On Wednesday, Nov. 17, the Student Government Association Senate entertained a resolution that would have endorsed the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. After vigorously questioning the authors of the resolution, it was tabled to the Senate’s State & Federal Organizing Committee for further consideration and deliberation, much to the chagrin of some who were advocating for this particular resolution.
However, those who were brimming with anger at this action should understand that this is standard procedure in the SGA, especially for lengthy or hotly contested pieces of legislation. The purpose of tabling legislation to a committee is to work out its finer, more controversial points amongst senators who specialize in that legislation’s respective field. Furthermore, delegating debate on legislation to committees ensures that orderly and enlightened exchange may take place on the subject without exposing it to the often-chaotic exchanges on the Senate floor. This is chaos, which I myself have bore witness to all too often, and which serves no purpose aside from fueling division and political innuendo within the Senate.
Indeed, the entire purpose of legislatures is the careful and prudent deliberation of legislation specifically, and of the people’s business in general. Otherwise, what would be the point of having elected representatives, as well as a “little-r” republican system, in the first place? However, as I have elaborated in prior columns, humans are not angels, and are just as susceptible to the effects of group mania and passion as ever. Legislatures in this sense serve as a much-needed guarantor of liberty, and a bulwark against tyranny – the tyranny of unmitigated, unreasoned frenzy.
This specific type of tyranny has been, in years past, the disease that the SGA has fallen victim to en masse. The SGA acted in a manner congruent with what it perceived to be the “people’s will” regarding its constant agitation without any question as to “why” or “how” – the greatest and most calamitous error any self-described assembly can commit. In the process, it picked fights with external entities, both political and non-political, that it could not hope to win, and eschewed its student constituency in the process. Because of this repudiation of its own constituency, the SGA stoked the inferno of apathy, leaving only a few charred embers of political efficacy in its wake.
It is against this type of conduct – the passing of controversial, politically-charged pieces of legislation introduced the night of a given Senate meeting regardless of their impact upon the perception, efficacy, and relevance of the SGA – which the current leadership of the SGA has attempted to reform itself. The most recent Senate meeting was criticized by some for not “considering” the DREAM Act by virtue of its being handed to a committee for further deliberation. This is, in fact, one of the highest honors any piece of legislation can be afforded by the SGA. It demonstrates an innate desire to deliberate and discuss that legislation amongst a body of peers that specialize in its causes and effects. Unlike both chambers of the United States Congress, where pieces of legislation often “die in committee,” legislation that is sent to SGA committees has to either be voted down permanently or sent back to the Senate for final consideration.
One should not make the assumption, however, that the SGA as a whole is opposed to the DREAM Act just because it was delegated to a committee. The fact that the resolution regarding said act was delegated to the State & Federal Organizing Committee is not at all indicative of an up-or-down vote on the act itself, but rather, of the resolution endorsing the act. Historically, the SGA violated its own intrinsic principles as a deliberative governing body by not even debating such things in committee. Rather, their fates would play out in violent wars of oratory upon the senate floor itself. This contributed to a period of gross inefficiency and sloth within the SGA from which we are only now starting to recover.
It is this historical cycle of malfeasance that was considered when deliberating the fate of the aforementioned resolution. This, then, is precisely why the act was tabled to the State & Federal Organizing Committee – not out of prejudice or ill-will towards the act itself, but due to the realization that resolutions such as this should play themselves out on the level of the federal government, and not of the student government. Indeed, it is in the best interest of students that resolutions as controversial as these are tabled for the purposes of considering whether they really are in the interest of the majority of UMass students. If the SGA were to consign itself to the role of not merely an advocate for students, but an eternal agitator as it has in the past, then it would similarly consign its mandate to aid students with bread-and-butter, day-to-day issues to the dustbin of its history.
We stand on the precipice of a great new age in the history of the SGA. If we want to make this new age an efficacious one for the interest of students, then we must recognize the SGA’s dual role. It is an advocate for students on the administrative level and an interface and resource for them on the personal level. We cannot, however, allow the SGA’s role as an advocate to overtake its role as a buttress for the day-to-day efforts of its student constituency. The SGA cannot be, as Billy Joel so eloquently stated, an “angry young man,” with his “hand in the air and his head in the sand.”
Dan Stratford is a senator in the SGA and a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].
Hopeless • Nov 29, 2010 at 1:32 am
Fact: American’s pay more then $1 for a college supported by their tuition, state, and federal government. International students pay the full price.
Myth:Illegal aliens deserve the education because “they are victim of the circumstances.”
Fact:Americans first.
Just Noticing • Nov 28, 2010 at 12:05 pm
That “Info” and “Hope” appear to frequent the same advocacy websites, where they both enjoy cutting and pasting sections of the propaganda there in support the DREAM act. One problem though, there are at least three different versions of the DREAM act circulating around Congress, so I am just wondering which of the three “Info” and “Hope” are in favor of…………
Just Noticing
Hope • Nov 24, 2010 at 4:10 am
Myth: The DREAM Act uses taxpayer dollars for scholarships and grants to undocumented students.
Fact: The DREAM Act states that undocumented youth adjusting to lawful permanent resident status are only eligible for federal student loans (which must be paid back), and federal work-study programs, where they must work for any benefit they receive. They are not eligible for federal grants, such as Pell Grants.
Myth: The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to pay cheaper tuition than citizens.
Fact: The DREAM Act gives states the option to offer in-state tuition to students registered under DREAM, but it does NOT guarantee cheaper tuition. At most, the DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access the same benefits as their peers. The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access in-state tuition, but only if they would otherwise qualify for such tuition, and if state law permits undocumented students to receive in-state tuition.
Myth: The DREAM Act gives undocumented students and their families access to public benefits.
Fact: DREAM Act students receive no special benefits and are subject to the same public benefits eligibility requirements as other legal immigrants. This means that DREAM Act students and families are NOT immediately eligible for Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid (other than emergency care), and numerous other federal benefit programs. In general, a person must be here as a lawful permanent resident for five years before they receive non-emergency federal assistance.
Myth: The DREAM Act will result in a mass amnesty.
Fact: The DREAM Act is not an amnesty. No one will automatically receive a green card. To legalize, individuals have to meet stringent eligibility criteria: they must have entered the United States before age 16; must have been here for five years or more; must not have committed any major crimes; must graduate from high school or the equivalent; and must complete at least two years of college or military service. Eligible students must first obtain conditional residency and complete the requirements before they can obtain a green card—a process that will take years. Not all immigrants who came as young children will be eligible to legalize because they will not meet some of these requirements.
Myth: The DREAM Act will spur more illegal immigration because it rewards undocumented youth.
Fact: Programs like the DREAM Act, which have clear cut-off dates, offer no incentives for more illegal immigration. In order to qualify for the DREAM Act, a student must have entered the United States before the age of 16 and have lived in the U.S. for at least five years before the date of enactment. Economic conditions have far more impact on illegal immigration than specific pieces of legislation.
Myth: The DREAM Act isn’t just for students, but will benefit people of all ages.
Fact: Because the U.S. has failed to address the question of illegal immigration for more than a decade, an entire generation of young people’s skills and contributions could easily be lost. The young people who inspired the DREAM Act ten years ago may now be in their early 30s and should be eligible to benefit when it becomes law. Consequently, the DREAM Act encourages immigrants 35 or younger to attend college or join the military, but they must still have entered the U.S. before they were 16 AND have been here for five years immediately preceding the date of enactment.
Myth: The DREAM Act legalizes criminals and gang members and lets people who have already been ordered deported avoid the law.
Fact: Immigrants convicted of serious crimes are ineligible for DREAM Act status; the DREAM Act excludes from eligibility most immigrants applying for benefits who have been under an order of deportation. Specifically, the DREAM Act states that an applicant may not have already been ordered deported unless they received the order before they were 16 years old.
Myth: The DREAM Act lets students cut in line in front of other lawful immigrants.
Fact: DREAM Act students do not compete for visas with other applicants for legal permanent residence. Instead, DREAM Act creates a separate program for students that requires them to earn legal permanent residence by attending college or serving in the military for two years while in a temporary legal status. DREAM will not affect the number of visas available or the time it takes to get a visa for those entering through traditional legal immigration.
Myth: The DREAM Act would diminish opportunities for U.S.-citizen students.
Fact: According to the National Immigration Law Center:
Most undocumented students are likely to have zero impact on admission rates of native born students: Since 2001, 10 states have made it easier for undocumented state residents to attend college by offering in-state tuition to those that qualify. A significant portion of the students that took advantage of this opportunity have done so in community colleges, which have open enrollment. The small numbers of students who will attend 4-year universities are not significant enough to affect the opportunities of others.
Institutions charged with education of our youth overwhelmingly support the bill. Well-established education organizations like the American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, National Educators Association, the College Board, and prominent university presidents/chancellors support the DREAM Act.
Info • Nov 23, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Myth: The DREAM Act uses taxpayer dollars for scholarships and grants to undocumented students.
Fact: The DREAM Act states that undocumented youth adjusting to lawful permanent resident status are only eligible for federal student loans (which must be paid back), and federal work-study programs, where they must work for any benefit they receive. They are not eligible for federal grants, such as Pell Grants.
Myth: The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to pay cheaper tuition than citizens.
Fact: The DREAM Act gives states the option to offer in-state tuition to students registered under DREAM, but it does NOT guarantee cheaper tuition. At most, the DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access the same benefits as their peers. The DREAM Act allows undocumented students to access in-state tuition, but only if they would otherwise qualify for such tuition, and if state law permits undocumented students to receive in-state tuition.
Myth: The DREAM Act gives undocumented students and their families access to public benefits.
Fact: DREAM Act students receive no special benefits and are subject to the same public benefits eligibility requirements as other legal immigrants. This means that DREAM Act students and families are NOT immediately eligible for Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid (other than emergency care), and numerous other federal benefit programs. In general, a person must be here as a lawful permanent resident for five years before they receive non-emergency federal assistance.
Myth: The DREAM Act will result in a mass amnesty.
Fact: The DREAM Act is not an amnesty. No one will automatically receive a green card. To legalize, individuals have to meet stringent eligibility criteria: they must have entered the United States before age 16; must have been here for five years or more; must not have committed any major crimes; must graduate from high school or the equivalent; and must complete at least two years of college or military service. Eligible students must first obtain conditional residency and complete the requirements before they can obtain a green card—a process that will take years. Not all immigrants who came as young children will be eligible to legalize because they will not meet some of these requirements.
Myth: The DREAM Act will spur more illegal immigration because it rewards undocumented youth.
Fact: Programs like the DREAM Act, which have clear cut-off dates, offer no incentives for more illegal immigration. In order to qualify for the DREAM Act, a student must have entered the United States before the age of 16 and have lived in the U.S. for at least five years before the date of enactment. Economic conditions have far more impact on illegal immigration than specific pieces of legislation.
Myth: The DREAM Act isn’t just for students, but will benefit people of all ages.
Fact: Because the U.S. has failed to address the question of illegal immigration for more than a decade, an entire generation of young people’s skills and contributions could easily be lost. The young people who inspired the DREAM Act ten years ago may now be in their early 30s and should be eligible to benefit when it becomes law. Consequently, the DREAM Act encourages immigrants 35 or younger to attend college or join the military, but they must still have entered the U.S. before they were 16 AND have been here for five years immediately preceding the date of enactment.
Myth: The DREAM Act legalizes criminals and gang members and lets people who have already been ordered deported avoid the law.
Fact: Immigrants convicted of serious crimes are ineligible for DREAM Act status; the DREAM Act excludes from eligibility most immigrants applying for benefits who have been under an order of deportation. Specifically, the DREAM Act states that an applicant may not have already been ordered deported unless they received the order before they were 16 years old.
Myth: The DREAM Act lets students cut in line in front of other lawful immigrants.
Fact: DREAM Act students do not compete for visas with other applicants for legal permanent residence. Instead, DREAM Act creates a separate program for students that requires them to earn legal permanent residence by attending college or serving in the military for two years while in a temporary legal status. DREAM will not affect the number of visas available or the time it takes to get a visa for those entering through traditional legal immigration.
Myth: The DREAM Act would diminish opportunities for U.S.-citizen students.
Fact: According to the National Immigration Law Center:
Most undocumented students are likely to have zero impact on admission rates of native born students: Since 2001, 10 states have made it easier for undocumented state residents to attend college by offering in-state tuition to those that qualify. A significant portion of the students that took advantage of this opportunity have done so in community colleges, which have open enrollment. The small numbers of students who will attend 4-year universities are not significant enough to affect the opportunities of others.
Institutions charged with education of our youth overwhelmingly support the bill. Well-established education organizations like the American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, National Educators Association, the College Board, and prominent university presidents/chancellors support the DREAM Act.
Student • Nov 23, 2010 at 9:42 pm
I would agree with the person who wrote this column if the actual intention of the members of senate that made the request to have the resolution be sent to the State and Federal organizing Committee had been “to work out its finer, more controversial points amongst senators who specialize in that legislation’s respective field”.
This was not the intention since the sponsors clearly stated that voting on the resolution was a time sensitive issue. It was purposely done to stop the resolution from being voted on.
It is the responsibility of the senate to listen and discuss issues that are so close to the students. It is very sad that last Wednesday it was not the case.
AzEd • Nov 23, 2010 at 8:35 pm
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/dispelling-dream-act-myths
I support the Dream ACT!
Jim B • Nov 23, 2010 at 7:14 pm
What about the American kids in college that would have 2.1 million illegals fighting for the jobs that should be theirs??
The Dream Act is just a way to put 2.1 million more Americans out of work.
Francis • Nov 23, 2010 at 5:45 pm
THE DREAM ACT! ANOTHER TAXPAYERS NIGHTMARE–AMNESTY!
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS MUST READ THE FULL TEXT OF S 3827, BEFORE THEY CONDEMN THOSE AGAINST THE LAW. THIS DREAM ACT MUTANT LAW HAS MANY HEADS, THAT WILL HAVE BAD IMPLICATIONS ON OUR FUTURE. IT MUST BE TABLED AND THEN REVISED WITH COMMON SENSE?
READ the facts about the Dream Act and not the propaganda from Senator Harry Reid’s Liberal party leadership that must–END? Sen. Jeff Sessions put out the following release last week on the DREAM Act, that it’s an incremental illegal-alien amnesty bill. IT IS A VERY CAREFULLY PLANNED AMNESTY, FULL OF RHETORIC? BUT EVERY TAXPAYER NEEDS TO READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE WHITE PAPER. Remember your taxes are certain to accelerate upwards, to pay for all these indecent provisions. American citizens are already having money extorted from them to pay for the babies of illegal aliens born here, the education of illegal alien children, the health care for all family members and crammed prisons and jails for convicted illegal alien felons. All needs to to be paid for by your taxes? High on the list of Negatives is that the students, will be able to sponsor immediate family members under the chain migration law.
Not so much the students who would become naturalized citizens, but the chain migration that would snowball for all family members. As I have said before we are committing financial suicide, because the majority of guarantors never honor their affidavits to support the people they vouch? In the end the older family folks who have never paid into the Social Security system, become another public welfare liability. Hundreds of thousands or may be millions have been allowed into America on the surety of the original sponsor, who failed to support his-her immediate family. Over the years taxpayers have been confronted with this issue, as the US government never had the man-power to enforce this sponsorship law. Years of non-compliance has be come yet another Social Security, (SSI) Supplementary Income of Tax payers left to pay even heavier taxes in support of people who were sponsored and then neglected. The amount of money that cannot even be estimated, that is being appropriated every year to account for the illegal immigration invasion.
Another provision that misleads the public, is the fact that an illegal alien can join the military in this time of conflict and collect as a gaurantee a path to citizenship. Under under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months.
The invasion hasn’t stopped and never will until we cut of all welfare entitlements?
WANT THE REALITY OF COSTS? GOOGLE—Illegal immigrant costs and find out for yourself and then you decide? Then go to the Heritage Foundation website and it will explain with graphs, projections and text by the reputable in-depth analysis by Robert Rector.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-us-taxpayers-at-least-26-trillion
Next week will add further enticements for illegal immigrants to come here, if this Dream Act passes?
Here is the full text of the Dream Act (S. 3827: Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2010:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3827
These corrupted legislators will not even tell you the real costs, for settling instant-citizenship infants (Anchor Babies?) Here is the last chance to harass your Senator or Representative by phoning (202)224-3121. Challenge them to stop the Left wing zealots for planting another Amnesty in America called the DREAM ACT. HOW CAN SENATOR HARRY REID AND HIS HIERARCHY OF LIBERAL CRONIES, PUSH PASSAGE OF THE DREAM ACT WHEN 15 TO 22 MILLION AMERICANS ARE GROVELING FOR A JOB. IN MOST CASES ANY JOB TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES OR LOSE THEIR HOMES TO FORECLOSURE?
Upset • Nov 23, 2010 at 4:37 pm
It seems that you were in a different room on the night the SGA so “vigorously” questioned this resolution. In fact, there was no room for debate and the poor senators who sponsored the bill were yelled over and silenced. Shame on you for trying to skew your blunder in a better light. The fact is that you should have allowed for Amanda Jusino to talk, especially in light of the time constraint.
Unacceptable.
Student • Nov 23, 2010 at 6:25 am
I appreciate the sentiment of this article, but I disagree strongly with your opening argument: “After vigorously questioning the authors of the resolution, it was tabled to the Senate’s State & Federal Organizing Committee.”
Here’s how it really went down: Sponsors of the resolution stood up, SGA immediately tabled the issue, tabling temporarily overruled so that sponsors could at least speak, sponsors spoke very briefly, issue immediately tabled again. There was absolutely no opportunity for vigorous questions. The issue was only briefly presented, not discussed.