawful voting Committed marriage fraud Abused a student visa

Conditional Permanent Residency:

At 6 year period must prove: Acquired college degree or two years in a

program for a bachelor’s degree Served at least 2 years in the armed forces or

have honorable discharge

Myth #1: Grants Automatic Citizenship to Illegal Immigrants

Myth #2: This is a Disguised Amnesty Program

Myth #3: Gives Scarce Aid Dollars to Non-Citizens

Myth #4: Costs Taxpayer’s Money Myth #5: Creates Magnet Effect Myth #6: Partisan Issue

Myth #1: Grants Automatic Citizenship

Fact #1: Students go through conditional nonimmigrant status AND conditional permanent residency status (NOT automatic citizenship)

Slide 11 © NASFAA 2011

Myth #2: Disguised Amnesty Program

Fact #2: Students themselves have committed no crime. And, DREAM does not simply grant automatic citizenship.

Slide 12 © NASFAA 2011

Myth #3: Gives our Scarce Aid Dollars to Non-citizens

Fact #3: DREAM students are only eligible for loans and FWS

Slide 13 © NASFAA 2011

Myth #4: DREAM Costs Taypayers Money

Fact #4: DREAM students would generate over $1 trillion in income over a 40-year period and the bill would reduce deficits by about $1.4 billion over 10 years.

Slide 14 © NASFAA 2011

Myth #5: Creates a Magnet Effect

Fact #5: According to recent research, immigration is actually down across the country.

Slide 15 © NASFAA 2011

Myth #6: DREAM is a Partisan Issue

Fact #6: DREAM has traditionally had bipartisan support

Current State Policies Regarding Undocumented Students (May, 2011)

Allows in-state tuition for some undocumented students and makes them eligible for state aid

New Mexico, Texas, California

Allows in-state tuition for some undocumented students but not state financial aid

Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin

Does not specifically allow in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants but has other tuition policies that result in many undocumented students paying in-state rates

Minnesota, Nevada

Explicitly prohibits undocumented immigrants from being granted in-state tuition

Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Oklahoma

Bans admission of undocumented immigrants at some or all public collegesAlabama (banned at public two-year colleges), Georgia (banned at selective public institutions), South Carolina (banned at all publics)

Unstipulated policy

Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut*, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon*, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming*Currently considering legislation that would allow in-state tuition for undocumented students^Currently considering legislation that would make undocumented students ineligible for in-state tuition

Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures (2011); Chronicle of Higher Education (2010, July 25); Russell (2011)

Admissions: In general, the admissions policies of public institutions are consistent with the policy environment of the states in which they are located

Tuition Policies: The majority of public institutions (86%) in states with inclusive tuition policies reported allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition; erring on the side of more restrictive in unstipulated environments

Financial Aid Policies: Erring on the side of more restrictive in unstipulated environments; 80% of institutions located in states with unstipulated or restrictive policies reported that they do not provide any kind of financial aid for undocumented students; private institutions are more likely than publics to award financial aid to undocumented; 92% of aid is institutional aid

Bring Us One Step Closer to Filling the 20 Million

Hole in College Educated Workers

Original supporter of the DREAM Act

Continued to support throughout the last decade

NASFAA Board recently voted unanimously to not only support the DREAM Act but to support administrative relief for otherwise DREAMers

Future of the DREAM Act