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 Copyright By 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. ii 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 iv 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. v 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 1 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, 2 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