Analysis of the Discourse Used by Supporters and Opponents of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (Dream Act)

ANALYSIS OF THE DISCOURSE USED BY SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, RELIEF AND EDUCATION FOR ALIEN MINORS ACT (DREAM ACT)

By:

Javier Barba Vazquez

A Discourse Analysis Presented to the Department of Public Policy and Administration School of Business and Public Administration

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, BAKERSFIELD

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Spring 2014

~ .L, U)\4

Dr. Chandrasekhar Commuri, Ph. D. Date

Approved~ 1<. /J1aif) Dr. Thomas Martinez, Ph. D. Date

Javier Barba Vazquez

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate my biggest accomplishment to my parents Jesus and Margarita and my siblings Miguel Angel, Antonio, Jaime, Rene and Jose Guadalupe†. I would have not made it this far in life without your unconditional support.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First I would like to thank God for guiding hand in my life throughout my graduate studies. I wish to thank my readers Dr. Commuri and Dr. Martinez for the direction and assistance while completing this thesis. In addition, I would thank Dr. Stanley Clark for supporting me during my entire graduate program and challenging me to perform at my best in each of my courses. Without these generous professors, it would have been extremely difficult to achieve this goal. Furthermore, I would like to recognize my colleague Rogelio “Roy” Alvarado for working alongside with me during these past two years, especially at the times we wanted to give up. Finally, I whole-heartedly appreciate the support everyone else offered me during these past two years.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………..ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………….iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………...v

CHAPTER ONE…………………………………………………………………………1

Introduction……………………………………………………………………….1

History of the DREAM Act…….………………………………………………1-4

Purpose of Study……………….…………………………………………………4

Procedure of Study…………….…………………………………………………4

Importance of Study…………….………………………………………………..5

CHAPTER TWO………………………………………………………………………...6

Arguments in support of the passage of the DREAM Act…………………6-14

Arguments against the passing of the DREAM Act……………………....14-19

CHAPTER THREE…………………………………………………………………….20

Introduction……………………………………………………………………..20

Websites that support and oppose the DREAM Act………………………...20-27

George Lakoff’s Views on Framing and Immigration…………………..…28-31

CHAPTER FOUR………………………………………………………………………32

Discourse Analysis Used by the Two Groups…………………………...………32

Principle #1 What has the party done right to successfully frame the issue from

their perspective?...... 32-34

Principle#2 Do the parties frame the truth to the issues effectively?...... 35-36

iii

Principle#3 Do the parties speak from their moral perspective at all times?36-37

CHAPTER FIVE……………………………………………………………………….38

Summary…………………………………………………………………….…..38

Recommendation #1………………………………………………………....38-39

Recommendation #2………………………………………………………….…39

Recommendation #3………………………………………………………….…40

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...40-41

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………...42-46

APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………..47

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The issue related to young undocumented students has captured the attention of scholars, politicians and general public. The Development, Relief, Education for Alien Minor Act

(DREAM Act) has been proposed various times and has failed to become a law.

Supporters of the bill argue that it will generate numerous benefits, motivate students to attain a higher education and will benefit the United States military. Opponents argue that the bill rewards illegal activity, is a backdoor amnesty, a cost to taxpayers and is unfair to natives. This research analyzes the discourse used by proponents and supporters of the bill. The discourse is critiqued using George Lakoff’s (2004) principles to frame a debate.

The author analyzed 3 websites that favor the DREAM Act and 3 websites that oppose it.

The supporting websites are United We Dream, Hispanic Association of Colleges and

Universities and National Council for La Raza and the opposing websites are

NumbersUSA, Center of Immigration Studies, and Federation for American Immigration

Reform. The supporting websites frame their issue around fairness, family unity, equality, and opportunity. Supporters refer to potential beneficiaries as DREAMers, youth, hardworking youth, and undocumented immigrant students. Opponents use the label “illegal aliens” and frame this issue as an economic disaster, amnesty, and opportunity to take jobs away from natives. The author recommends to proactively, rather than reactively, advocate, promote and strategize in order to get the bill passed in the future. Secondly, the label criminals, illegals and aliens should not be used because it dehumanizes them and the communities in which they live in. The third recommendation is to replace the negative labels with children and kids because these labels are more likely to gain the additional support needed to pass the bill.

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

There have been various legislative efforts presented in order to legalize undocumented students. Providing a pathway to legalization for thousands of undocumented students has been a hot political debate since 2001. The Development,

Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) is designed to assist undocumented students obtain legal status if they meet strictly defined requirements. The

DREAM Act has been proposed various times and has failed to become a law. Supporters and opponents of this issue have voiced their respective arguments about this issue.

Supporters argue benefits to economics, cultural assimilation and educational incentives.

Opponents call it a back-door amnesty, burden on taxpayers and rewards for criminality.

These opposing views clearly have captured Americans attention in all forms.

This research will describe the background of the current DREAM Act and previous versions of the bill. The major part of will analyze the political discourse used by the proponents and opponents. This paper will critique both sides using George

Lakoff’s (2004) principal model from his book “Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate.”

The history of the DREAM Act

Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Richard Urbin (D-IL) first introduced the

DREAM Act in the congress in 2001. The purpose was to give undocumented immigrant minors an opportunity to attain higher education opportunities and provide a path to receive full and legal citizenship. The requirements listed were entering the country before age 16, being between the age of 12 and 35 at the time the bill was enacted, attend

college for two years, and demonstrate good moral character. This bill was not passed, but failure only boosted supporters’ desire to continue working to get it passed.

The DREAM Act was included in the Comprehensive Reform Acts proposed in

2006 and 2007, respectively. Indeed, the bill was included in the Security Though

Regularized and a Vibrant Economy Act (STRIVE Act) of 2007, which would set various conditions that must be met before implementing a worker program and legalizing illegal immigrants. All of these proposals including a stand-alone one failed to pass (Harvard

Journal on Legislation, 2011).

In 2007, Senator Durbin proposed adding the DREAM Act as an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill of 2008, his intention being to tie the defense bill and exploit the recruitment status by providing the option to enlist in the military via the DREAM Act. Even with the strong support from the military, the bill failed. Senator Durbin was eager to see his bill pass so he teamed up with Republicans

Richard Lugar and Mel Martinez and introduced the bill as part of another one, which aimed to repeal the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy and would be attached to the National

Defense Act for 2010. The Defense Authorization Bill surprisingly failed and mainly pointed at the fact the DREAM Act was part of it. In 2010, Senator Durbin once again presented the bill without any Republican support. The bill was able to pass the House, but the Senate purposely postponed the vote to distract attention from it and see its support fade (Harvard Journal on Legislation, 2011).

The Immigration Policy Center (2012) provides a demographic profile of

DREAMers living in the United States. This report outlines the approximate total number of DREAMers, country of origin and states in which they reside. As of October 2012,

there are about 1,764, 542 undocumented immigrants who are potential beneficiaries of the DREAM Act. Out of the 1.8 million, 71% come from Mexico, 14% from North or

Central America, 6% from Asia, 6% from South America, 2% from Europe and 1% from other countries. The top 5 states in which DREAMers reside are California (539,774),

Texas (298,133), Florida (106,481), New York (88,889), and Illinois (83,088).

Supporters of this legislation argue that the nation’s economy will be impacted the most by the implementation of the DREAM Act. Receiving more education will allow

“DREAMers” to access higher paying jobs, which will turn into higher incomes to collectively boost the economy. It is estimated that revenue will increase by $2.3 billion in the next 10 years and 329 billion by 2030 (Guzman & Jara, 2012). This means that

DREAMers will have more money spend on houses cars and technology to stimulate the economic crisis. Reducing the number of dropout rates will also benefit education itself.

Students will now see a real incentive to staying school and finishing high school.

Those who oppose the bill argue that this bill directly rewards those who break the law. Arriving to this country by choice or not does not justify breaking legal immigration policies. In addition, the act will affect the economy because it will be funded by hard working and law-abiding citizens who will have to pay loans and financial Aid. Furthermore, it is unfair to charge undocumented students in-state tuition while charging U.S. citizens higher out of state tuition. This bill will also protect criminals who meet the qualifying criteria and will not be deported because they are covered under the act (Bruno, 2010).

Purpose of the study

The issue with undocumented students has been presented various times in the past years and continues to fail to become a law. This paper will analyze the political discourse used by proponents and opponents of the DREAM Act. Discourse analyses are utilized to examine the framing of the issue and the wording used to define the problem.

Luntz (2007) concludes that in politics, the difference between those proposals that move on or fail to become a law is the way arguments are framed. It is important to analyze this issue because many of the undocumented children are being restrained from attaining a higher education and become significant contributors to the economy. Their knowledge, skills are abilities are being ignored and, as research will show; the failure to pass the bill is economically costly. The research analysis will be formed using the principal model used in George Lakoff’s (2004) book, “Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate.”

Procedure of the Study

This analysis will look closer into the discourse used by the proponents and opponents of the DREAM Act by applying Lakoff’s (2004) principles to shape a debate. The following ideals are used to create Lakoff’s faming model.

1. What has the party done right to successfully frame the issue from their

perspective?

2. Do the parties frame the truth to the issues effectively?

3. Do the parties speak from their moral perspective at all times?

Importance of the Study

Given that various versions of the DREAM Act have failed, this paper will help campaigns, legislators and proponents of the issue frame their debate on Lakoff’s (2004) principles in the future. The issue with young undocumented students will continue to be an issue in American politics for years to come. The issue of framing discourse to communicate the prominence of the DREAM Act is vital to its success in the future. This paper will help DREAM act supporters identify areas in which they have to improve on or points that will make their case stronger. This paper will highlight the importance of the DREAM Act and provide discourse models to use as a guide to help frame a much stronger and persuasive version in the future.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

The DREAM Act is a well-established policy issue in the United States of

America. While this piece of legislation has been worked on to become a bill, the media, scholars, proponents and opponents of this issue have generated a great variety of books, peer-reviewed articles, websites, and publications on the issue. This literature review will look closely into the different forms of research done on this particular bill. With both sides being very animated and assured of their stance, the issue only becomes more and more heated. The first section of this literature review will consist of supporting arguments for the passage of the DREAM Act, by which it creates economic benefits, serves as an incentive to continue the educational pathway, and aids the military recruiting. Secondly, the opponents’ arguments will be analyzed that the DREAM Act is a reward for illegal activity, a backdoor amnesty, a cost to taxpayers and an unfairness for natives.

Arguments in support of the passage of the DREAM Act

The main argument as to why the DREAM Act should pass is based on its numerous economic benefits. Many scholars have provided evidence showing that the

DREAMers will contribute to the economy if it becomes a law. The economic argument is the most central debate especially because the country it’s digging itself out of an economic crisis. Hinojosa-Ojeda et al. (2010) analyzed the income that would be generated by the 2.1 million potential beneficiaries in a 40-year period if they met education and military requirements. These authors calculated that the beneficiaries

would generate a total income of $1.4 trillion current dollars if the legislation does not pass. However, if the DREAM Act would pass, those who benefited would produce $3.6 trillion over the same 40-year period.

Furthermore, Guzman and Jara (2012) aimed to project the monetary amount that

DREAM Act beneficiaries would contribute by 2030. The authors used data from the

America Community Survey to calculate the number of beneficiaries of act from 2006-

2010. The sample used the IMPLAN model to measure how the contributions would create jobs, economic growth and increased revenues. Their results showed that the

DREAM Act would directly impart on the economy with $148 billion and $181 billion indirectly. They further projected 1.4 million new jobs will be created, $5.6 billion in state and federal household income tax revenues, and $4.6 billion in federal business tax revenues. They report the total economic impact for 2.1 million DREAMers will be $329 billion. Their results imply that by 2030 the eligible DREAMErs will earn 19 percent more than without the passage of it. “This study’s findings are clear: Passage of the

DREAM Act would improve the American economy and contribute to the economic recovery and our future economic stability” (p.3).

The Immigration Policy Center (2007) identified some of the costs of ignoring undocumented students. There is no doubt about the economic advantages of higher education for both workers and the economy. According to the Bureau Labor of Statistics

(2007), workers without a high school diploma in 2006 earned about $419 a week and had an unemployment rate of 6.8%. Those with a bachelor’s degree earned about $962 a week and dealt with a 2.3% unemployment rate. Individuals with a doctorate degree

earned $1,441 with an unemployment rate of 1.4%. These numbers show that higher

education not only assures a greater income, but also leads to a lower unemployment rate.

Orrenius and Zavodny (2012) highlight the young undocumented population

makes up about 5% of the workforce. Indeed, the authors state that legalization removes

the risk of employer sanctions and allows undocumented immigrants to find better jobs

and earn higher returns on their education. Research used in the study states that

employment rates fell for immigrants who were legalized under IRCA, and men became

more selective about the jobs they kept. Women exited the workforce because they

qualified for government programs as soon as they became legal. Labor markets worsen

for natives as they seen newly immigrant, who are determined to work righteously, compete with them for their jobs.

Passing the DREAM Act would not only increase revenues, it will also save taxpayers money (Immigration Policy Center, 2010). This piece of literature highlighted that the House version of the DREAM Act introduced in December 2010 would minimize the deficits by $2.2 billion over from 2011-2020. Furthermore, the Senate version of the DREAM Act, presented in November 2010 would also cut deficits by $1.4 billion over the same time period.

Lee’s (2006) cost-benefit analysis of the DREAM Act highlighted that the contributions will outweigh the costs to society. The author noted there is no clear evidence that undocumented immigrants create a loss to the United States. Indeed, undocumented immigrants pay the same taxes as the average Americans and they are not eligible for tax refunds, which totaled more than $2 billion in the 2001 tax cycle. The undocumented immigrants’ income is mostly spent within the United States, which

contradict the belief that the money is sent back to their home countries. Lee states that in

2004, Latin American workers earned about $450 billion collectively and 90 percent of that money was spent in the U.S. The author provided an estimate from the

Congressional Budget Office that if the DREAM Act would cost $90 million over the

2004-2014 year period if it had passed in 2004. He assumed that beneficiaries would pay no less than $7,400 in federal taxes that collectively makes the $90 million cost of implementing it look small. Furthermore, his analysis notes that doubling the number of bachelor’s degrees among the undocumented would result in a $7.6 billion increase in tax contributions and a $5.4 billion decrease in public pending for social welfare, health and law enforcement programs.

The Congressional Budget Office (2010) provided estimates of the implementation of the S. 3992 in 2010. This analysis expands on the aforementioned statement about the reduction of benefit usage in the United States. This report shows that the S. 3992 would increase the reporting of employment income which would add to receipts from both social services taxes. This bill is estimated to boost Social Security outlays by $77 million and Medicare outlays by $29 million over the 2011-2020 year period. In addition, beneficiaries would be charged about $700 to provide certification of conditional non-immigrant status that would reduce Department of Homeland Security’s net outlays by $155 million.

Mahony (2012) assures that the DREAM Act is an investment in our nation, not a drain on our resources. Furthermore, he explained “the failure of the United State Senate to pass the DREAM Act at the end of 2010 was a tragedy of two counts” (467). The first was that thousands of young men and women have concluded their college and university

studies and cannot help the economy recover because they do not possess a legal status.

Secondly, he brings the point that taxpayers have contributed huge amounts of money to educate these people, therefore they deserve to continue their education to become productive taxpayers rather than tossing them aside at a time in which they are fully capable of contributing to the economy and pay taxes.

New York City’s mayor Michael Bloomberg, who wholeheartedly supports the

DREAM Act, said, “They are just the kind of immigrants we need to help solve our unemployment problem. It is senseless for us to chase out the home-grown talent that has the potential to contribute so significantly to our society” (Durbin, 2011). Espinoza

(2008) points out young immigrants’ contribution to help businesses and the economy fill crucial needs. Given that these people are restricted from their desired jobs, they have no option but to enter the cash economy which includes, but not limited to, domestic servants, day laborers, and sweatshop factory workers.

The second argument in support of the DREAM Act is that it will serve as an incentive to students to continue the educational pathway and put their degree in practice.

Senator Durbin (2010) shared why he introduced the DREAM over a decade ago. A

Korean woman living in Chicago contacted him. Her oldest daughter was a talented classical pianist. Her talent got her accepted to Juilliard Music School, one of the best in the country. Her daughter’s dream vanished in a matter of seconds as she learned that she was brought to the United States at the age of 2 without proper documentation. This highly talented young girl did not even know she was living here without proper documentation and was not able to receive any kind of financial assistance to continue her education. Durbin argued that her situation was fundamentally unfair, just like those

of 65,000 undocumented students who graduate from high school every year. “Plyer v

Doe ruled that without an education, these undocumented children would become permanently locked into the lowest socioeconomic class” (Espinoza, 2008, 18). This rationale is expanded to post-secondary education because a high school diploma is not sufficient to live a more advantaged lifestyle.

Glickman (2011) analyzes U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan testimony to

Congress in support of the DREAM Act. Duncan justifies the passing of this bill because it’s crucial to meeting national goals and workforce needs and to send the right message that the value of hard work is a sense of fairness. Furthermore, in Duncan’s testimony she stated, “The DREAM Act is an common-sense piece of legislation that is keeping with core American values. It will open the doors to higher education to those individuals who were brought to America by their parents as undocumented children. And in the process we will sustain our economic competitiveness into the future” (p.1). Duncan’s statement reinforces the President Obama’s 2020 goal for America to once again be the country with the higher proportion of college graduates with higher education “an economic growth engine and ticket to a middle-class lifestyle” (p.1).

Gonzalez (2009) pointed out that investments in the K-12 education mandated by

Plyer v Doe are lost when an undocumented student’s skills and abilities are ignored once they graduate high school. These are students who, along natives, were motivated to excel academically and prioritize the value of education, but face major obstacles in continuing their education. Gaston Caperton, President of the College Board, whose mission is to connect students with academic success and opportunity, stated “The

College Board is working to remove the barriers to a college education for all students.

Undocumented students deserve the same chance to go to college and fully participate in our society as other students. The DREAM Act would provide a way for them to fulfill thei dreams and legally contribute to U.S. society. We must not turn our backs on these deserving young people”(p.1). Antonio Flores, President and CEO of the Hispanic

Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), has similar perceptions as Caperton about the DREAM Act. He argues that the DREAM Act will benefit deserving students who have met the exact same academic requisites as their college-bound peers, but are denied financial aid and in-state tuition provided to other students.

Gin (2010) identifies some of the struggles and difficulties college counselors encounter when they assist undocumented students and justifies why they are worthy of consideration. First, undocumented students have proven their ability to succeed regardless of the innumerable obstacles they have faced. These individuals have left their homelands and everything they knew as children to adapt to a complete different culture and language. In many instances, they lack assistance from their family to complete the coursework and prevail during undesirable situations. These students are not asking for anything, but the same consideration as other students who are now ready to apply for college. Helping them attain their dream will reinforce the fact that the United States is a country that rewards those who work hard with increased opportunities. Their experience alone is enough to make them role models for younger family, friends and natives who have literally taken everything for granted. Their determination and courage aspire others to do well in school and think positively about their communities and become productive members of our society.

The third argument in favor of the DREAM Act is that it will benefit the United

States military. Undocumented immigrants call this place home, and they demonstrate it by fighting for our freedom. Senator Durbin (2010) asserts that military experts also support the DREAM Act. Lieutenant Colonel Margaret Stock, a professor at West point concluded the “Passage of the DREAM Act would be highly beneficial to the United

States Military. The DREAM Act promises to enlarge dramatically the pool of highly qualified recruits for the U.S. Armed Forces” (p.278). Furthermore, DREAMers will easily qualify because they will have demonstrated good moral character and no criminal record. Within Durbin’s (2010) research, he includes a Center for Naval Analysis, which concluded that “noncitizens have high rates of success while serving – they are far more likely, for example to fulfill, their enlistment obligations.” (P. 278).

Espinoza (2008) noted there are currently 60,000 immigrants registered for active duty. He argued that passing the DREAM Act will help fill the military’s rank with quality people and meet its recruitment goals. Indeed, he signaled that the Army expects to have an annual shortage of 3,000 officers through 2013 as it increases its ranks by

40,000 soldiers. In alignment with Margaret Stock’s conclusions, DREAMers will help fill the gaps with enthusiastic, determined and well-qualified recruits.

Stock (2006) expands on the military benefits that the DREAM Act would bring.

Her article begins with the story of four undocumented students from Mexico who participated in the third annual Marine Advanced Technology Education Center’s

Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Competition. These four outstanding undocumented students surprised everyone as they beat sophisticated competitors from the Massachusets

Institute of Technology by building the best underwater robot. Despite winning this

competition, Oscar Vazquez was told that his undocumented status kept him from joining the military. Title 10, United States Code, section 3253 states, “In time of peace, no person be accepted for original enlistment in the Army unless he is a citizen of the United

States or has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence” (p.65). However, the author shares that the laws regarding military enlistment do not prohibit the Armed

Forces from enlisting even undocumented people during wartime. Furthermore, Stock

(2006) indicates that enlisting in the military will fulfill one of the requirements of the

DREAM Act. Attending college is costly across the board, so enlisting in the military is a reasonable alternative to fulfill the requirement and be part of the beneficiaries that the

DREAM Act. This bill will provide a “win-win” scenario for the Department of Defense and the United States by keeping talented, bilingual and clean-record individuals to fight for United States of America.

Arguments against the passing of the DREAM Act

One of the main arguments against the passing of the DREAM Act is that is economically hurtful to taxpayers. Martin and Ruark (2010) report estimates of the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level. Their study includes the tax collections of illegal immigrants in the over-ground and underground economy in the states of California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York,

Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. In addition, this study examines the costly consequences if an amnesty like the one in 1986 was to pass. Among the various findings, the authors’ point out that the total cost per year at all government levels is $113 billion. Indeed, education for children of illegal aliens is the single largest cost to taxpayers, an incredible amount of nearly $52 billion. The 11 states that participate in the

study totaled nearly $244 million annually in funding higher education for illegal immigrants. Furthermore, the results identified that about one third of the expenditures are recuperated by tax collections at the federal level and less that 5 percent at the state and local level. These authors quoted a study by the Center of Immigration Studies that found households headed by illegal aliens cost $26.3 billion to the federal government in

2002. During this time, illegal immigrants only paid $16 billion, which created a net loss of $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per household.

Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research at the Center of Immigration Studies, provided data that reinforces this argument that funding higher education is expensive. In his research, Camarota (2010) breaks down the cost that will be invested on each illegal immigrant who attends public institutions. He calculates that roughly 1.038 million new students will be able to attend public institutions of higher learning and assumes that 80 percent will attend community colleges while the other 20 will attend state universities.

The average cost per student will be about $5,970, which adds up to $6.2 billion a year for each year they are enrolled. The author points out “the 6.2 billion estimated cost reported above would have to be absorbed by state and local governments already struggling to close massive budgets shortfalls” (p.4). Given that enrollment are limited, public institutions will be forced to require tax and tuition increases in order to expand enrollment (Camarota, 2010).

Camarota (2010) challenges the so-called long term benefits of passing the

DREAM Act. He highlighted the requirement that at least two years of college must be completed. With this in mind, the difference in earnings between high school graduates and those with some college are not so great. To prove his point, he stated, “In 2009,

foreign-born Hispanic high school graduates earned 77 percent as much as someone who had attended college, but not received a degree.” Furthermore, the long-run tax increase must take into account the fact that the passage of the DREAM Act will reduce the lifetime earnings of U.S citizens who will be crowded out by opportunities provided to illegal aliens.

Sohoni (2006) mentioned easily exploited-high skilled laborers from different parts of the world are replacing skilled American workers. The group includes professionals in the field of medicine, dentistry, engineering computer programing among others. Illegal immigrants are unwanted by many people because take jobs away from those who are here legally. People who were born and raised and who abide law day by day have to worry about strangers who come from another country with the intent of taking their job away. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (2013) provides data that supports the fact illegal immigrants take jobs away. The authors explain that illegals come to work and are willing to get paid less. They may not be too concerned as to how low they are getting paid because their wages easily surpass what they made in their country of origin.

In addition, the fact that IRCA 1986 did a poor job at enforcing regulations to deter employers from hiring illegals, allows them to use fake papers or participate in underground economy and get away with it. Furthermore, those whose visas expired also fall in this category as they make up about 40% of the illegal population. The article signals that about 8 million out of the 11 million illegal immigrants are currently active in the workforce, which is about 71.4%. Currently, illegal aliens have taken about 8.5 million jobs away from natives. California is the number one state where illegals work,

followed by Texas as the only two states that surpass the 1 million mark at 1,887,695 and

1,296,670, respectively.

Orrenius and Zavodny (2012) argue legalization removes the risks of employer sanctions and allows undocumented immigrants to find better jobs and earn higher returns on their education. Research used in the study states that employment rates fell for immigrants who were legalized under IRCA and men became more selective about the jobs they kept. Women exited the workforce because they qualified for government programs as soon as they became legal. Labor markets worsen for natives as they see new immigrants, who are determined to work righteously, compete with them for their jobs.

The fiscal effects of legalizing undocumented immigrants will lead to an increase in income and payroll taxes revenue, thus reducing the likehood of jobs that pay under the table. Legalizing the illegals will make them eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, cash welfare, disability, Social Security and Medicare. This means that they will be able to receive more assistance that would outweigh the amount of dollars they contribute which totaled three dollars for every paid (Martin & Ruark, 2010).

The second argument against the passing of the DREAM Act is that it will reward those who violated the law by providing them benefits that are already available to natives. Kobach (2006) states legalizing illegal aliens is a clear reward for violating federal immigration law. She adds that it repeals the Illegal Immigration Reform and

Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 because it offers in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens who aim to attend higher education institutions. She condemns the policy that subsidizes college education for illegal aliens. First, she states that in-state tuition laws amount to giving illegal aliens a taxpayer-financed education in contrast to out-of

state students who have to pay full costs even when tuition rates are rising across the country. Secondly, she argues that aliens are being encouraged to continue violating federal immigration law. This serves as a great idea to legal students who have a visa and pay full tuition because they will let it expire and qualify for instate tuition. “Third, not only are such laws unfair to aliens who follow the law, but they are slaps in the face of law-abiding American citizens” (p.3).

Mehlman (2011) states the DREAM Act rewards parents as well for breaking the law in the first place. Most parents would attempt to justify their children’s’ illegality by claiming they did it because they wanted the best for their family. Their intentions are totally valid, but the act is not justified under any circumstances. The author adds that the

DREAM Act will send the message that even if the immigration laws are broken; the

American legal citizens will be there to responsibly fix the mess created by the parents.

Espinoza (2008) also argues that the bill would provide incentives for breaking the law.

He quotes Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) that the bills is seen as a contradictory message when immigration law embraces deportation of aliens for illegal and allowing them to attend school to remain in the country forever. Bruno (2007) states that funding the education of illegal aliens should be the responsibility of their parents or their home countries. He coincides with aforementioned authors that it is unfair to charge these students in-state tuition, while charging other U.S. citizens higher out-of-state tuition.

Thirdly, opponents argue that the DREAM Act is an amnesty that will be susceptible to fraud, and increase the number of illegals that come to this country. Plain and simple, Americans fear that the DREAM Act will bring similar outcomes as the

IRCA in 1986. Orrenius and Zavodny (2001) state that the 1986 legislation failed to

reduce unauthorized immigration and the number of illegal immigrants exponentially increased from 3 million to over 12 million today. If illegal immigrants bring their children to this country and see that they are legalized, what guarantees that future generations will not think the same and expect a future version of the DREAM Act?

Krikorian (2010) explains that the core principle behind an amnesty is that it’s aimed to those who are here illegally yet psychologically and emotionally Americans.

Furthermore, the author warns that all amnesties have three harmful consequences: massive fraud, attracts illegal immigration and rewards illegal activity. The author expands on the potential for fraud and states that perhaps one-fourth of those legalized through IRCA in 1986 provided fraudulent information including the leader of the first

World Trade Center Attack, Mahmud Abouhalima. DREAM Act proposals are also a magnet for fraud as many will claim to being here during the time frame noted in the requirements in order to qualify.

CHAPTER THREE

Introduction

Reviewing and analyzing the proponent and opponent groups’ framing of

DREAM Act and the discourse they use to continuously support their argument will benefit those who aim to frame a particular issue from either side. The research will be used in conjunction with Lakoff’s (2004) principles to frame their specific debate. Given that the Internet is a vastly used source of information, stakeholders will be able to portray their points and convey their messages to millions of Americans. The beginning of the chapter will outline the research design, and methodology. The second part will include a relatively detailed description of the groups support and argue the passing of the

DREAM Act. The third part will include a review of the Lakoff’s (2004) book Don’t think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate along with his views on the framing of immigration used by conservatives and progressives. The final part of the analysis will show how the six groups framed their argument and analyze the discourse using Lakoff’s (2004) principles.

Websites that support and oppose the DREAM Act

This author will study the discourse used by supporters and opponents of the provisions included in the DREAM Act. This is a very important because, as mentioned before, the way an issue is framed by a Website will determine what kind of audience and support will accumulate. In addition, framing will help define the problem in a way that will influence Americans, including legislators’, view on the DREAM Act. This qualitative research will use Lakoff’s (2004) principles model to analyze the following websites: United We DREAM (UWD), The National Council of La Raza (NCLR),

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), which support the DREAM

Act and Numbers USA, Center of Immigration Studies (CIS) and Federation for

American Immigration Reform (FAIR) which oppose it.

United We Dream (UWD)

The United We Dream (UWD) began as nascent movement in the mid-2000’s in efforts to advocate and promote equal access for immigrant youth The DREAM Act was one of the major motives for this group to come together. This group is the known as the largest immigration youth-led organization in the nation and is made up of 52-affiliate organizations in 25 states. Their mission is to organize and advocate for the dignity and fair treatment of immigrant youth regardless of their status. Their main goal is to win citizenship for the entire undocumented community and stop deportations to keep families together.

When the DREAM Act failed to pass in 2007, this network came together to reflect on the campaign, approach and other strategies to obtain the needed votes in

Congress. Their efforts were aimed to build an immigrant youth movement that would work to pass the DREAM Act and reshape immigrant rights. In addition, this group has fought for access to higher education and legal status for undocumented immigrant youth and recently included the families and community of DREAMers.

In 2011, UWD solidified a regional infrastructure composed of the eight regions:

New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Mid-South, Midwest, Mid-North, Northwest, and

Southwest. Within this group, 1,200 immigrant youth leaders were trained on organizing and advocating through regional trainings, national meetings and National Congress.

These successfully trained youth leaders have kept the difficulties of undocumented

immigrant youth in the media and policy discourse. Furthermore, UWD advocated for

administrative relieve for undocumented immigrant youth through the “Right to Dream”

Campaign. This campaign was composed of legal research, and mobilization of

immigrant youth, brought leaders from labor and civil rights to ask Obama’s

Administration to stop detaining and deporting immigrant youth. As a result, President

Obama announced the executive order to grant relief to eligible DREAMers through

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) on June 15th, 2012. UWD frames the

issue of the DREAM Act as a form of providing equal educational opportunities to

immigrant youth. In addition, they seek to address the inequities and obstacles faced by

these immigrant youth as they work towards becoming recognized individuals in this

country.

National Council of La Raza (NCLR)

The second Website being analyzed that is in favor of the passage of the DREAM

Act is the NCLR. NCLR is the “largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization

in the United States- who works to improve the opportunities for Hispanic Americans”

(National Council of La Raza, 2014). This organization was founded in 1968 and has

nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations and reaches Hispanics in 41 of

states, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. Efforts to help Hispanics trace back to the

1960’s following World War II in order to deter school and housing segregation.

NCLR has shown its support for the passage of the DREAM Act and argue that

this bill will keep DREAMers by “providing a path to U.S. citizenship for hardworking

and talented immigrant students who have been raised in the U.S. is critical to improving

the pipeline from high school to college and providing meaningful employment for

Latinos” (National Council of La Raza, 2007, p. 2). Furthermore, NCLR believes the

DREAM Act rewards their hard work, and eliminates the punishment children have faced for a decision they did not make. Failure to pass it will be costly because they are being denied the opportunity to enhance their well developed skills to pursue a college education. This group urges supporters of the DREAM Act to sign petitions designed to convince Congressmen that passing is in the best interest of the nation and it will cost millions of tax dollars to send DREAMers back to a home country with which they have no significant connection.

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU)

The third Website in support of the DREAM Act that will be analyzed is HACU, and it is found at http://www.hacu.net/hacu/default.asp. HACU was founded in 1986, and their mission is to promote the development of member colleges and universities, improve access to quality post-secondary educational opportunities for Hispanic students, and meet the needs of business, industry and government by sharing resources, information and expertise (Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, 2014). As of 2014, HACU represents over 400 Hispanic-serving colleges and universities throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, South America, Spain and Portugal.

HACU recognizes the DREAM Act as a powerful tool to advocate for Hispanic higher education. In efforts to persuade Congress to pass the bill, HACU organized and staffed the “American for Dream Coalition” which was composed of 25 national education and advocacy groups. HACU President and CEO Antonio R. Flores has praised the new version of the DREAM Act because it is the most reasonable version and includes provisions to provide STEM funding to Hispanic-serving institutions. Flores

also applauded Janet Napolitano and the Obama administration for deportation relief provided to DREAMers under DACA by highlighting that immigration is vital to the membership of HACU and allows young children to pursue a higher education to achieve the American Dream.

NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA is the first website that will be analyzed which opposes providing benefits to illegal immigrants, including provisions of the DREAM Act. “NumbersUSA

Education and Research Foundation provides a civil forum for Americans of all political and ethnic backgrounds to focus on a single issue, the numerical level of U.S.

Immigration. We educate opinion leaders, policy makers and public on immigration legislation, policies and their consequences” (NumbersUSA, 2014). This website favors the decrease of immigrants toward traditional levels in order to enjoy a high degree of

“individual liberty, mobility, environmental quality, worker fairness and fiscal responsibility” (NumbersUSA, 2014). Numbers USA is the nation’s largest grassroot immigration reduction organization with more than 1 million participants across all 435 congressional districts. Members move to persuade public officials to support policies that protect Americans, including foreign born who are here legally, from losing wages, taxes, freedoms, quality of life all because of illegal immigrants that they say enlarges the

U.S. population, labor force and government costs.

This anti-immigrant organization was founded in 1996 following the recommendations of providing economic fairness to vulnerable Americans and ensuring a high quality of life and environment for future generations. NumbersUSA supports immigration from nuclear families of spouse and minor children by U.S. Citizens,

internationally recognized special needs refugees, and those with surprising skills in the interest of the country. However, their support clearly does not extend to chain migration, visa lottery, and employment-visas for those with non-extraordinary skills.

This organization is largely funded from individuals giving anywhere from $10-

$100 over the Internet and these contributions help maintain the NumberUSA Education and Research Foundation. NumbersUSA follows a list of six statements of values. Their first and most important factor of immigration policy is the annual level of immigration.

Secondly, they believe immigration should be set at a level that stabilizes U.S. population and long-term quality of life. The third values NumbersUSA practices is the solely admission of spouses and minor children with exceptional qualities and skills. The fourth value is the prevention of suppression and unfair competition for jobs. In addition, they feel the courts and executive branch should enforce policies that bear the blame for problems that relate to the current policy. Finally, they strongly oppose bashing, xenophobia, nativism and racism as means to establish immigration policies. This website frames issue from an illegal immigration problem as a whole. They bring up values of unfairness and rule of law in terms of the job competition from illegal immigrants and the lack of execution of immigration policies and legislations in this country. They also condemn the benefits provided to illegal immigrants which include drivers’ licenses, healthcare, and in-state tuition. “In a nutshell, that means the state and its public institutions must offer the same aid to all legal U.S. residents regardless of residency.” This website also points to the economic burden the illegals hold on taxpayers, "Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive” (NumbersUSA, 2014). Furthermore, NUmbersUSA

provides data to support the correlation between native unemployment and immigration influx.

Center of Immigration Studies (CIS)

Center of Immigration Studies is another website that opposes the passing of the

DREAM Act. CIS is an research organization founded in 1985 designed to pursue the mission of “providing immigration policymakers, the academic community, news media and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social economic, environmental security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the

United States” (Center of Immigration Studies, 2014). CIS is composed of active and retired university professors, civil rights leaders and other government officials, and is funded by many private foundations, U.S. Census Bureau, Justice Department and individual contributors.

This group has collected data for over 25 years and their results conclude that the current levels of immigrations make it harder for the country to meet their objectives of better schools, cleaner environment, homeland security, living wages for natives and immigrant workers. Furthermore, this group has followed the “low-immigration, pro-

immigrant” vision that welcomes and admits few immigrants into this country. Mark

Krikorian, Executive Director of CIS, strongly opposes the DREAM Act and states, “Any

DREAM Act supporter who applauds this [administrative amnesty] measure has forfeited

any right to complain about the future usurpation of the Constitution. Even backers of the

DREAM in Congress have the responsibility to deny funding to DHS to carry out this

policy” (Krikorian, 2012, p.1). Steve A. Camarota (2010) provides aforementioned

research evidence that shows the negative impacts of the DREAM Act and challenges the educational benefits of it.

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

FAIR is the third website that shows opposition to the DREAM Act. This group was founded in 1979 and shares the common belief that the nation’s immigration system must be reformed to serve the country’s best interest. FAIR is composed of more than

250,000 members and supporters throughout the nation with the mission of examining immigration trends and effects, educate public about impacts of high amounts of immigration, and advocate for immigration policies that will meet the environmental, societal and economic needs of our country (Federation for American Immigration

Reform, 2014). Fair acknowledges immigration is a huge issue to Americans and illegals have an impact on education, healthcare, government budgets, employments, environment and crime. FAIR desperately calls for a policy that will bring levels of immigration back to traditional levels of 300,000 a year.

FAIR argues that the DREAM Act is part of a “mini amnesty” list of bills that

“would grant amnesty to just about every illegal alien under the age of 30 and anyone who could vaguely be described as a student” (Federation for American Immigration

Reform, 2009). Furthermore, this bill would force universities to decrease their admissions because illegal aliens will compete with natives for a seat that will be funded with scarce tax dollars. The problem is there, but the money is not; so this will compound difficulties to those that many hardworking families already face (Federation for

American Immigration Reform, 2009).

George Lakoff’s Views on Framing and Immigration

Lakoff (2004) uses his book Don’t Think of an Elephant! to serve as a guide for progressives in order to improve framing in political debates. The author highlights the fact conservatives have dominated the political discourses over the past decades, and his main objective in the book is to help progressives regain control of it.

Lakoff (2004) notes “frames are mental structures that shape the way one sees the world.

As a result, they shape the goals one seeks, the plan one makes, the way one acts, and what counts as a good or bad outcome for our actions.” In addition, Lakoff (2004) shares that frames are used to argue different sides of the debate, and the discourse will make a person believe specific sides’ worldview. Furthermore, he adds, “framing is about getting language that fits one’s worldview. It is just not language. It is the basic way to explain contemporary political discourse.” (p.4). The author provides a strong suggestion when one is trying to frame an argument, “Do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame and it won’t be the frame you want” (p.3).

Lakoff (2004) differentiates the conservatives’ (republicans) and progressives’

(democrats) mindsets. Conservatives are known to have a “strict father” stance where they believe children should know right from wrong and those who break the law would be punished. He notes that strict fathers should protect and support the family in the difficult and dangerous world. They should also teach their children right rom wrong because they will develop internal discipline that will keep them from behaving negatively. Furthermore, the internal discipline will help the person to pursue their self- interest and become self-reliant. The result of the “strict father” model is to create a good

person who is described as “someone who is disciplined enough to be obedient, to learn what is right, do what is right and do not do what is wrong, and to pursue her self-interest to prosper and be come self reliant” (p.8).

The “nurturing father” model divides responsibility between both parents.

Nurturance requires empathy and responsibility. The parent has to be there for the children and caress him when he cries and protect him from anything that may put his safety at risk such as drugs, crime and other risky behaviors. The empathy expands to teaching children to live a happy and fulfilling life. It is the parents’ responsibility to teach their children to be happy and confident. The nurturing values include freedom, open communication, fairness, trust and honesty.

In order to help progressives regain control of the political discourse, the author stresses that reframing is not just about changing the words around. He notes that reframing is about ideas and “the ideas have to be in place in people’s brains before the sound bite can make any sense” (Lakoff, 2004, p.105). His biggest suggestion is to stand up for their values at all times without being ashamed of what they believe. Other suggestions provided by the author include showing respect at all times because no one will listen to anyone who speaks disrespectfully. Being calm, good-humored and start their arguments using their values such as prosperity, opportunity and freedom. the author highlights the dangerousness of answering questions from opponent’s point of view because it is a trap that will support the way conservatives frame the given issue.

Lakoff (2006) analyzes the framing of immigration in public debate and how the term itself has shaped its politics and brings out what many call problems to America. In addition, “The linguistic framing is remarkable: frames for illegal immigrants, illegal

alien, illegals, undocumented workers, undocumented immigrants, guest workers, temporary workers amnesty, and border security” (p.1) are anything but neutral. The author puts into perspective President Bush’s proposal for comprehensive immigration reform and notes that “immigration reform” evokes an issue-defining frame which is one that imposes structure of a current problem and a plan to solve them. According to

Lakoff (2006) the noun reform becomes the focus of the problem and limits what counts for the solution. This frame reinforces the problems that America has which include lack of control of its borders, takes jobs away from legal immigrants, bears children who are not American citizens, and makes use of social services at the cost of local government.

Indeed, the author makes the point that the so-called immigration is a globalization problem because the U.S. foreign policy and international trade agreements force people to flee their country. He adds that the solution would have to include the

United Nations and Organization of American States, but it is virtually impossible since they do not have a role in this debate. Therefore, framing this just as an immigration problem does not allow the deeper penetration into the deeper components such as understanding the issue of cheap labor.

Furthermore, Lakoff and Ferguson (2006) analyzes the illegal, security, amnesty, and undocumented worker. The illegal frame is the most used frame in the immigration debate, and journalists have used it as a neutral one. The author shares that illegal immigrants, illegal aliens and simply illegal defines them as criminals or bad people. The much-called wave of illegal immigration calls for border security. He challenges this claim by arguing they are not a physical threat and a vital part to the economy. Amnesty fits in the illegal frame because is the pardoning of an illegal action. This implies that the

fault lies with the immigrants, but let’s keeps in mind that DREAMers were brought here by their parents, not willingly.

CHAPTER FOUR

Discourse Analysis Used by the Two Groups

An analysis of the discourse used by the United We Dream, National Council of

La Raza, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, NumbersUSA, Center of

Immigration Studies and Federation for American Immigration Reform will be done based on the Lakoff (2004) framing model which comes from his book Don’t Think of an

Elephant!.

The analysis of the websites will be based on three of Lakoff’s (2004) framing principles:

1. What has the party done right to successfully frame the issue from their

perspective?

2. Do the parties frame the truth to the issues effectively?

3. Do the parties speak from their moral perspective at all times?

Principle #1 What has the party done right to successfully frame the issue

from their perspective?

NumbersUSA successfully frames that illegal immigrants are a burden to the taxpayers, and receive rewards that natives do like in-state tuition prices for out of state residents. The website uses specific phrases such as “economic disaster” to describe the

“amnesty” this country is slowly working to provide illegal immigrants. This website points that the temporary visas are simply cheap labor and serves as remedy to labor shortage.

Center of Immigration Studies frames the issue of immigration by stating the burden they are on accomplishing important national objectives, such as better schools, cleaner environment and national security. A Center of Immigration Studies Fellow uses

the label of illegal aliens to describe the undocumented population in the United States.

Also, the Executive Director has shown his strong opposition by stating that the DREAM

Act will go against the fundamental values that listed in the Constitution. Furthermore, he suggests everyone, even DREAM Act supporters in Congress, to deny any kind of funding to carry out this policy. The website assures research conducted by them shows that immigration amnesties will create expectation for future amnesties. This shows that the website frames the DREAM Act as an amnesty and blames the undocumented population for the failure to achieve national goals during the past 25 years.

The FAIR website uses the label of “illegal” and notes that it is evident that illegal immigration is not serving the needs and interest of the country which include education, healthcare, employment, crime deterrence and government budgets. This website includes research evidence showing that illegal immigrants take jobs away from natives.

In regards to the DREAM Act, they highlight its unfairness on the basis that natives will have to compete with illegal aliens for college admission. Furthermore, FAIR frames the

DREAM act as a policy that will spend money that the country does not have and will add more difficulties to the ones that many hardworking families already have. This bill will only drive away natives who are as skilled and talented as illegal aliens.

The website United We Dream also does a successful job at framing the issue from their perspective. They frame the issue around the values of fairness, family unity, and equality. They also use the term youth, which is something that catches public’s attention because “kids” are tomorrow’s future, and no one will want to detain their possibilities to become successful. UNW states that they seek to address the inequities and obstacles faced by immigrant youth and believe that by empowering immigrant

youth, we can advance the cause of the entire community—justice for all immigrants”

(United We Dream, 2014). Furthermore, the website clearly states their advocacy “for the dignity and fair treatment of immigrant youth and families.” (United We Dream, 2014).

The HACU website clearly frames the issue around education and opportunity to reach the American Dream. The website labels DREAMers as young Hispanics who are attempting to better themselves by attaining higher education. The frame is consistent with their philosophy and vision that is to improve access of young Hispanics to secondary education. This privilege will also show consistency with the progressive values of “Stronger America” and “Better Future” noted by Lakoff (2004). Indeed, the website has the long term vision of helping young Hispanics attain the American Dream, which is desired by every single person that comes to this country. Its support is also demonstrated by their backing of DACA, as it is a step taken to help temporarily retain the talented DREAMers in this country.

The NCLR frames the issue around the values of stronger America, better future, fairness and equality. The website persists that DREAMers are “hardworking and talented immigrant students” who deserve to be opportunity to enhance their abilities by preparing them for college and eventually attaining meaningful employment to help

America become a prestigious country. Furthermore, the website points out these are children who are here by their parent’s decision, grew up reciting the Pledge of

Allegiance, accepted American values and are seeking the equality needed to obtain a better future. NCLR also signals at the economic costs of not passing the DREAM Act and sending these innocent children back to the country they no longer call home.

Principle#2 Do the parties frame the truth to the issues effectively?

NumbersUSA truthfully framed economic burden, rewards to illegal immigrants and job competitiveness. The website provides the research to support that unemployment has gone up along with immigration influx. Furthermore, clearly identifying the rewards illegal immigrants are receiving such as licenses and in-state tuition in some states demonstrates the truthfulness behind this frame. FAIR also truthfully frames the DREAM Act as a challenge to natives in terms of educational attainment by arguing that universities will be forced to reduce admissions. In addition, their economic burdens by providing numbers that show how many tax dollars are spend of illegal aliens. Furthermore, research evidence listed Illegal Immigrants have taken about 8.5 million jobs from natives and this happens more in California and Texas where numbers exceed 1 million (Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2013.) CIS truthfully frames their issue similarly to FAIR and Numbers USA by saying that illegal aliens create more problems than solutions with their presence in this country. Their research also points to the negative impact that the DREAM Act will have on education, especially the fact that 2 years is all that is needed to fulfill the education requirement.

Camarota (2010) highlights that the contribution of someone who went to college for 2 years compared to someone who did not attend college will not be significant enough.

UWD, NCLR and HACU frame their issue effectively by providing evidence that they DREAMers have come to this country and complied with laws like any other

American. They are youth who are fighting their dream of attaining a higher education, remain with their families and provide a better contribution to the economy. All three websites utilize common language and points of view regarding DREAMers and the huge

need to pass the DREAM Act. Young immigrants have faced and surpassed numerous struggles through out their K-12 years, but now have come across the lack of opportunities to attain secondary education and aspire to reach the dream they have chased since their childhood.

Principle #3 Do the parties speak from their moral perspective at all times?

All of the Websites speak from their moral perspective all the time even though they contradict. The NumbersUSA website states that it is unfair for natives to lack the benefit of in-state tuition that illegal immigrants. Numbers USA, CIS and FAIR speak from the value of rule of law and make it clear that illegal immigrants must be deported. CIS points at the different objectives that are not met because of illegal immigrants. In addition, FAIR notes that in order to have a safe country, there needs to be stricter measures and laws that are enforced effectively in order to prevent more illegal aliens from entering the country. All websites follow the value that illegal behavior is punished and entering the country illegally is no exception.

Indeed, the value of unity is portrayed by UWD when they speak about families that are being broken because of the deportations. Furthermore, UWD notes that undocumented immigrants who call this place home should be provided equal treatment and access to higher education because they have met the same requirements as natives.

HACU and NCLR touch on the values of fairness, equality and opportunity when describing the needs of these innocent young immigrants. Hard work is valued everywhere, and DREAMers have demonstrated their ability to succeed academically and behaviorally regardless of all of the obstacles they face. Now they ask for a fair opportunity to enhance the developed skills they have to attain the American Dream.

These young immigrants have in mind that education is the key to a successful future so they have put into their heads that academic excellence is the least they should strive for, now they are asking for equal opportunities to prove that they are as talented and skilled as natives.

CHAPTER FIVE

Summary, Recommendations and Conclusion

Summary

The discourse framing analysis presented previously focused on the views that six websites had on illegal immigration and the DREAM Act. All six of the websites showed their views towards the given issue in congruence with the mission, vision and beliefs. Lakoff (2004) notes the huge importance of framing an issue effectively in order to move forward in the policymaking process. Generally speaking, traditional values played a huge role in the way these websites framed their points of view. It is evident that both sides view the issue immigration completely different and have the needed research evidence to support their views. The pro side highlighted fairness, opportunity, educational achievement, family unity and equality as the basis of their arguments. The websites in opposition challenged the economic and educational benefits that legislation for illegals would bring. Furthermore, the values of security and rule of law suggestions were provided to provide stricter laws to ensure immigration is regulated effectively.

Recommendation #1: Be proactive not reactive

The author recommends proponents of the DREAM Act to be as patient as possible as they await the outcome of the current version of the bill. This battle started in 2001 and

DREAMers have kept their hopes up even though they been disillusioned when previous of the bill have not made it far enough. Patience is a virtue, therefore every person that will benefit from the passing of the DREAM Act must continue to abide by the law and continue demonstrating his or her support in a peaceful manner. Lakoff (2004) shares that

“in order to successfully counter arguments based upon fear and lies, one must

understand those arguments well enough to respond to them calmly” (p.84). There have been many illogical statements made about DREAMers that validly triggers frustration, but there has been too much work put into the activism to lose it in one inappropriate reaction. Lakoff (2004) highly suggests progressives to practice their own framing, not theirs, on a daily basis and use them to fit the values they believe in.

Recommendation #2: Remove labels of criminals and illegals

The negative labels attached to DREAMers and the DREAM Act has shaped opinions and impressions based on the terms attached. Merolla, Ramakrishnan and

Haynes (2013) shared that term “illegal” divides and dehumanizes communities because it goes to the extent that it leaves a stain that cannot go away. Indeed, it brings negative stereotypes towards immigrants and describes them as criminals. Arriving as children without a choice is a fact that opponents have understood but not accepted. One of the fundamental American values is safety and labeling DREAMers as criminals will undoubtedly sway public opinion in the opposing side regardless of how promising their futures are economically, educationally and intellectually. Lakoff (2004) notes, “it is a general finding about frames that if a strongly held frame doesn’t fit the facts, the facts will be ignored and the frame will be kept” (p.37). Each frame has different inferences and it will be practically useless to provide numerous facts that challenge the negative frame. Therefore it is recommended to use frames such as undocumented rather than illegal and completely remove the stigma of criminals. The select number of potential beneficiaries will have to demonstrate good moral character, which challenges the belief that they are criminals

Recommendation #3:

The author recommends the inclusion of children or youth in future framing of the issue. Luntz (2007) highlights the importance of including children in the arguments. He states “one message target stand out above all the rest: the kids” (p.44). He explains that children are the face of the future and will shape tomorrow’s world. In addition, Merolla,

Ramakrishnan and Haynes (2013) report findings that using the wording “came as young children” boosts support for the DREAM Act. In addition, children are the base for the future in America so it is important to invest time and resources in them to assure that they will become individuals that can make America continue to be seen as a powerful country.

Conclusion:

This discourse analysis began by introducing DREAM Act and the different versions that have been introduced in Congress since 2001. In addition, relevant literature was analyzed from both sides of the arguments. In the supporting side, research evidence backed up the arguments that the DREAM Act would boost the economy, motivate students to attend secondary school and the military will have a larger pool to choose from. On the other end, research evidence was used to address the arguments that this bill was a back-door amnesty, burden on taxpayers and rewards for their criminality. Indeed, the way this issue was framed by 3 supporting and opposing websites were analyzed using Lakoff’s (2004) principles of principle framing theory. It is clear that the way the issue of immigration and DREAMers were referred, as has a great impact on the people targeted by these activist groups.

In conclusion, it is important to eliminate any frames that discredit or dehumanize

these young immigrants who are facing a barrier that does not let them work to attaint their American Dream. These children have come to this country by a reason other than their choice and they have completed the same curriculum as natives during their primary education. The wait has been long, but as Cesar Chavez famous quotes states, “Si Se

Puede.”

References

Bruno, A. (2007). Unauthorized alien students: Issues and “DREAM Act” legislation.

Congressional Research Service, 1-6.

Bruno, A. (2010). Unauthorized alien students: Issues and “DREAM Act” legislation.

Congressional Research Service, 1-19.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007). Spotlight on Statistics: Back to school. Retrieved from

http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2007/back_to_school/

Camarota, S. A. (2010). Estimating the impact of the DREAM Act. Center for

Immigration Studies. 1-6.

Congressional Budget Office (2010) S. 3992 Development, Relief, and Education for

Alien Minors Act of 2010. 1-6.

Durbin, R. J. (2010) Pro & Con: Should congress pass the Development, Relief, and

Education for Aliens Minos (DREAM) Act? Congressional Digest, 89(9) 268-

278.

Durbin, D. (2011, June 28) Passing the DREAM Act. General Format. Retrieved from

http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hot-

topics?ContentRecord_id=43eaa136-a3de-4d72-bc1b-12c3000f0ae9

Espinoza, J. (2008). Overview and analysis of the Development, Relief, Education, for

Alien Minors Act (Dream act): “What was not but could be.” Selected Works. 1-

29.

Federation for American Immigration Reform. (2014). Retrieved from

http://www.fairus.org.

Federation for American Immigration Reform. (2009). Economics 101: The DREAM Act

would be unaffordable. Immigration Issues retrieved from

http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-dream-act-would-be-

unaffordable?A=SearchResult&SearchID=6469282&ObjectID=5136492&Object

Type=35

Federation for American Immigration Reform. (2013). Illegal aliens taking U.S. jobs.

Immigration Studies, Retrieved from http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-

taking-u-s-jobs

Gin, K. (2010). Why these students. Journal of College Admission, 206,44.

Glickman, J. (2011). DREAM Act is “common sense legislation in keeping with the core

American values. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/dream-

act-common-sense-legislation-keeping-core-american-values

Gonzalez, R.G. (2009) Young lives on hold: The college dreams of undocumented

students. Retrieved from

http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/young-lives-on-hold-college-

board.pdf

Guzman, J.C., & Jara, R. C. (2012). The economic benefits of passing the DREAM Act.

Center For American Progress, 1-25.

Hinojosa-Ojeda, R., Takash, P. C., Castillo, G., Flores, G., Monroy, A., & Sargeant, D.

(2010) No DREAMers left behind: The economic potential of DREAM Act

beneficiaries. North America Integration and Development Center. 1-13.

Immigration Policy Center. (2010). The DREAM Act: Creating Economic Opportunities.

1-4, retrieved from http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/dream-act-

creating-economic-opportunities.

Immigration Policy Center. (2007). Dreams deferred: The costs of ignoring

undocumented students. 1-2, retrieved from

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Access%20to%20High

er%20Ed%209-25%20FINAL.pdf

Immigration Policy Center. (2012) Who and where the DREAMers are. 1-11, retrieved

from

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/who_and_where_the_dr

eamers_are_two.pdf

Katharine, G. (2010) Why these students? Journal of College Admission, 206, 44.

Kobach, K. W. (2006). The senate immigration bill rewards law breaking: Why the

DREAM Act is a nightmare. The Heritage Foundation, 1960, 1-5.

Krikorian, M. (2010). DREAM on. National Review Online. Retrieved from

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254180/dream-mark-krikorian

Krikorian, M. (2012, June 12). The end justifies the means. Center of Immigration

Studies. Retrieved from http://cis.org/Krikorian/end-justifies-means

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t Think of An Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the

Debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green.

Lakoff, G., & Ferguson, S. (2006). The framing of immigration. The Rockridge Institute,

Retrieved from

http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/ppandp/PDFs/Lakoff%20Framing%20of

%20Immigration.doc.pdf

Lee, Y. (2006). To dream or not to dream: A cost-benefit analysis of the development,

relief, and education for alien minors (DREAM) act. Cornell Journal of Law and

Public Policy, 16, 231.

Luntz, F. (2007). Words that work: It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. New

York, New York: Hyperion.

Mahony, R. M. (2012). The dream act: We all benefit. Notre Dame Journal of Law,

Ethics & Public Policy, 26(2), 459-472.

Martin. J., Ruark, E. A. (2010). The fical burden of illegal immigration on United States

taxpayers. Federation for American Immigration Reform, 1-88.

Mehlman, I. (2011). Five moral arguments against the DREAM Act. Townhall.com.

Retrieved from

http://townhall.com/columnists/iramehlman/2011/07/01/five_moral_arguments_a

gainst_the_dream_act

Merolla, J., Ramaskrishnan, S. K., & Haynes, C. (2013). “Illegal,” “undocumented,” or

“unauthorized” : Equivalency frames, issue frames and public opinion on

immigration. Perspectives on Politics, 11(3), 789-807.

National Council of La Raza. (2007). The “DREAM act” and the “American dream act.”

1-2, retrieved from

http://www.mygreencard.com/downloads/DREAM_ActSummary_May2009.pdf .

National Council of La Raza (2014). Retrieved from http://www.nclr.org.

NumbersUSA.(2014). Retrieved from https://www.numbersusa.com/content

Orrenius, P.M., & Zavodny, M. (2001) Do amnesty programs encourage illegal

immigration? Evidence from the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. 1-21.

Orrenius, P.M., & Zavodny, M. (2003). Do amnesty programs reduce undocumented

immigration? Evidence from IRCA. Demography 40(3), 437-450.

Orrenius, P.M., & Zavodny, M. (2012). The economic consequences of amnesty for

unauthorized immigrants. Cato Journal, 32, 85-106.

Sohoni, D. (2006). The ‘imigrant problem’: Modern-day nativism on the web. Current

Sociology, 54, 827-850.

Stock, M. (2006) The DREAM Act: Tapping an overlooked pool of homegrown talent to

meet military enlistment needs. Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, 63-67.

The Development, Relief, And Education for Alien Minors (DREAM Act). (2011).

Harvard Journal of Legislation, 623-655.

United We Dream. (2014). Retrieved from http://unitedwedream.org.

CSU Bakersfield \1ail Stop: 24 DOH Room 1OR 9001 Stockdale llighway Office of the Gr.mts, Research. and Sponsored Progmrns (GRaSP) Baker.sfield, California 93311-1022 (661) 654-223 J (661) 654-3342 FAX www.csub.edu

Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research

Anne Duran, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Date: 24 April2014 Scientific Concerns

Roseanna McCleary, Ph.D. To: Javier Barba Vazquez, PPA Student Masters of Social Work Scientific Concerns cc: Chandrasekhar Commuri, Public Policy and Administration Paul Newberry, IRB Chair Steven Gamboa, Ph.D. Department of Phil/Rei Studies From: Steve Suter, Research Ethics Review Coordinator Nonscientific/Humanistic Concerns

Lily Alvarez, B.A Subject: Protocol 14-36: Not Human Subjects Research Kern County Mental Health Community Issues/Concerns Thank you for bringing your protocol, "Analysis of the Discourse Used by Supporters and Opponents of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act Grant Herndon [DREAM Act]", to the attention of the IRB/HSR. On the form, "Is My Project Human Schools Legal Service Community Issues/Concerns Subjects Research?", received on April 22"d, 2014, you indicated the following: I want to interview, survey, systematically observe, or collect other data from human Kathleen Gilchrist, Ph.D. subjects, for example, students in the educational setting. NO Department of Nursing Scientific Concerns I want to access data about specific persons that have already been collected by Paul Newberry, Ph.D. others [such as test scores or demographic information]. Those data can be linked to Department of Philosophy/ specific persons [regardless of whether I will link data and persons in my research or Religious Studies reveal anyone's identities]. NO Nonscientific/Humanistic Concerns IRB/HSR Chair Given this, your proposed project will not constitute human subjects research. Therefore, it does not fall within the purview of the CSUB IRB/HSR. Good luck with your project. Tony Alteparmakian, Ed.D. Teacher Education If you have any questions, or there are any changes that might bring these activities within Nonscientific/Humanistic Concerns the purview of the IRBIHSR, please notify me immediately at 654-2373. Thank you. Steve Suter, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Research Ethics Review Coordinator and IRB/HSR Secretary

steve Suter, University Research Ethics Review Coordinator

The California State University - Bakersfield- Channel Islands- Chico- Dominguez Hills- East Bay- Fresno- Fullerton- Humboldt- Long Beach- Los Angeles· Maritime Academy Monterey Bay- Northridge - Pomona - Sacramento - San Bernardino - San D1ego - San Francisco - San Jose - San Luis Obispo- San Marcos · Sonoma · Stanislaus