Those most skeptical of immigration argue that all undocumented immigrants who arrived as children should be deported. They ground this conclusion in a sense of fairness, maintaining 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 correctly. Granting status, they emphasize, also creates troubling incentives. It encourages future parents to put their children in the hands of unscrupulous human smugglers for the dangerous journey to the US. In their eyes, granting legal status to Dreamers will only lead to more illegal immigration. They maintain that deportation is the only lawful option. US statute has for decades declared that those here without status should be deported. It undermines the rule of law, they argue, to reward those who violated the law that was in effect when they arrived. Even if they weren’t responsible for coming as children, they assert that they knowingly violated the law by choosing to stay here.

Those who support the DREAM Act and oppose removal or leaving them here without status argue that minors are not responsible for arriving here as children. As in criminal court, minors are generally not held as accountable as adults. Many arrived when they were very young. It’s unfair, they contend, to punish them for something for which they had little or no responsibility.

Proponents observe that America is home for them and their birth country feels foreign. Dreamers grew up and went to school here. They typically speak fluent English and may not be fluent in, or even know, the language of the country they’d be deported to. For most, their closest family and friends are here. Many are now parents, own homes, and run businesses.

Supporters argue that the DREAM Act’s rigorous three-step process ensures that the legal status granted, if any, reflects the confidence we can have that they will contribute productively without posing dangers.

Advocates also cite the experience of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, established during the Obama administration, as evidence for the DREAM Act’s approach. DACA provides only temporary work authorization and deferral from deportation, not permanent legal status. Even so, as of 2025, over 500,000 people held DACA status, and about 84% participate in the labor force. Supporters argue the estimated 2.5 – 2.8 million Dreamers eligible under the DREAM Act would contribute the same way. It is particularly counterproductive, they contend, to deport so many contributing workers when our aging population means we need many more workers, not fewer.

Supporters also argue that both alternatives are clearly worse. Recent experience, they contend, has shown that deporting them all is costly and impractical. It also violates the value our nation puts on fairness, families, and compassion. Leaving them all here in limbo, they add, is unfair and unsafe. It keeps them as a permanent underclass of residents without the same rights and responsibilities as those with a form of legal status, and leaves them vulnerable to exploitation.

Finally, they argue that political opposition means that immediate access to the Green Card process is no option at all. 

Almost no one makes a strong affirmative argument for having those who arrived here as children stay here without status. Instead, some simply observe that it is the only realistic option. Congress is unlikely, they suggest, to agree on whom to deport and whom to grant status. They also maintain that deporting them all is impractical, prohibitively costly, and contrary to our nation’s values. They note that leaving them here without status would at least allow the millions of them to remain essential workers in core jobs essential to our economy that they are already doing. 

Some who support immigrants generally and Dreamers specifically argue that all three options—removal, the DREAM Act, and leaving them here without status—don’t treat those who arrived here as children with as much dignity and respect as they deserve. In fact, they assert that the DREAM Act is also unfair to Dreamers because it is too restrictive. We shouldn’t subject those who came here as children, they contend, to the invasive and disrespectful screening this rigorous three-step process establishes. It is also unfair, they add, to leave them here in limbo without status, subjecting them to the dangers that go with it. These advocates argue for immediate access to the full Green Card process like the amnesty granted in 1986.