ARRIVED AS CHILDREN

ESTABLISH PROCESS FOR EARNING LEGAL STATUS

Undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children are frequently described as DREAMers. The term comes from the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), a bill first introduced in 2001 that would provide a rigorous vetting process by which the most deserving of this group could obtain legal status. It has been reintroduced every Congress since then but has not been enacted, though it came close in 2010.

View image
View image

The DREAM Act creates a three-step path by which those who entered the US before they were 18 (many of whom are now adults) can earn legal status. Those steps, as defined in the current version, are:

  1. Conditional Permanent Residence (CPR)—Those who qualify can obtain an initial “conditional status” for up to eight-years. They are permitted to work. They are required to pay standard federal income tax, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and state and local taxes. They do not qualify for Social Security, Medicare, or other welfare programs. Like all noncitizens, they are prohibited from voting. There are two main qualifications:
    • Education—Must have graduated from high school, obtained a GED, be currently in secondary school, or have been admitted to college.
    • Vetting—Must pass a rigorous initial background check in which they provide biometric and biographic data. That information is used to check an extensive set of databases to ensure that they meet several requirements, including:
      • Are Not Criminals—Cannot have one felony and must have three or fewer misdemeanors.
      • Are Not Security Risks—No links to “countries of special interest” or known terror groups.
      • Have Good Moral Character—Cannot have multiple DUI/DWI offenses (even if misdemeanors), illegal gambling history, or instances of lying to a government official or other history that would make them ineligible to become citizens.
  1. Legal Permanent Residence—Those who have maintained their CPR status can obtain permanent status (a Green Card). They still cannot vote. They pay taxes and can qualify for benefits like Social Security and Medicare. To get a Green Card, they must also have completed one of three tracks:
    • Education—Graduated from college or completed at least two years of a bachelor’s program.
    • Military—Completed at least two years of honorable service.
    • Worker—Demonstrated a consistent work history (usually at least three years of total employment).
  1. Citizens—After five years with a Green Card, they can apply to become citizens through the standard naturalization process with its usual requirements.

An estimated 2.5 – 2.8 million people would qualify to apply for Conditional Permanent Residence in the first step under the provisions of the current DREAM Act.

The Case For 

Proponents argue that minors are not responsible for arriving here as children. As in criminal court, minors are generally not held accountable in the same way as adults. Supporters observe that many arrived when they were very young. It’s inappropriate and unfair, they contend, to punish them for something for which they had little or no responsibility. Supporters note that, since DREAMers grew up and went to school here, they typically speak fluent English. Advocates note that they may not be fluent in the language of the country they came from or even know it all. Proponents observe that America is really home for them, and the country they came from feels like a foreign one.

Supporters argue that the three-step process provides a rigorous means of ensuring that the level of legal status granted, if any, reflects the confidence we can have that they will contribute productively without posing dangers.

Advocates cite the success of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, established during the Obama administration. While DACA provides only a temporary deferral from deportation and does not offer a pathway to permanent legal status, proponents argue it has had significant positive impacts. As of 2025, there were over 500,000 active DACA recipients, approximately 84% of whom participate in the labor force, contributing meaningfully to the US economy.

The Case Against

Arguments against granting status to those who came here as children through the DREAM Act are made from two opposing perspectives. The first is a generally skeptical perspective on immigration. Many of these opponents argue that no undocumented immigrants should be granted legal status. They ground this conclusion in a sense of fairness, arguing that granting amnesty—even to those brought as children—is unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who wait years, pay thousands in fees, and respect our laws to do it right. Furthermore, they emphasize a grave moral hazard: granting status actively encourages future parents to put their children in the hands of unscrupulous human smugglers for the dangerous journey to the US alone. In their eyes, granting legal status to DREAMers sets a precedent that will only lead to more illegal immigration in the future. These opponents who are skeptical of immigration argue that deportation is the only lawful option. US statute has been for decades that those here without status should be deported. It undermines the rule of law, they argue, to now change what was the law at the time they arrived here.

Other immigration skeptics agree that some who arrived as children might warrant status, but believe the DREAM Act is too permissive. They argue the criteria must be more restrictive. Specifically, many argue none should ever be granted a Green Card or citizenship. If they were, these opponents note, they could eventually sponsor the very adults who broke our laws to bring them here in the first place. Opponents who are skeptical of immigration also argue that many DREAMers arrived as older teenagers who were aware of their actions and can and should be held responsible. They also argue that once they reached adult age, they could have made a decision to end their undocumented status and leave but did not.

The second perspective from which arguments against the DREAM Act are made are supportive of immigration generally and DREAMers specifically. They argue that the current version of the DREAM Act is too restrictive. They generally take the arguments of DREAM Act proponents further. These opponents argue that, because these individuals were not responsible for entering the country as children without permission, they should not be treated so restrictively and harshly. They note that, given evidence that immigrants have lower crime rates than native-born citizens, we shouldn’t treat those who came here as children with the level of invasive and disrespectful screening that the rigorous three-step process establishes.