Talk:DREAM Act/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

2010.09.21 vote

Felt the 2010.09.21 filibuster/cloture vote was appropriate to mention; BTW, I decided to reference a CNN article rather than Daily Kos or Huffington Post KingAlanI (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

== 2010.11.17 wording ==

Point 1: Most laws passed and enacted have certain ambiguities purposely written in to them, leaving wiggle room for interpretation of enforcement and further regulation by the Executive Branch. This piece of legislation is no exception. Leaving out the word "illegal" allows for the law to then be used to provide citizenship for the parents, grandparents and other adults who entered this country illegally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.142.95 (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Source for much of the info in the 2010 section?

Does anyone know the original source for the big chunk of text (describing the differences in the current bill) originated? It's not sourced in the article but I see a lot of other websites with the same text so I don't know where it came from or even if it's accurate. It may even be a copyright violation but it's a straight-forward description of a bill so that might be a tough argument to make and it would be easy to clean up anyway. ElKevbo (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

wording

I see no reason why the term "illegal" should not be used here. In one paragraph, it even talked about "immigrants" w/o any qualifier; this blurs the line between legal and illegal immigrants even more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The bill text refers to "an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States". I've thus changed the article to refer to "inadmissible or deportable alien students," i.e. language derived from the Act itself. This seems the best route. "Illegal alien" is wrong, because the individual him- or herself is not "illegal"; the act of being in the country without appropriate documentation is what is illegal. "Undocumented" is imprecise (once such an individual is identified and targeted for, for example, deportation or exclusion, he or she is, in a sense "documented") and a bit of a WP:EUPHEMISM. Using the statutory language avoids the POV issue on either side. TJRC (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Seen it; acceptable. (Nonetheless, and to your second point) it said "illegal immigrant", which is correct. No-one ever talks about an "illegal person" or "illegal human" which would be incorrect. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No human being is illegal. Use the term 'undocumented'. ~ Dream Activist! from the UTSA Hunger Strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.5.78 (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No human being is illegal, but certain immigrants/aliens are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I removed this phrase from several places in the article merely because it was used way too frequently and was very repetitive. I don't particularly care for the phrase myself but this was purely a stylistic decision and I would have done the same for any other phrase used too often in an article. ElKevbo (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

that was OK, but now you're removing the correct terminology. That's not so cool. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
"Correct" is purely POV and insisting that others adhere to your POV isn't kosher. ElKevbo (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Look up "illegal" you'll see it is the only correct terminology. We're talking about the law; against the law=illegal. That's all it means. It's as neutral as it can get. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has FALSE information. This bill specifically excludes individuals who have come here legally and have remained her legally. The article gives the impression that they would be elegible too when infact they would not. This is ONLY for people who have come here illegally. A person who came here on a dependent Visa at the age of 15, graduated from a U.S High School, and then went to a U.S University with a Student Visa, and remains here on a work VISA. They would NEVER be ellegible for any path to citizenship, and this does not change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.28.243 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Recalling "undocumented v. illegal" argument

We've seen reversions and changes (I made a few) that call to question what term is correct, "Illegal v. undocumented." Rather than continue fighting over it, I think we need a clear and evident consensus, per our policy here at Wikipedia. I will succumb to whatever the outcome of the consensus is, though I would suggest "undocumented" as "illegal" seems to be a biased and not neutral. I think we need to settle this. Remember, "consensus, not voting." —DuncanWhat I Do / What I Say 20:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks. you're the first in a while to actually post something on the talkpage. Your argument being? I have given mine, but FWIW, I repeat: this is about the law (in fact, a law). "Illegal" means nothing other than "contrary to current law". It is completely neutral and according to the definition of the word. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The basic argument is that the word illegal is a hateful or derogatory term in this sense; while they are not here under legal status, they lack "documentation" to make them be here under legal status. Therefore, the human being is not illegal (their being here is), but the human being is simply undocumented. —DuncanWhat I Do / What I Say 20:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
that is precisely why it doesn't say "illegal human" -- that, indeed, would be hateful. "Immigrant" is a legal definition, only part of the human being, and that part/role is illegal. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Right, but an immigrant is implied to be human, and, again, the human isn't illegal. The human's presence can be illegal, but not the human. —DuncanWhat I Do / What I Say 20:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you didn't hear me. Read the first sentence again. Would you argue the same when you get an F on an exam, and say "no human being is a failure"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of disruptive editing. I've argued my side; you've argued yours. This is my last statement directed at you for the time being. I will answer, "yes." No human being is a failure, only their actions. If 99.999999% of their actions are failures, then so be it. —DuncanWhat I Do / What I Say 20:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
(does the link say "disruptive"? I didn't know that, apologies) Correct, no human being is failure, it still won't make you an "undocumented A-student". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is using the word "illegal" POV?

Is it POV to use the term "illegal" to describe individuals residing in a country contrary to the laws of the given country? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a perennial topic, though not as active in recent years. I'd urge editors to review the voluminous past discussions on this topic to avoid repeating points. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration) is a good place to start.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think its POV and should be used. - Schrandit (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the article contradicts itself.

I'm pretty sure the article has a contradiction. It says something about "during the first 10 years..." and in the same paragraph says "after this 6 year period,". Either it is wrong, or I'm missing something.

During the first ten years, qualifying undocumented immigrants would be granted "conditional" status and would be required to (a) graduate from a two-year community college or complete at least two years towards a 4-year degree or (b) serve two years in the U.S. military. After this six year period,

It doesn't seem to mention anything about a 6 year period until then, so I'm pretty confused. If I'm right, could someone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.182.2 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Section 5 says 6 years. I'll fix it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Community service?

Why is there no discussion of the fact that earlier versions of the act allowed qualification by two years of community service -- an option now apparently entirely replaced by military service? -- jalp 209.172.14.158 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Where are your sources for this claim? 71.224.5.174 (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

However, the original bill also allowed youth to gain legal status through community service, an option that was replaced to push young people into the military.[1] The Dream Act has been modified several times.Erikaameca (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the Woonhocho special

here's your chance to propose and discuss your changes. Take it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 re-introduction

As many of you guys know the DREAM ACT (acronym for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors)was reintroduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the Senate on Wednesday May 11, 2011. I was thinking of adding some information about the introduction of the bill, I think it would be important for the audience to know that the bill has not vanished;on the contrary, it is been re-introduced in Senate. --Comar17 (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Cristian A.--Comar17 (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

i just read the intro, and i give up. it was as clear as mud. this dream act is going to reduce deficits. no, its going to increase deficits. it will generate taxable income, but it going to increase taxes. politics seem to be beyond me. cd u write a version for dummies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.113.176 (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

relevant typo in edit description

For the "citation needed" tags I just removed, I meant to note that both quotes are found on page 12 of the cited document; accidentally typed page 13, which isn't going to help anyone trying to confirm the quotes. Sorry 'bout that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

Why is the criticism section all about what proponents of the Act think and what they say about the critics? In need of a rewrite! LAEsquire (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)LAEsquire

Yeah, it looks like that section is biased in favor of the proponents of the argument. In my opinion, it needs a bit of balancing and rewording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.163.127 (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

mention

mentioned in this speech, https://scout.sunlightfoundation.com/item/speech/CREC-2012-06-27-pt1-PgS4645-6.chunk8 James Michael DuPont (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Under section "2012"

Under section 2012, in the first few sentences there is a reference to the fact that the act does nothing about those who entered the country legally. That statement, especially with its emphasis, is inherently biased and introduces the debate into a section of the article strictly meant to state fact. That criticism is additionally covered under the "criticism" section, and is not at all needed under the 2012 section.

173.65.210.171 (talk)Phobos1393 —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DREAMers redirect

The term DREAMers redirects to this page, but this page does not throw direct light on what it means. (Possibly the editors think that it is self-evident from the article; it isn't). A word search shows that the term itself is used 5 times on the page - once under the title to tell the reader that this is why they have been redirected, and 4 times in the references - yet nowhere in the article. This is always a frustration with Wikipedia redirects - the least one should be able to expect is that the redirected term will be mentioned somewhere there. I don't want to add a definition or description of what DREAMers (more commonly it would seem written Dreamers) refers to, since I don't know enough about the topic.

Since the term seems to be in wide use, but many may be unsure of precisely what it means (for example, I am in the UK, and am coming across it used in US press stories without explanation), it would be useful if somebody could add a very short explanation (always presuming that the editors don't think it is of sufficient weight to require its own page).

This is what many people use Wikipedia for. Liamcalling (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Intro section too long

The intro section is definitely too long and should be shortened. Those details are important but need to be added to the body of the article and not the lead. - SantiLak (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of DREAMers section

I just removed a recently-added section on the DREAMers, which largely consisted of

  • An unsourced claim that the DREAMers were of a unique nature in American political history. This may be true, but if so, we'd need some reliable source to be saying so. Otherwise, it just looks like hype.
  • Extensive quotes from YouTube videos by two DREAMers. These were minor videos (not altogether trivial, each had a couple thousand views), but we're lacking any third-party source suggesting that these individuals were of particular import, or that their words were particularly representative. They may be good words, but the general guideline here is that someone source with some weight should have found it worth quoting before we include it in the article.

I suspect there are some good sources out there that look at the DREAMers in aggregate, or have themselves chosen representative individuals as examples. It would be good to have a section that relied on such sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Economic Impact sections has some issues...

So first off the CBO report cited seems to have either moved or gone missing. I've done some brief googling, and several other news articles about the report have the same broken link. I'm going to try to find the report, but any help would be appreciated.

Secondly, this section seems to read very much like it is debating itself. I'm new to editing, so I'm not sure the relevant rules here, but adding emphasis, like this... "However, the same report also notes that the Act "would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods starting in 2021" (emphasis added)" ...seems like something I'd find in an op-ed piece, not an encyclopedia. I'm also not sure why the word progressive, in the sentence describing the Center for American Progress, is in scare quotes. Is there not a more neutral way to explain that CAP is considered by some to be on the left? Heck, given that anyone interested can click the link and see the article about CAP, is it necessary to even identify what people think CAP is? Like I said, I'm new to this, so any guidance on where to look for the relevant rules would be really appreciated.

Thanks! Chippy87 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DREAM Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

requirement section

The requirement section makes it seem like the dreamers can choose to get permanent residence or conditional residency. Also you should site where you got the fact that says they do criminal background checks.Josep345 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall all the whole article

Reliable information gave us a lot of details and made the topic understandable but some of the wording was difficult to understand for example the word was to difficult to pronounce. In my opinion young kids who will read this article would have difficulty reading and understanding some of the words over all this Article was helpful to understand the topic Daisyrios20 (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Drios (talk) 23:18 16 April 2017

Could this topic be written anymore one side favoring the pro side of it. it not even using proper terms.There is no such thing undocumented immigrant or illegal immigrant according to 8 U.S. Code § 1324 it is illegal alien. they topic doesn't have any reference to this almost same thing was past in 1986.doesn't mention in California alone there costing 54 billion per year simple google will give 10,000 references .there no mention of facts that average age of a dreamer is 28.i can go on and on it seems this is becoming a common problem anymore on Wikipedia every topic leans to the left.i wont bother adding to the article or changing anything because it will get changed back.I love to hear how the writters plan to make article neutral.6thstreetfisherman (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DREAM Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Terminology -- "illegal" vs. "undocumented"

This edit caught my eye. Out of curiosity, I checked the text of the bill reported by the Senate.

IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General may cancel the removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States, if the alien applies for such cancellation and adjustment of status and demonstrates that ...

As I read this, the bill would enable the AG to adjust the status of aliens with inadmissible or deportable status to a status described as "lawfully admitted for permanent residence". It seems to me that this is better characterized as an adjustment

  • from unlawful to lawful
  • from illegal to legal

than as

  • from undocumented to documented.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Concur. It was changed again today [1]. As this is a likely polarizing sticking point, changing the language away from the text of the bill should achieve some consensus here on the talk page. I am reverting. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Continued use of offensive terms such as 'illegal immigrant' diminishes the quality, accuracy and objectivity of this article. People who lack proper documentation or a current visa do not deserve to be dehumanized by tawdry insults. AmboyBeacon (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But see WP:Offensive material and WP:Euphemism. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of the legally correct term, "Illegal Alien" is neither tawdry, inaccurate, nonobjective, insulting or dehumanizing, it is simply being accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.178.156.22 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources overwhelmingly use the term "undocumented immigrant" or "illegal immigrant". It's mostly unreliable sources and fringe websites that use the term "illegal alien". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Only if you consider the federal immigration statues unreliable. If you read the law, and not the liberal politically correct web sites, you will see the terms "Illegal Alien" and "Resident Alien". The term "undocumented immigrant" is a relatively recent creation used to imply the problem is a lack of paperwork and not the fact that the illegal alien has broken federal law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.178.156.22 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Current, common terminology in reliable sources is what we prefer - and the law is, at most, just one source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
We should also note that the AP style guide eschews describing people as "illegal", and that avoidance has been embraced by a fair number of publications, although not uniformly. While we don't directly embrace the AP guide, the writing of Wikipedia should have more in common with news coverage than with laws, which is what one editor has been using as their argument for recently trying to edit war this in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
However Wikipedia rules WP:EUPHEMISM are to be avoided. This is contrary to using the common terminology in many cases. While "undocumented" is common, it is a WP:EUPHEMISM. Even Wikipedia itself, redirects "undocumented immigrant" to "Illegal immigration". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.31.87.150 (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
"undocumented immigrant" is a WP:Euphemism for an "illegal alien" used to imply that the issue is the lack of paperwork, not the fact that the person has violated immigration law. Saying that people can not be illegal is to imply that they cannot violate immigration law which is contrary to fact.

Note that a proposal to use only "Undocumented Immigrant" was overwhelmingly defeated on NPOV Notice Board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.178.156.22 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed reply and rebuttal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is false. The proposal was to ALWAYS use "undocumented immigrant". There was no consensus for that. That doesn't mean we cannot use "undocumented migrant" - it means we decide on case by case, article by article basis. And this is one article where "undocumented migrant" makes much more sense. Volunteer Marek  05:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
In this context "use only" and "always use" mean the same thing. If you "use only" a given phrase, that is the exact same thing as "always use"ing a given phrase, so your statement is false. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
What??? Dude. Basic logic. We have an article on it: logic. Volunteer Marek  01:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
And you're evading your block. Volunteer Marek  01:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Back with the insults that you have been warned about numerous time. Second, the block has expired. Also if you "use only" a given phrase, the means you use it in every instance, ie. you "always use" the given phrase. Hence they are logically, and semantically identical. Hence your additional statements, in addition to your original statement on 26 September 2017 are false. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, no. "Not all P are Q" does not imply that "No P are Q". "Not always use X" does not mean "Never use X".
The proposal was to ALWAYS use term A.
The proposal was rejected.
The rejection of the proposal is NOT the same as injunction to "ALWAYS use term B".
This isn't that hard to understand. Really. Volunteer Marek  01:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Switching from insults to profanity. It does not make your argument any stronger.
Second I never said that "Not always use x" means "never use x". That is you putting words in other peoples mouth again.
What I said was that "Always use" and" use only" are the same. An example. I have a list of 3 numbers, and I "always use" 1 for each entry. This results in the list [1, 1, 1]. Secondly, I have a list where i "use only" 1 for the list elements. This results in the list [1, 1, 1]. The exact same list.
The proposal as I said, was to "use only" "Undocumented immigrant". This is the exact same thing as you saying the proposal was to "Always use" "undocumented immigrant" as I have proven by example above.
I never said that the proposal having been rejected meant that "undocumented immigrant" should never be used. I was simply observing that that a proposal to always use "undocumented immigrant" had been rejected. This was in response to those who believe "undocumented immigrant" is the only phrase that should be used.170.178.156.22 (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I have neither insulted you nor used profanity. What the monkey butts are you talking about?
And what does it matter if the proposal was to "use only" or "always use"? What are you going on about?  Volunteer Marek  02:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Using the name "Jesus Christ" as you did is considered swearing by a plurality of people, at least in the US. Saying I did not understand basic logic is insulting.
You are good at deflecting.
It was you that started the debate by saying that my statement at the top of this thread was false in your comment on 26 September 2017.
You then claimed that I said that the debate on the NPOV Notice Board meant that "undocumented immigrant" should never be used, which is not what I said at all.
You then made the false claim that "always use" and "use only" where different. I have logically proven that statement to be false. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Bill/Act

As far as I can tell, this proposal has not been enacted by the US legislature; it is therefore wrong to call it an "Act". I may be wrong; in UK political discourse, legislation must be passed before it can properly be called an Act, but American english usage may differ.

Prior to being enacted, a legislative proposal might be referred to as a Bill. The article uses the term "Bill" to refer to the DREAM proposal as if Bill and Act were the same thing.

I am not even sure that DREAM actually counts as a Bill; I understand a Bill to be a legislative proposal upon which legislators are expected to vote, and it's not clear to me that any such proposal exists. Rather, there seems to have been a number of proposals over the years, none of which has been presented to the legislature for ratification. Is this correct? Can someone who knows please make the article clearer on these matters?

I think the article ought to be moved; there is no DREAM Act, and there are no Unicorns. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

I am a college student interested in the impacts of The DREAM Act on undocumented immigrants and DACA recipients. I realized there was no section for educational impacts and thought it was an important factor that should be included in the article. I do not have nearly enough information yet to make a complete section, but hopefully it can be added onto by other people as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slampoet17 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Links out of date

Some sources such as eligibility requirements are out of date and no longer work. Unable to verify such information.

Additionally, this article could be improved by adding the 2017-2018 ongoing legislative efforts. Lalin Mendez (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

35-year-old minors?

The lead section of the article refers to the DREAM Act as a proposed "process for qualifying alien minors in the United States that ..." The next section of the article says that the qualifying persons may be up to 35 years old. I don't normally think of 35-year-olds as minors. Can we find a better way to phrase that? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The Act itself refers to those who were minors when they entered the US -- whether they still are is separate. I suppose the lead could better reflect that, but it should also be careful about time-sensitive wording since the act itself is only proposed legislation, and has been revised over the years each time it is submitted. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Rephrased to "process for granting residency status to qualifying aliens who entered the United States as minors". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Updates on newer versions of the DREAM Act

The article needs to be updated with developments since 2012 of the DREAM Act. For instance, the different legislative manifestations of the Dream Act, such as the Comprehensive Immigration Act in 2013 and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2017. There could be greater focus on the bipartisan support of the Act, following the 2012 Presidential Elections, and the roles played by Republican and Democrat Senators, as well as members of the House of Representatives. Jasdeep-SH (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

DREAMers Movement Section Added

Hello, I'm a college student and I just added the DREAMers Movement section to the DREAM Act. I noticed there was not much of information of the movement and the impact that it has on the DREAM Act. I'm new to Wikipedia so there might be some errors that I made. I would appreciate it if anyone has time to look at the DREAMers Movement section and check if its properly done right. I would also appreciate, if anyone has more information on the DREAMers Movement please go ahead and add more. I believe the movement plays a big role in the DREAM Act. Thank you for your time. Carlos96daniel (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


To understand the demographic most directly implicated by the Act, the profiles of the Dreamers could be highlighted, possibly using data visualisation. For instance, it seems that most of the Dreamers are from Latin American countries, notably Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. These Dreamers currently live in a few states, largest numbers being reported in California, Texas, Florida and New York. Jasdeep-SH (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Supposed existing consensus on "undocumented"

An IP editor has repeatedly try to eliminate the "undocumented" terminology with a claim of existing consensus in the archives. However, that is not the case - the last time this was brought up, there was no such clear consensus, with roughly equal numbers of folks on both sides (I believe a slight majority supporting the use of "undocumented" in at least some cases), and with points being made on both sides. As such, I am undoing the latest version of that edit, as it is based on faulty reasoning. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The controversies about terminology are germane, and should be included to clarify why "undocumented" is being used, and what alternative language, such as "alien" and "illegal", is used by which camps in the debate. Jasdeep-SH (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Education being a major priority for the DREAM Act

The article currently states that education is an important topic to be included because it is a resource, like healthcare and employment opportunities, that documented Americans often take for granted. This seems like a biased statement that is not particularly relevant to the fact-based content of the rest of the article. Sophie Potts (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blackhawk archer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.change.org/petitions/restore_community_service_option_to_the_dream_act#?opt_new=t
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DREAM_Act/Archive_1&oldid=1189644535"