U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–267 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 112–941 

THE DREAM ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES 

AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 28, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–30 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Ranking Member 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

STEPHANIE MARTZ, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MATTHEW JOHNSON, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 28, 2011, 10:01 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 3 

Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .............................. 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 100 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 6 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 7 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 16 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95 

Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ................... 10 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 45 

Camarota, Steven A., Ph.D., Director of Research, Center for Immigration 

Studies, Washington, DC ..................................................................................... 38 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 88 

Duncan, Hon. Arne, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 8 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Kaso, Ola, Warren, Michigan ................................................................................. 32 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Napolitano, Hon. Janet, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 13 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Stanley, Clifford L., Ph.D., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC ............................... 15 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Stock, Margaret D., Lieutenant Colonel, USAR, Retired, Anchorage, Alaska ... 34 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Steven A. Camarota by Senator Grassley ..................... 108 

Questions submitted to Hon. Arne Duncan by Senator Grassley ........................ 106 

Questions submitted to Hon. Janet Napolitano by Senator Grassley ................. 103 

Questions submitted to Clifford L. Stanley by Senator Grassley ........................ 107 

ANSWERS 

Responses of Steven A. Camarota to questions submitted by 

Senator Grassley .................................................................................................. 122 

Responses of Hon. Arne Duncan to questions submitted by 

Senator Grassley .................................................................................................. 118 

Responses of Hon. Janet Napolitano to questions submitted by 

Senator Grassley .................................................................................................. 109 

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses 

from Clifford L. Stanley.] 
Page

IV 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office, and Joanne Lin, Legislative Counsel, statement ... 125 

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Dan Stein, President, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 129 
(1) 

THE DREAM ACT 

TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2011 

UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES

AND BORDER SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 

Room SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Dick Durbin, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Durbin, Schumer, Leahy, Feinstein, Franken, 

Blumenthal, Cornyn, and Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DICK DURBIN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Good morning. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security will come 

to order. Today’s hearing is on the DREAM Act, legislation that 

would allow a select group of immigrant students to earn legal status. 

Before I begin, I want to especially thank the Chairman of the 

full Committee, Senator Leahy, and Senator Schumer, who chairs 

the Immigration Subcommittee and who will join us shortly, for 

their long-standing support of this legislation and for giving me the 

opportunity to hold the first-ever Senate hearing on this bill. 

This bill has been introduced and considered for almost 10 years. 

The first hearing was scheduled for September 12, 2001, and was 

canceled for obvious reasons. The bill has gone through numerous 

markups, a lot of floor debate, and been considered in various 

forms, but this is the first official Committee hearing on the bill. 

Thousands of immigrant students in the United States were 

brought here as children. It was not their decision to come to this 

country, but they grew up here pledging allegiance to our flag and 

singing our national anthem. They are Americans through and 

through. 

The DREAM Act would give these young people a chance to earn 

legal status if they have good moral character and go to college or 

serve in the military. 

The DREAM Act would make America a stronger country by giving these talented immigrants the chance to fulfill their potential. 

The young people who would be eligible for the DREAM Act call 

themselves ‘‘Dreamers,’’ and over the years I have met a lot of 

them, and hundreds of them are here today. I want to introduce 

a few of them. 
2 

The first one is Tereza Lee. Tereza, would you please stand up? 

Ten years ago, I was contacted by Ann Monaco, a teacher at the 

Merit School of Music in Chicago. One of her students—Tereza— 

was an extraordinary musical talent who had played as a soloist 

with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. She had been accepted at 

several of the country’s most prestigious music schools: the 

Juilliard School of Music and the Manhattan School of Music. As 

they were filling out the application form for her to go to school, 

the question came up about her nationality. Her parents had 

brought Tereza to the United States when she was 2 years old; 

they had never filed any papers, and she was undocumented. 

So we contacted the INS, and they told us that she had an option: Tereza would have to leave the United States for 10 years. 

And that is when I started to work on the DREAM Act. 

Let me tell you, the story has a very happy ending. Tereza went 

on to obtain her B.A. and Masters from the Manhattan School of 

Music. In 2009, she played her debut at Carnegie Hall. Today she 

is pursuing her doctorate at the Manhattan School of Music. 

Tereza, you got me started. Thank you for being here. 

[Applause.] 

Senator DURBIN. No politician ever wants to stop the applause, 

but we have Committee rules, and we ask you to please hold your 

reactions, positive or negative, to yourself. Thank you. 

Nelson and Jhon Magdaleno, would you please stand? 

Nelson and Jhon were brought to this country from Venezuela. 

Nelson was 11, Jhon was 9. In high school Jhon was the fourth 

highest ranking officer and commander of the Air Honor Society in 

Junior ROTC. Nelson and Jhon are now honor students at Georgia 

Tech University, one of the best engineering schools in America. 

Nelson is a computer engineering major, and Jhon is a biomedical 

engineering major. Thank you for being here. 

Tolu Olabunmi, please stand. Brought to the United States from 

Nigeria as a child, in 2002 she graduated from a prestigious university in Virginia with a degree in chemical engineering. It has 

been 9 years since she graduated. She has yet to work a day as 

a chemical engineer because she is undocumented. She has been 

waiting for Durbin to pass the DREAM Act for 9 years, and she 

is now over the age of 30, and that is why the eligible age in our 

law that we have before us today is 35, because she should not be 

held responsible for the fact that we have not done what we need 

to do in passing the law. Tolu, thank you for being here. 

Monji Dolon, please stand up if you are here, Monji. His parents 

brought him here from Bangladesh in 1991 when he was 5 years 

old. In 2008, he graduated from the University of North Carolina 

at Chapel Hill. Now he is being courted by the technology industry. 

He has even been offered a job as a lead engineer for a start-up 

in Silicon Valley. He cannot accept the job offers he has received 

because he is undocumented. Thank you. 

Benita Veliz. Benita was brought here in 1993 at the age of 8. 

She graduated as valedictorian of her high school class at the age 

of 16, graduated from the honors program at St. Mary’s University 

in Texas, with a double major in biology and sociology. Thank you, 

Benita, for being here. 
3 

Angelica Hernandez, please stand. Thank you, Angelica. Brought 

here from Mexico when she was 9 years old, in high school she 

served in the Junior ROTC and was president of the National 

Honor Society. This spring she graduated from Arizona State University as the Outstanding Senior in the Mechanical Engineering 

Department. Angelica, thank you. 

There are many others here today who I would like to introduce, 

but I do not have the time to do it. Let me ask everyone here today 

who is a DREAM Act student to stand and be recognized. Thank 

you so much for being here, for the sacrifice you made to come. You 

can be seated. 

When I look around this room, I see America’s future—our doctors, our teachers, our nurses, our engineers, our scientists, our soldiers, our Congressmen, our Senators, and maybe our President. 

I ask my colleagues to consider the plight of these young people 

who find themselves in a legal twilight zone through no fault of 

their own. They are willing to serve the country they love. All they 

are asking for is a chance. 

Opponents of this bill say they sympathize with DREAM Act students. But they criticize the bill and offer no alternative. Do they 

want these young people to leave, to go back to countries where 

they may never have lived or do not remember? Or to continue living in the shadows and in doubt about their future? 

These Dreamers would happily go to the back of any line and 

wait their turn for citizenship, but there is no line for them to get 

into. 

I urge my colleagues to support the DREAM Act. It is, I think, 

one of the most compelling human rights issues of our time in 

America. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a submission for the record.] 

I would like to recognize Senator Cornyn, the Ranking Member 

of the Subcommittee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have anticipated 

today’s hearing with decidedly mixed emotions, on the one hand 

with compassion and sympathy for these young students who so 

earnestly want a brighter future for themselves; but on the other 

hand, with a sense of frustration at the way this issue has been 

wielded as a political weapon. 

You know I have supported a version of the DREAM Act for 

many years, and I know you have been a champion of this. I admire your typical persistence, and I know you care deeply about 

these young people whose parents were illegal immigrants, or are, 

and who brought them to the country in violation of our law, but 

who themselves have no culpability for being here in violation of 

our immigration laws. 

It has been too long—since 2007, in fact—when Senator Reid, the 

Majority Leader, brought an immigration reform bill to the Senate 

floor. As a matter of fact, I remember reading in President Bush’s 

book, ‘‘Decision Points,’’ he said Senator Teddy Kennedy called him 

and asked him to call Senator Reid and ask him to keep the Senate 
4 

in session over the weekend in 2007 so that the Senate could finish 

its work on that bill in 2007. But Senator Reid declined to do so, 

and as you know, that bill was pulled. 

I had no reason to doubt also the President of the United States’ 

promise to make immigration reform a priority. As a matter of fact, 

he said he would do so within his first year in office. But we know 

now that he did not keep that promise, and I have been disappointed by the President’s failure to lead on immigration reform. 

I know I am not alone. Having pushed controversial legislation 

through the United States Senate when Democrats controlled both 

the Congress and the White House—the stimulus package, the 

health care bill, the Dodd-Frank bill—there is no reason why the 

President of the United States could not have delivered on his immigration reform promise during his first 2 years as President if 

it was really the priority that he claimed. 

I am also disappointed that the Senate Majority Leader has refused to place immigration reform on the Senate agenda since 2007 

but, nevertheless, last December used once again the DREAM Act 

as a political football in a political stunt. He refused to allow any 

amendments to the bill when it was brought to the floor that might 

have addressed bipartisan concerns about it and would have, in 

fact, improved it, in my view. And he refused to allow enough floor 

time for the Senate to debate the bill. It was hardly a recipe for 

success. Instead, it had all of the hallmarks of a cynical effort to 

use the hopes and dreams of these young people as a political 

wedge in the run-up to the 2012 election. I believe we can and that 

we should do better. 

Of course, Mr. Chairman, we all have compassion for these 

young people, many of whom live in my State, the State of Texas. 

We know how the broken immigration system has failed them, and 

we know how Washington’s failure to deliver credible immigration 

reform has failed the country. 

It is important, though, to get the details right, and that is why 

the process by which this bill is considered in this Judiciary Committee and on the floor is very important. Unfortunately, the 

version of the DREAM Act we have got before us has several wellknown problems that have never been satisfactorily addressed. 

Under this version of the DREAM Act, a 35-year-old illegal immigrant with only 2 years of post-high school education would be eligible for a green card, regardless of whether they ever earn a degree. In fact, the bill allows the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security to waive the educational requirement entirely 

so that all that is required for a pathway to citizenship is a GED. 

Under this version of the DREAM Act, a 35-year-old illegal immigrant who has been convicted of two misdemeanors would be eligible for a green card. And let us remind ourselves that many misdemeanors are not minor offenses. In many States, they include 

driving while under the influence of alcohol, drug possession, burglary, theft, assault, and many other serious crimes. In New York, 

sexual assault of a minor in the third degree is a misdemeanor. 

Someone with two convictions for any of these crimes could eventually be eligible for a path to American citizenship under this legislation, and that does not include people who are actually charged 
5 

with felonies but who later pled guilty to a reduced charge of a misdemeanor. 

This version of the DREAM Act also has, in my opinion, very 

weak protections against fraud. As we saw in 1986, anytime we expand eligibility for an immigration benefit, we create a whole new 

opportunity for fraud if we are not careful. Yet this bill actually 

protects the confidentiality of the DREAM Act application even if 

it contains false information. And this bill does not acknowledge 

the impact of chain migration by hundreds of thousands of family 

members in a fragile economy that we have now. 

Mr. Chairman, these concerns, as you know, are not new. I have 

raised them time and time again over the years. But I want to 

make clear that the biggest obstacle to the passage of the DREAM 

Act is not the specific issues I have mentioned. It is the failure of 

the Federal Government to keep its promise when it comes to immigration reform. Moreover, were we to pass this bill as a standalone bill without addressing the rest of our broken immigration 

system, I believe it is far less likely that we would ever get to the 

other issues in our broken system, this being the most sympathetic 

of any of those. 

The issue we are addressing today is, in fact, the engine that 

could help pull the train for credible immigration reform. Once it 

leaves the station, what are we to tell our constituents who care 

deeply about the rest of our broken immigration system? 

But I think it is important also to recall and remind ourselves 

that America is a welcoming Nation to immigrants who play by the 

rules and do it the right way. Last year more than 600,000 people 

became naturalized U.S. citizens. I think that is something we 

should be proud of. Nearly 50,000 of these new Americans are Texans, and on Memorial Day this last year, I had the honor of attending a ceremony where young men and women who have green 

cards were the beneficiaries of an expedited path to citizenship as 

a result of legislation that I cosponsored with Senator Teddy Kennedy. It was one of the first bills that I cosponsored in the Senate. 

The American people have been compassionate and generous to 

illegal immigrants and their families. In 1986, President Reagan 

signed an amnesty for about 3 million people. It was supposed to 

be the last mass legalization that America would ever need because 

the trade-off was increased and enhanced enforcement. But the enforcement never happened. 

So the problem is not that America is an unwelcoming Nation or 

that America is not a compassionate Nation or that America will 

not continue to be welcoming and compassionate if we handle this 

issue correctly. The problem is that the Federal Government is still 

not doing what it promised to do in 1986: to secure our borders, 

to enforce our immigration laws, especially at the workplace, adequately, and encourage large numbers of people from systematically—discourage large numbers of people from systematically violating the law of the land. 

I believe sincerely that our policy should be pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration. This bill, sadly, does nothing to 

fix our broken immigration system. It is a Band-aid. And maybe 

worse, it will provide an incentive for future illegal immigration. 

This bill does nothing for border security, workplace enforcement, 
6 

visa overstays that account for about 40 percent of illegal immigration in this country. In other words, it does nothing to reduce the 

likelihood of further illegal immigration. 

What parent would not be tempted to immigrate illegally on the 

hope that if not they but maybe their children would be given the 

gift of American citizenship? And after these children are citizens, 

under current law how many millions of their immediate family 

members would eventually become eligible for citizenship? 

I think millions of Americans would support the DREAM Act, 

Mr. Chairman, if they could get their questions answered, like: Will 

this bill solve the problem of our broken immigration system or will 

it make it worse by incentivizing illegal entry? What is the impact 

on sky-high unemployment rates for current citizens and legal residents? In fact, the unemployment rate for Hispanics in America is 

roughly 2 percentage points higher than for the general population. 

And, finally, how will we pay for this when 43 cents out of every 

dollar the Federal Government currently spends is borrowed money 

and we have a $14.3 trillion national debt? 

What message are we sending to those on the other side of the 

borders who are thinking about entering the country illegally with 

a minor child? If we pass this bill, will we be back here in 5 years, 

10 years, 20 years, with the same concerns that these young people 

are bringing to us today? In other words, is this the kind of dream 

that will reoccur indefinitely? 

Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, these are some of the questions that 

I have today and some of the questions I will have for the panelists. Thank you very much. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Feinstein. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wish 

I could stay for the whole hearing. The Appropriations Committee 

is hearing the intelligence budget at 10:30, so I will need to go. But 

I want to thank you for your leadership on this. I know it has been 

difficult. You have been resolute and steadfast, and it is very much 

appreciated. 

I am one that believes that the time really has come to pass this 

bill. I listened very carefully to what Senator Cornyn said. We 

serve together on this Committee. I have come to appreciate him 

over the years. I think the one thing that I really agree with that 

he said is that these youngsters bear no culpability. And in my 

mind, that means a great deal. These youngsters did not institute 

the act to come here. Their parents did. They took part of our education system, and the youngsters that I see are the valedictorians—I know several—the student body presidents, some fighting our wars, some getting master’s degrees, some getting Ph.D.s, 

working on the side, helping out their families, trying to get scholarship wherever they can to better themselves so that they can be 

part of the American dream. 

Some of the youngsters in this room came in at 6 months old. 

They did not know. And our education system essentially they have 

made great use of, and I think that is important. 
7 

UCLA has just finished a study that says that undocumented 

youth who would obtain legal status under the DREAM Act could 

contribute an estimated $1.4 trillion to the United States economy 

over a 40-year period. That is pretty compelling evidence that these 

students work hard, that they care, and that they want to be part 

of the American dream. And to the best of my knowledge, the 

American dream has never been an exclusive dream that only some 

people could share. 

I want to make one last comment about the borders. The borders 

are more secure today than they have been in 10 years, and I know 

Secretary Napolitano will comment eloquently on that. But to the 

best of my knowledge, we have doubled Border Patrol from 10,000 

to 20,000 people; we have completed 600 miles plus of border fence; 

we have avionics, we have all kinds of technology on the border. 

And what took place in the early 1990s, which was people coming 

over by the thousands, no longer come over. 

So I just want to say that to use border security as a reason not 

to give these young people a chance makes no sense to me. I mean, 

here is somebody that has a graduate degree who cannot find a job. 

It is wrong. 

So I do not want to get wound up, but I want to thank you for 

what you are doing, and I want to support it in any way, shape, 

or form I can. Thank you very much. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator, you can get wound up anytime. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, but I 

am going to put my statement in the record so we can get on with 

it. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. I will not put my statement in the record, but 

when we get to the questions I will probably say a thing or two. 

Thank you. 

Senator DURBIN. We are expecting Senator Schumer to join us, 

and he may have a chance to make an opening statement. But let 

me turn to our first panel of witnesses for opening statements. 

Each witness will have 5 minutes. The complete written statements will be made part of the official record. And if the witnesses 

will please stand and raise your right hands to be sworn. 

Do you affirm the testimony you are about to give before the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I do. 

Mr. STANLEY. I do. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, and let the record reflect 

that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 
8 

At the outset I want to say how pleased I am we have two members of the President’s Cabinet here today. It is unusual for Cabinet Secretaries to appear before a Subcommittee and unusual for 

them to testify in support of legislation. I think it is a measure of 

this administration’s commitment to the DREAM Act that you are 

here. 

Our first witness is Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Previously, he was chief executive officer of the Chicago Public Schools 

from 2001 until 2008, the longest-serving big-city education superintendent in the country. Prior to this he ran the nonprofit foundation Ariel Education Initiative and played professional basketball 

in Australia. Secretary Duncan graduated magna cum laude from 

Harvard University. 

Thank you for being here today, and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Secretary DUNCAN. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cornyn, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to come before you today and talk about the DREAM Act. 

As you know, the Obama administration strongly supports this 

legislation which historically has enjoyed support from both sides 

of the aisle. Through it, a generation of Americans will have the 

opportunity to earn a college degree and serve our country in the 

military. Without it, these young people, who have been here for 

most if not almost all of their lives will miss out on the American 

dream, and our country’s long-term economic prosperity will suffer 

as they fail to fulfill their true economic potential. 

In the few moments that I have today, I want to explain two reasons why it is critically important to pass the DREAM Act. 

First, it is an issue of fairness. Thousands of young people have 

worked hard, but they are being denied the chance to build a better 

future for themselves and to contribute their skills, talents, and 

creativity to our country. 

Second, it is an issue of economic prosperity. By offering these 

young people the chance to earn a college degree, we are helping 

them establish their own economic security, and in the process they 

will help sustain America’s economic competitiveness into the future. 

The students who will benefit from the DREAM Act deserve a 

fair chance to succeed. They are some of our country’s best and 

brightest, and as we saw here today, they come from across the 

globe. But they were raised and educated here in America. They 

have deep roots here and are loyal to our country because for many 

of them it is the only home they have ever known. And we should 

not punish these students because they are brought here by their 

parents. 

Some of them first learned that their families are undocumented 

when they applied for college at 17 or 18 years old. And it goes 

against the basic American sense of fairness to deny them opportunities because of the choices made by their parents. 

It also goes against our national interests to deny these young 

people, these students, a chance to get a college education. By creating opportunities for these bright and talented youth to attend 
9 

college, they will contribute much, much more than they ever could 

as struggling workers moving from one under-the-table job to another. With a college education, they can fill important jobs in 

fields today facing critical shortages, such as engineers and nurses 

and teachers. And today it is important for folks to really understand this. In this very tough economic times, our country still has 

about 3 million unfilled jobs open today. By 2018 we will need to 

fill 2.6 million job openings in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 

Let me say that again: 2.6 million openings in the STEM fields 

alone. 

The students who will benefit from the DREAM Act will absolutely help to fill those jobs. By working in these fields, they can 

contribute to our country’s economic growth. With a bachelor’s degree, their earnings will be up to 80 percent higher than if their 

education ends in high school. 

According to a 2010 study from UCLA, those who would benefit 

from the DREAM Act could generate between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 

trillion in income over their careers. With those extra earnings, 

they will purchase homes and cars and other goods to drive our 

economic growth. And we know that these students are hungry. 

They are hungry to go to college. Right now 13 States offer in-State 

tuition for undocumented students. In these States that offer a 

promise of low-cost tuition, the high school dropout rate for noncitizen Latinos has fallen by 14 percent. 

Texas was actually the first State to create tuition benefits for 

these students. Today undocumented students in Texas are almost 

5 times more likely to enroll in postsecondary education as opposed 

to undocumented students in nearby States that do not offer them 

that same in-State tuition. 

But for far too many of these young students, the benefit of inState tuition is not enough. Even with the reduced costs, college remains unaffordable for them. For those who cannot afford it, their 

choices are actually limited. Eventually the earning power of a college degree is limited because they are unable to legally work and 

become full participants in our economy. And that is why the Federal Government needs to offer low-cost loans and work-study opportunities and the potential for permanent resident status to our 

young people. 

Before I close, it is important to be clear about what the DREAM 

Act will do and what it will not do and to dispel two important 

myths. 

First, the DREAM Act will not provide amnesty to students. It 

will offer a conditional, lawful, permanent resident status only for 

students who meet a rigorous set of criteria. They must have entered this country before the age of 15, and they must have lived 

in this country for 5 years before the bill’s enactment. They must 

have graduated from high school or have earned admission into an 

institution of higher education. They must pass a rigorous background check to show they are not a security threat and demonstrate good, moral character. 

Students would not be eligible if they have a criminal record that 

would make them inadmissible to this country or result in impris-
10 

onment that exceeds certain amounts of time. The students will 

earn their permanent resident status after a 6-year process. 

The second myth about the DREAM Act is that it would restrict 

the availability of Federal student aid for U.S. citizens. Simply put, 

that is not true. It would not happen. By statute, student loans are 

available to all students who are eligible to receive them. And because DREAM Act students would be ineligible for Pell grants, 

passing this bill would not have costs associated with the program. 

All told, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, estimates that the DREAM Act would generate $1.4 billion more in revenue 

than it would add in costs over the next decade. And, collectively, 

as we strive to reduce the deficit, we simply cannot afford to leave 

that kind of money, those kinds of resources on the table. 

Chairman Durbin, you and I have worked together on so many 

issues both here in Washington and back home in Chicago. I just 

have tremendous admiration for your courage, for your tenacity, 

and for your integrity. We have done many things together, but 

nothing—nothing—we could do together would be more important 

for our Nation’s young people and ultimately for our country than 

passing this DREAM Act, and I thank you so much for your personal leadership on this issue. 

This is common-sense legislation that will open the doors of postsecondary education to thousands of deserving young people. Millions of our ancestors, yours and mine, have come to America to be 

free, to work hard, and to pursue their dreams. They have fueled 

our economy for generations and made America the most prosperous Nation in the world. By passing the DREAM Act, we will 

offer a new generation of immigrants the opportunity to go to college, help our economy prosper, and live their own American 

dreams. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Arne Duncan appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Secretary Duncan, thank you very much. 

We are going to go slightly out of order here because Senator 

Schumer, who chairs the Immigration Subcommittee and was kind 

enough to allow me to have this special hearing, has to go to another important meeting, and he has asked if he could make a brief 

opening statement before Secretary Napolitano and Dr. Stanley. So 

since he has the important Subcommittee for your homeland security agency, I think we ought to let him do it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Absolutely. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Schumer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK SCHUMER, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. First I want to thank you, Senator Durbin, for holding this hearing. I want to thank Chairman 

Leahy as well as Ranking Member Cornyn. And I am honored to 

be here today for this first Senate hearing on the DREAM Act, and 

I am glad that everyone here worked hard to make this a reality. 

When Senator Durbin asked me if he could chair a hearing on 

the DREAM Act in the Immigration Subcommittee, I could not 
11 

have been happier to let him do it, and I want to salute his leadership on this issue, which has been passionate, intelligent, effective, 

and never-ending—and will not end, I am sure, until the DREAM 

Act is enacted into law. 

The American people have heard a lot about the DREAM Act 

today, and I just wanted to make three simple points. 

First, the DREAM Act comports with basic American traditions 

of enforcing the rule of law and holding individuals accountable for 

their actions. Unlike other individuals who might fall under the 

category of being an illegal immigrant, the DREAM Act only applies to young persons who made no decision to come to America. 

None of the young people who would benefit from the DREAM Act 

broke the law when they came here. They had no intent to break 

the law, and there is no law they can be prosecuted for breaking. 

This is an undisputed fact. 

The best thing about America, the thing I am proudest of, is that 

we each stand on our own two feet. We are not judged by who our 

parents are, what our parents did for a living, or when, why, or 

how our parents came to this country. We are judged by our own 

actions, and the deal we all abide by is that if we work hard and 

play by the rules, the American dream is available to each and 

every one of us. 

But too many still say we should punish people not for their own 

actions but for actions of their parents. Well, that is un-American, 

and it violates the very spirit of our Constitution, which specifically 

says that there shall be no corruption of blood, meaning our Founding Fathers specifically endorsed the concept that children should 

not be punished for the sins of their parents. 

Second, the DREAM Act only serves to eliminate a nonsensical 

distinction that currently exists within our immigration system, a 

distinction where foreign students with no ties to America are actually treated much better than children who have grown up their 

whole lives in this country and have graduated from American high 

schools. Here is what I mean. 

Under our current system, if a young person living in Mexico, 

England, China, or Egypt is accepted for study at an American university, that child is welcome to come here to America with a student visa so long as they do not pose a threat to the country. Then 

if that same young person can find a job in the United States upon 

graduating, he or she can often earn citizenship if their employer 

agrees to sponsor that person for a green card. But the DREAM 

Act kids, who are educated in our public schools and who are 

Americans in their hearts and in their souls, cannot go to college 

if they are accepted into our schools without subjecting themselves 

to the risk of deportation. 

This distinction simply makes no sense. I would much rather 

give a slot at one of our universities to a young person who wants 

to stay here and contribute than to an individual who might want 

to use their education to return home and compete against our 

companies. 

Third, the DREAM Act does not even come close to giving legal 

status to every young person who entered the United States without legal status. It only legalizes the few young people that can 

keep their nose clean for 10 years, earn a college degree, or serve 
12 

military honorably and with distinction. Many would say that those 

are among the best of people that we want to become citizens. I 

cannot think of anyone who embodies the rugged American spirit 

more than these young folks who will succeed and earn legal status 

under this program. 

And I want to think of individuals like Cesar Vargas. He is a 

graduate of my alma mater, James Madison High School. I played 

basketball at James Madison, and our team’s motto was, ‘‘We may 

be small but we are slow.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCHUMER. I hope the team was better when Cesar went 

there. 

Anyway, he was brought to the United States by his parents 

when he was 5. He is here today. I know you had all the DREAM 

kids rise, but maybe if he is not embarrassed, Cesar would rise so 

I could just wave and say hello. Hi, Cesar. He is wearing the American flag on his lapel, I might note. Right? Did I see that correctly? 

We do not have to sing the Madison alma mater together, Cesar, 

for the sake of keeping the rest of the audience in the room. 

When Cesar was in college, he tried to enlist in the military but 

was turned away because he did not have legal status. Today Cesar 

is a student at City University of New York of Law. He has a GPA 

of 3.8. He is fluent in Spanish, Italian, and French, and he is close 

to mastering Cantonese and Russian. Cesar obviously is a talented 

individual. He has received lucrative offers to work for corporate 

law firms outside the United States, but his dream—his dream, 

and the dream of many of us—is for him to stay in the United 

States and serve our country. He wants to serve as a military lawyer. And, by the way, we need military lawyers who speak all those 

many languages. Without the DREAM Act, Cesar will not be able 

to enlist in the military. 

Haven’t young people like Cesar proven that they are worthy of 

the opportunity to live their dreams? 

So I thank everyone for coming to this hearing, and I hope we 

can pass the DREAM Act as part of tough, fair, and practical, bipartisan immigration reform legislation as soon as possible. And I 

tell my good friend from Texas, we are continuing to work on a bipartisan comprehensive bill. We are making decent progress, and 

I hope he will join us in trying to make that happen. 

I thank Secretary Napolitano and Dr. Stanley for indulging me 

here, and I certainly thank Chairman Durbin for leading this hearing and leading this drive for the DREAM Act. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Schumer, thank you for that strong 

statement, and we are looking forward to working together. 

Our next witness, Janet Napolitano, is Secretary of Homeland 

Security. Previously Secretary Napolitano was Governor of Arizona. 

She was the first woman to chair the National Governors Association and named one of the top five Governors in the country by 

Time Magazine. Secretary Napolitano was also the first female Attorney General of Arizona and served as U.S. Attorney for the district of Arizona. Secretary Napolitano graduated from Santa Clara 

University where she was the university’s first female valedictorian, received her J.D. from the University of Virginia School of 

Law. 
13 

Secretary Napolitano, we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, and thank 

you, Ranking Member Cornyn, and it is also a pleasure to see 

Ranking Member Grassley, and we appreciate your work with the 

Department on all of the range of matters before the Department 

of Homeland Security. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in favor of the 

DREAM Act, which is a priority for this administration. It is important to the Nation as a whole. It is important to the mission of 

the Department of Homeland Security. The President and the administration strongly support this bill, and I would echo everything 

that Secretary Duncan said before me. 

Now, last December I joined the President and many members 

of the Cabinet in urging the Congress to pass the DREAM Act. In 

fact, that effort included not only the Departments of Defense and 

Education, who are here today, but also Secretaries Salazar, Locke, 

Solis, Vilsack, and a host of others who worked for the bill’s passage. 

We were disappointed that this important legislation did not 

overcome the filibuster against it, but we did not view that as a 

terminal point for the DREAM Act. And for that reason I commend 

you, Senator Durbin, and the numerous cosponsors of the DREAM 

Act for continuing to work to pass this bill. 

The case for the DREAM Act is strong, and there are many ways 

in which this legislation is important for our country. President 

Obama has called the DREAM Act, ‘‘the right thing to do for the 

people it would affect and the right thing to do for the country.’’ 

And not only is it the right thing, it is the smart thing. Both Democrats and Republicans have voiced support for this common-sense 

bill because it is important to our economic competitiveness, as 

Secretary Duncan said; our military readiness, as you will hear; 

and there is, quite frankly, no reason not to pass this important 

legislation. 

It is also important to our law enforcement efforts, and as the 

member of the Cabinet responsible for enforcement of immigration 

laws, I would like to focus on how the DREAM Act would strengthen our ability to enforce and administer our Nation’s immigration 

laws. 

The DREAM Act should be seen in the broader context of this 

administration’s comprehensive approach to border security and to 

immigration enforcement which has achieved important and historic results. Over the past 2 years, our approach has focused on 

identifying criminal aliens and those who pose the greatest security 

and public safety threats to our communities. This is what any 

good law enforcement agency does. It sets priorities to make sure 

we maximize the impact of each enforcement dollar. 

The DREAM Act supports these important priorities because 

only young people who are poised to contribute to our country and 

have met strict requirements regarding moral character and criminal history would be eligible. These individuals do not pose a risk 

to public safety. They do not pose a risk to national security. Yet, 
14 

as long as there are no legal options available for them to adjust 

their immigration status, they will be part of the population subject 

to immigration enforcement. 

It simply does not make sense from a law enforcement perspective to expend limited law enforcement resources on young people 

who pose no threat to public safety, have grown up here and want 

to contribute to our country by serving in the military or going to 

college. 

The reality is that we have a significant population of people who 

are in this country illegally, some 11 million, and Congress simply 

does not appropriate the resources to remove such a large number. 

So that is why it has been important to develop a clear strategy 

with clear priorities to guide our enforcement efforts. That is why 

it is so important that we utilize programs that focus our enforcement efforts on the populations that are most likely to pose a 

threat to security or public safety. 

Our Department has focused on identifying criminal aliens and 

those who pose the greatest threats to our communities, and we 

have prioritized them for removal from our country. We have also 

worked to ensure that employers have the tools they need to maintain a legal workforce and face penalties if they knowingly and repeatedly violate the law. 

Through the establishment of clear priorities, our interior enforcement efforts are also achieving unprecedented results. More 

than half of those removed last year were convicted criminals, the 

most ever removed from our country in a single year. And between 

October of 2008 and October of 2010, the number of convicted 

criminals that were removed from the United States increased 71 

percent while the number of non-criminals removed dropped by 23 

percent. 

Indeed, the priorities we have set are strengthened by the 

DREAM Act. It is simple. Passage of the DREAM Act would allow 

us to focus even more attention on true security and public safety 

threats by providing a firm but fair way for individuals brought 

into our country as children through no fault of their own to obtain 

legal status by pursuing higher education or by serving in the 

United States Armed Forces. 

As introduced, the DREAM Act establishes a rigorous process for 

those who enter the United States illegally as children, but allows 

them to obtain conditional permanent resident status by proving 

that they meet several strict requirements. Those individuals who 

would qualify under the DREAM Act do not fall within our enforcement priorities, and passage of the DREAM Act would completely 

eliminate them from the population that is subject to immigration 

enforcement. 

Passage of the DREAM Act will neither resolve nor substitute for 

the need for comprehensive immigration reform. But while the 

broader immigration debate continues, I urge the Congress to address the DREAM Act now. It is common-sense legislation. It has 

been supported, at least in the past, by Democrats, Republicans, 

and Independents, and it will assist the Department of Homeland 

Security in fulfilling our security, our public safety, and our immigration enforcement missions. 
15 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Janet Napolitano appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Our next witness is Dr. Clifford Stanley, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Previously, Dr. Stanley was 

president of Scholarship America, the Nation’s largest nonprofit 

private sector scholarship organization; prior to this, executive vice 

president, University of Pennsylvania. Under Secretary Stanley, a 

retired United States Marine Corps infantry officer, served 33 

years in uniform, retiring as a major general. He received his B.A. 

from South Carolina State University, his Master’s of Science degree from Johns Hopkins, and a doctorate from the University of 

Pennsylvania. 

Under Secretary Stanley, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD L. STANLEY, PH.D., UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. STANLEY. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Cornyn and other Members. I am pleased to be here today to 

discuss S. 952, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien 

Minors Act of 2011, the DREAM Act, and its impact on our Armed 

Forces. The DREAM Act would provide a path to legal permanent 

residence for individuals who have come to the United States at 15 

years of age or younger and have lived here for at least 5 years. 

These young people must also meet several additional requirements before they receive lawful permanent resident status. They 

include completing 2 years of honorable military service or 2 years 

of college, demonstrating good moral character, and remaining in 

a conditional status for a period of 6 years. 

As I am joined on this panel by the Secretary of the Department 

of Homeland Security who will discuss and who has already discussed some parts of the DREAM Act and immigration and naturalization, the Secretary of the Department of Education who will 

focus on the impact of postsecondary education, my remarks today 

will be limited to the impact of the DREAM Act on the military 

force and force management. 

The Department of Defense strongly supports the DREAM Act. 

This targeted legislation will allow the best and the brightest 

young people to contribute to our country’s well-being by serving 

their country in the United States Armed Forces or pursuing a 

higher education. In my three decades of service as a Marine officer, I served with many people who immigrated to our Nation looking for a better life. Since the Civil War, we have embraced the role 

of immigrants in our Armed Services. This is nothing new. Regardless of their backgrounds, they had and continue to have one core 

mission in life: to serve our Nation. 

Today more than 25,000 non-citizens serve in uniform, and approximately 9,000 legal permanent resident aliens enlist each year. 

They serve worldwide in all services and in a variety of jobs. They 

represent the United States both at home and abroad—even on the 

front lines of our current overseas contingency operations. Since 
16 

September 11, 2001, over 69,000 have earned citizenship while 

serving, and over 125 of those who entered military service after 

that date have made the ultimate sacrifice in war and have given 

their lives for our Nation. 

The DREAM Act expands the opportunity for service to an entirely new group of non-citizens—those who are in an undocumented status through no fault of their own. The young men and 

women who would be covered under this legislation would further 

expand the prime recruiting market for the services and allow us 

to selectively manage against the highest recruiting standards. 

They are scholars, student leaders, and athletes. In fact, some have 

participated in high school Junior ROTC programs. 

These students are culturally American, having grown up in the 

United States, often having little, if any, attachment to their country of birth. They are functionally without citizenship anywhere in 

the world, and passage of the DREAM Act would offer this very 

specific subset of young people the opportunity to serve the Nation 

in which they grew up and provide a path to becoming productive 

citizens and contributing members of our society. 

Candidates enlisting under the DREAM Act would be subject to 

the same rigorous entrance standards as all other applicants, maintaining the highest quality and integrity of the force. They would 

also be expected to complete the existing terms of service required 

of all members of the Armed Services. 

The Department strongly endorses and supports the passage of 

the DREAM Act and believes it will have a positive impact on military recruiting and readiness. I thank you for this opportunity to 

appear before you today and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Clifford L. Stanley appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Dr. Stanley. 

We are honored to have the Chairman of the full Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, here, and I would like to invite him 

to make some opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. I was able to schedule 

two different things at the same time because I knew this was in 

the hands of Senator Durbin and Senator Cornyn and the others. 

But I watched, Secretary Napolitano, your statement, and, Secretary Duncan, I agree with what you have said. 

Dr. Stanley, as the proud father of a young Marine, I am delighted to see you here and hear what you said. I know that my 

son, who is now finished with all of his Marine Corps duties, agrees 

completely with the support of the DREAM Act. 

I have been a supporter of this bill and a cosponsor since it was 

first introduced in the 107th Congress. I was disappointed when it 

did not pass last year, but Senator Durbin has been the strongest 

proponent of this. It is just remarkable. I do not want to embarrass 

him, but if you knew the hours he spends in cornering and collaring Senators pushing for this bill, the passion is very, very real. 

I think of all the young men and women who have worked so 

hard to support this legislation. They find themselves in an impos-
17 

sible situation. They have come out to speak for the legislation. 

They wish nothing more than to become lawful, patriotic full participants in the country they call home, and they actually risk their 

position in this country in speaking out. I think those are some of 

the bravest things I have seen. 

The DREAM Act serves the interests of the United States. It certainly encourages and rewards military service. I agree with Secretary Gates and General Powell that our Armed Services will be 

stronger for encouraging greater participation by those who want 

to serve the United States. Allowing these young people to serve 

America in their journey to become Americans is something we 

should all support. Remember, it is a long journey for them. But 

they want to become Americans. As Americans, we ought to be so 

proud to see these young people wanting to serve and embrace our 

Nation. 

Just think how extraordinary it is, as you have already pointed 

out, that men and women who are not U.S. citizens fight in service 

of the United States and its citizens, and let us not forget they die 

in the service of the United States and our citizens. That says a 

lot about America, but it also says a lot about the character of 

those who serve in our military who want to become Americans. 

The bill also promotes educational opportunities for America’s 

young people. I can see no purpose that is served by deporting talented young people who find themselves in a situation not of their 

own making, especially for those who wish for nothing more than 

to contribute to the country they call home. 

Military readiness and higher education are not Democratic or 

Republican ideals. They are American ideals. They are the kind of 

ideals that attracted my grandparents, my maternal grandparents, 

when they immigrated to this country from Italy, or my wife’s parents when they immigrated to Vermont. 

To disparage this legislation by calling it ‘‘amnesty’’ ignores our 

fundamental values of fairness and justice. Almost 30 years ago, in 

the landmark Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme 

Court held that children may not be punished for the actions of 

their parents. I find it hard to believe that anyone would disagree 

with that principle. But if you deny these deserving students a 

chance to gain lawful status and an opportunity to realize their potential, you do just that. 

I know I preach to the converted with a lot in this room. We just 

have to convert 50 percent plus one of the House and the Senate. 

Or, I guess now we have to go 60. When I came here, you only 

needed 51 votes to pass something, but now we need 60. But whatever it takes, it is a matter of honesty and fairness and what we 

stand for as Americans. Every one of us has immigrant parents, 

grandparents, or great-grandparents somewhere down the line. We 

enjoy being Americans. Let people who have worked hard to be 

Americans enjoy it, too. 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Chairman Leahy. You have been a 

stalwart champion and friend on this issue. 

We are now going to ask questions—and I will be first, and then 

we will go through the panel here—of the first witness panel that 

we have before us. And before asking my first question, I would 
18 

like to take a moment to respond to my friend Senator Cornyn 

from Texas. 

To my knowledge, the only perfect law ever written was written 

on stone tablets and carried down a mountain by Senator Moses. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DURBIN. Otherwise, we are doing our best, and sometimes we do need to improve legislation that is before us. I am always open to that, and I have always been open to good-faith efforts to amend the DREAM Act to achieve our goals, which I think 

are fairly simply stated. 

I would also say that I have been faulted, maybe even today, for 

looking for every single opportunity to bring this matter before the 

United States Senate. I brought it as an amendment to a bill, and 

I was criticized because they said you did not bring it as a freestanding bill. Then I brought it as a free-standing bill, and they 

said, well, it is the wrong time. 

It seems like if people are looking for a reason to vote no, they 

are always going to find one. But I do want to invite those who are 

genuinely interested in working on this legislation to work with 

me. Let me say a few things about the criticisms that have been 

leveled. 

One, this notion that this is an unlimited opportunity for people 

to qualify under the DREAM Act ignores the obvious. Under the 

DREAM Act no one will be eligible unless they arrived in the 

United States at least 5 years before the bill became law, so it is 

not a completely open-ended opportunity. 

Secondly, Senator Cornyn has gone through a long list of very serious misdemeanors, and I do not diminish them in any way. I will 

tell you, though, there is a specific requirement in the DREAM Act 

that the person who is applying be of good moral character, which 

means at the end of the day they will be judged in the entirety of 

their life experience, and they have to pass that judgment. 

Third, there are questions as to whether or not there is going to 

be fraud involved in applications by people under the DREAM Act. 

This bill establishes a criminal penalty for fraud of 5 years in prison. This is not a light slap on the wrist. We are serious. If you 

want to be serious about becoming an American, at least legally an 

American and become an American citizen, we want to make sure 

that you are honest with us all the way. 

So let me speak to questions to the panel. Secretary Napolitano, 

I listened carefully to what you had to say, and as I understand 

it, with 11 million undocumented estimated in our country and 

your responsibility to deport those whom you consider to be a 

threat to our country, you have established a priority, as you have 

said, where those who have some criminal background or otherwise 

some character defect that might be a threat to America. 

What I am asking you is, there was a recent memo by John Morton in your Department which established some standards and 

guidelines for deportation. What are you doing to ensure that the 

Morton memo is fully implemented and DREAM Act students are 

not unjustly deported? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, you are right, Senator Durbin. We 

simply do not receive the appropriation necessary to remove everyone who is technically removable from the United States, and so 
19 

we have to set priorities. That is what good leaders do. That is 

what good law enforcement requires. Those priorities have been set 

forth in the Morton memo, and they focus upon those who are the 

greatest risk to public safety or to security. 

One of the things we are working on now is to design a process 

that would allow us as early as possible to identify people who are 

caught up in the removal system who in the end really do not fit 

our priorities or in the end an immigration judge would not find 

them removable. We have not perfected such a process, but we certainly are working on the design of one. 

Senator DURBIN. I hope you can and I hope we can work together 

because I honestly believe that you have an important and serious 

responsibility to keep America safe, and I believe the overwhelming 

majority of young people I have met who would qualify under the 

DREAM Act are not only no threat to America, they are, in fact, 

something good for the future of America, and we want to make 

sure that we do our part in the Senate and in Congress, but to 

work with this administration so that they are not caught up in deportation when, in fact, it is not in the best interests of our country. 

I would also like to go to this question that has been raised repeatedly about so-called misdemeanor offenses. As this bill is written, an applicant under the DREAM Act must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they are of good moral character, 

going beyond whether or not there has been a misdemeanor on 

their record. Can you tell me what that standard means in light 

of some of the questions that have been raised earlier? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think you said it very well in your 

original response to Senator Cornyn. It is looking at the totality of 

circumstances and the totality of behavior of the individual who is 

the applicant for DREAM status. And so there are gray areas: Offenses in some States may be misdemeanors; in others they may 

be felonies. But that can all be taken into account by the immigration officer who is processing the application. 

Senator DURBIN. Secretary Duncan, the argument has been made 

here today that we cannot afford these students, they are just too 

darn expensive, they are going to cost us too much money to educate them, and we have to acknowledge the fact we are in a deficit 

situation. So are the DREAM Act kids too expensive for the future 

of America? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Quite to the contrary, the opposite is true. 

Again, whether it is CBO numbers or you look at lifetime earnings, 

Senator, you and I both know we have to educate our way to a better economy. That is the only way we are going to get there. And 

when we have a couple million unfilled high-skill, high-wage jobs 

available today, even in this tough economy, we need the workers 

who can fill those jobs, who have those skills. The only way we get 

there is if we have many more people graduating from college. If 

we want to maintain our economic competitiveness relative to other 

nations, we have to increase those numbers pretty significantly. 

This is a huge number of young people passionately committed 

to their education who are going to make a lot of money, who are 

going to pay taxes, who are going to buy homes, who are going to 

buy cars. They are going to contribute. And, again, according to 
20 

CBO’s numbers, this will lead to deficit reduction. To not take advantage of this as a country is simply nonsensical to me. This is 

an investment, not an expense. 

Senator DURBIN. And isn’t it also true that most of these students have been beneficiaries of public education to this point in 

their lives? 

Secretary DUNCAN. They would basically be the only students 

who could qualify. Again, going back to your point, they would have 

to have been here and been in this country for at least 5 years beforehand. They would have to have graduated from school. These 

are young people committed to getting an education, committed to 

contributing. 

We have a devastating dropout rate in this country. Years ago 

it was okay to drop out. You could go get a good job. There are 

none of those jobs available today. We have to get that dropout rate 

down to zero. It is far too high in our home State of Illinois. It is 

far too high in Texas and other States around the country. By giving that dream, making that dream a reality, that young people 

know they can go to college, we will keep many more people engaged; we will keep them moving in the right direction. And if we 

do that, they are going to give so much more to the country than 

they can by working a bunch of dead-end, small-time cash jobs. 

Senator DURBIN. Secretary Duncan, a few years ago I spoke at 

the Illinois Institute of Technology commencement in Chicago and 

watched as master’s degrees and Ph.D.s were awarded and saw all 

of the students, primarily from Asia, as they filed across the stage. 

And someone said to me later, ‘‘Why don’t we staple a green card 

on every one of those diplomas? We need this talent. We need these 

people.’’ And I think the point was made earlier by Senator Schumer. 

Do you see some inconsistency in welcoming those born in another land who come to the United States for an education and saying to those who have gathered here with engineering degrees and 

the like, ‘‘Leave, we do not need you’’? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Again, that makes no sense whatsoever, and 

we need people who are going to be the creators, the entrepreneurs, 

the innovators who are going to create the next generation of jobs, 

the next Google, the next Facebook. I have seen numbers that show 

that of all the start-up companies that come out of Silicon Valley, 

about a fourth are started by immigrants. 

We need that talent. We need them to drive our country forward. 

They can be the field to our economic engine. So not to give them 

opportunity, we hurt our country, and that is what I simply cannot 

get past. I cannot understand that. 

Senator DURBIN. Dr. Stanley, I have heard a lot of suggestions 

about the DREAM Act over the years, and one of them I have 

heard more than once said let us just make this for military. If 

they will enlist in the military, then we will give them a chance 

to be legal. In other words, if they are willing to die for our country 

and wear our uniform, we ought to give them a chance to be citizens, but under no other circumstances. 

What is wrong with that position? 

Mr. STANLEY. Well, Senator, that is a very narrow focus. I believe and the Department believes that that should be a much 
21 

broader focus. That way we have—we are looking at increasing the 

pool, those eligible. We do not want to narrowly scope this so it is 

just the military. In fact, that would be the opposite of it. I think 

the unintended consequences of doing that would not achieve what 

you want to do. 

We also would be actually discriminating against those who were 

not able to actually be able to serve. We have people, for example, 

who are disabled, who may have other disqualifying characteristics 

through no fault of their own that could not serve in the military 

but who are just as qualified. 

Again, the pool is the most important thing for us in having a 

talented pool to choose from. 

Senator DURBIN. And we speak with some pride of the fact that 

we have an all-volunteer military force. In this situation, if this became the only avenue for legalization, it really, I think, runs afoul 

or in the face of that whole concept of a volunteer military force, 

does it not? 

Mr. STANLEY. It does, yes. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, in your testimony you assert that only individuals of good moral character who have not committed any crime 

that would make them inadmissible to the United States would be 

eligible for the DREAM Act. Later in your written testimony you 

clarify that to mean that no one convicted of a felony or more than 

three or more misdemeanors could be eligible. 

Does it concern you that we have a loophole for people with multiple criminal convictions in a bill that is advertised as helping 

non-culpable students who have lived lives on the straight and narrow path? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, first, I think that, again, we 

have to look at the totality, and the bill allows the totality of the 

circumstances to be taken into account in terms of the character 

of the individual involved. But the criteria as set forth in the bill 

are far more strict than the normal criteria used in the naturalization or the legalization process. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, let me ask, do you support the bill as currently written? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do. 

Senator CORNYN. And you speak on behalf of the administration, 

correct? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do. 

Senator CORNYN. Would you support an amendment that would 

specify that certain misdemeanor offenses for which a single conviction of those offenses would make someone ineligible? For example, 

an amendment that would strike eligibility for driving under the 

influence of alcohol or possession of drugs or burglary or theft or 

assault, would the administration support an amendment to Senator Durbin’s bill that would make people guilty of those offenses 

ineligible? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think, Senator, that if you wish to offer 

some language to actually examine, we would certainly be open to 

looking at that. 
22 

Senator CORNYN. Well, that is not particularly reassuring given 

the track history of Senator Reid bringing the bill to the floor and 

not allowing any amendments. Last December was the last time. 

But this bill also as written gives you discretion, as Secretary of 

Homeland Security, to waive certain ineligibility requirements. For 

example, someone who has committed voter fraud, you could in 

your discretion waive that ineligibility requirement. 

Under what circumstances would you see yourselves using that 

waiver authority for somebody who has been convicted of voter 

fraud? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, again, I think this is not the hearing to go into some of the actual details of the bill in that sense, 

and I would suggest—— 

Senator CORNYN. Of course it is. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. Senator Cornyn, that if you 

have amendments, we would be happy to consider them, and this 

is the time to see that language. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, Madam Secretary, you are here under 

oath speaking on behalf of the administration on a piece of important legislation that bears—and you say you support it as written 

and the administration supports it as written. I think it is appropriate to be able to ask you questions about it. And, in fact, isn’t 

it true under this legislation that you as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security would have the authority to waive 

entirely the education or military requirements and put someone 

on a path to citizenship? Are you aware of that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I think that the criteria as listed 

in the bill are very specific, and that would be the path that we 

would adopt. 

Senator CORNYN. So you would not use the waiver authority that 

is put in the bill? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Not necessarily. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, that is not very comforting, ‘‘not necessarily.’’ For an administration that has already granted 1,433 

waivers of the health care bill that has passed, 3.2 million people 

are not required to comply with the health care law that passed, 

the controversial health care bill that passed this Congress. And to 

give you or any other non-elected, non-accountable individual complete discretion to waive the requirements of the law, I will have 

to tell you, is not comforting to me. 

But let me ask you, Senator Durbin I believe asked you about 

the so-called Morton memo, and, in fact, on Monday, the Houston 

Chronicle broke a story that uncovered what they said was an apparent attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to mislead the public and the Congress with regard to selective enforcement of certain immigration offenses. In fact, one spread sheet that 

was produced indicates that ICE attorneys in Houston alone sought 

the dismissal of deportation proceedings against 78 aliens convicted 

of offenses including sexual assault, kidnapping, assault with a 

deadly weapon, solicitation of murder, burglary, delivery of drugs, 

theft, forgery, and DWI, to name just a few. 

In fact, in 2010, I wrote you a letter and asked you for details 

with regard to this program. In response, the Department of Homeland Security assured me that a directive instructive ICE attorneys 
23 

to seek dismissals of immigration proceedings involving certain 

classes of criminal aliens ‘‘does not exist.’’ But indeed now as the 

Houston Chronicle reports, it did exist, it does exist. 

Could you explain the apparent discrepancy between your response to a question about the existence of this memo and what the 

Houston Chronicle reported on Monday? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would be happy to. The Director has responsibility for immigration enforcement across the entire country, 

many field offices across the land, all dealing with different circumstances all the time. And his job—and I have asked him to do 

this—is to make sure that there are clear priorities that are set 

and enforced. 

Unfortunately, one of the 26 field offices conflated two different 

memos that had come out and misconstrued what he directed. That 

has since been clarified, cleared up, and fixed, and I would be 

happy to provide your office with a side briefing on that. But the 

plain fact of the matter is that a miscommunication occurred at the 

regional level in one of 26 offices. 

Now, that does not really, I think, pertain here, and I will tell 

you why. What we are talking about here—— 

Senator CORNYN. Well, Senator Durbin asked you about it—I beg 

your pardon—and so you answered questions about the Morton 

memo and about your policy for selectively enforcing immigration 

laws based on what you say are scarce resources. Have you ever 

requested Congress to provide the appropriations necessary for you 

to enforce the law as Congress has written? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We certainly have provided Congress 

with the information about what it would take to remove 11 million 

people from the country. 

Senator CORNYN. That is not the question, Madam Secretary. My 

question is: Have you requested the Congress the appropriations to 

enable the Department of Homeland Security, which is committed 

with enforcement of our immigration laws, with the ability to do 

its job? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, as you know, because this dialogue has gone on for quite some time in the Congress, we have 

provided the information about what it would take to do removal 

of everyone in the country. It is obvious that those resources are 

not available. And when you are talking about DREAM Act students, it really does not make sense. We really need to take our 

resource—— 

Senator CORNYN. Madam Secretary, you are not answering my 

question. And let me close with—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, perhaps I am not understanding 

your question. I thought I was answering it. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, you are not. Maybe we need to continue 

the dialogue. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would be happy to. 

Senator CORNYN. Secretary Duncan, let me just ask, since my 

time is quickly escaping us, you talk about the importance of being 

able to retain in this country highly educated people who hail from 

other countries who are educated in our institutions of higher education, and I actually agree with you. That is why I have been the 

principal Senate sponsor of something called ‘‘the skill bill,’’ which 
24 

would actually raise the cap on the H–1B visas to enable people 

who graduate with math, science, engineering, and other degrees 

at the graduate or postgraduate level to enable us on a selected 

basis to retain them here in this country so they do not simply take 

the education that taxpayers have subsidized here and go back 

home and then compete with us and create jobs there. Do you and 

the administration support lifting the cap on the number of H–1B 

visas here so we can retain more of these students that are highly 

educated and whose educations are subsidized by taxpayers here in 

America? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I will just speak personally that I think in 

this country we need as much talent as we can get, and we need, 

again, the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the folks who are going 

to create jobs. And I think you have a room full of young people 

here who have those skills, who have that capacity. I want to give 

them those kinds of opportunities. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, do you know for a fact that the young 

men and women here in this room who seek passage of this authority would, in fact, qualify for those 3 million jobs that are unmet 

right now? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I do not know all these young people intimately here. I saw them here today. But I will tell you there are 

many young people in this room and around the country, in your 

home State and mine, whom, when we talk about almost 2 million 

unfilled STEM jobs—and we know that is the future economic engine of our country. Could many of the young people in this room 

and around the country help to fill those jobs and drive the economy? No question in my mind. Absolutely. I have worked with 

many of them in the Chicago public schools, extraordinarily talented. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would permit 

me one last question. This is for Dr. Stanley. 

Dr. Stanley, you are aware, are you not, that under the current 

law the Secretary of Defense can waive certain ineligibility requirements for somebody who is not a green card holder or an American 

citizen and allow them to serve in the United States military? Are 

you aware of that, sir? 

Mr. STANLEY. I believe you are referring to the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest. 

Senator CORNYN. Yes, it is 10 U.S.C. Section 504, and it provides 

discretion to the Department of Defense Secretary to allow the enlistment of somebody who meets perhaps the situation of Cesar 

Vargas, who is not a green card holder, but it gives that discretion. 

Are you aware that there is discretion under current law to allow 

certain individuals on a selected basis to serve in our military who 

are not green card holders or American citizens? 

Mr. STANLEY. I am, Senator. It is a very narrowly focused program. It is actually for very specific skills like medicine or language. 

Senator CORNYN. In fact, it has never been used, right? 

Mr. STANLEY. It has been used. 

Senator CORNYN. It has been? 
25 

Mr. STANLEY. It has, yes, Senator. It has been used, in fact, as 

a pilot program that is actually being used now, and we use that 

for very specific skills. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I would love to get—the information that 

my staff was provided or provided to me said that it had never 

been used, so I would love to get that information from you and 

your office. 

Mr. STANLEY. We will do that. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Cornyn. Our information says 

it has never been used for undocumented immigrants. It might 

have been some other immigration status. 

Mr. STANLEY. That is correct. 

Senator DURBIN. I believe later in the hearing Lieutenant Colonel Margaret Stock is going to testify about the challenge that 

would present. 

Senator Leahy. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Stanley, I am not going to be able to stay for Colonel Stock’s 

testimony, but her testimony points out that the DREAM Act beneficiaries would be subject to all the statutory and contractual obligations of a U.S. citizen, but would still be ineligible for officer 

commissions and ROTC scholarships and other opportunities. They 

have to wait longer to become eligible to be naturalized than other 

non-citizens who serve in our military. That really does not sound 

like amnesty. 

Given the higher demands on the DREAM Act beneficiaries, do 

you think that we will still find them joining our military? 

Mr. STANLEY. Yes, Senator, we do. We believe that we will find— 

because the standards for enlistment will not be relaxed, and we 

have to have qualified people who not only pass the physical but 

the mental and obviously have the moral background and all the 

things that go into being good citizens in order to be able to enlist 

into the military. 

Chairman LEAHY. You talked about the historical contribution 

immigrants have made throughout history in our military. I remember a person in our military who was an immigrant in an area 

of conflict in this country who fortunately had language skills that 

were exactly helpful to others in the military and to our intelligence people. 

Aren’t we better off with diversity within our military, and not 

just in race or place of origin but languages and all the rest? 

Mr. STANLEY. Yes, that is correct, Senator. The issue of having 

language and cultural diversity within the military is very important, and, in fact, just the other day we met with some of our combatant commanders who actually emphasize that need as we go 

into different geographical regions in the world and preparing for 

actually what we may be doing tomorrow as well as executing what 

we do today. 

Chairman LEAHY. Secretary Napolitano, I appreciate your being 

here. Can we assume, though, that you will come to testify before 

the full Committee in your capacity as Secretary before the year is 

out? 
26 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Let me ask you this: You were a Governor of a southern border 

State and before that you were a prosecutor. Some have argued 

that if we have the DREAM Act, it is going to encourage more illegal immigrants to come to the United States in the future. That 

assumes that foreign nationals would come to the United States 

unlawfully in anticipation that some future act of Congress would 

provide relief. Do you agree with that argument? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. I think as the bill is drafted, there 

would be a time period set during which an individual would be eligible, but outside that period, there would not be eligibility. So it 

is not an unending process. This is really dealing with the young 

people the likes of which we see in the room this afternoon. 

Chairman LEAHY. The current estimates are that approximately 

2 million individuals currently in the United States could qualify 

for the DREAM Act if it was enacted. If it was enacted and the 

steps were being followed, would that free up some of your personnel in Homeland Security to do what most of us would consider 

regular law enforcement actions, in identifying and removing criminal aliens? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, it would, and that is the whole point 

of having clear guidelines, clear priorities. But what we would urge 

the Congress to do is to take this group of young people who are 

no risk to public safety, no risk to security, who have no individual 

culpability, and take them out of the universe of those against 

whom any enforcement action should be taken so that we can focus 

on others who are more serious risks to our Nation. 

Chairman LEAHY. Secretary Duncan, I believe you have probably 

answered this, but I just want to make sure. Obviously, I am a 

supporter of the DREAM Act, but some have argued that it could 

impose higher costs on public colleges and universities through increased enrollment, people eligible for in-State tuition and so on. 

In my own State of Vermont, we have public universities; we have 

State universities. 

How do you react to a criticism like that? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I just look at CBO’s numbers that showed 

this reduces the deficit. This is a budget saver, not an expense. And 

I have never seen a study in my life that said that investment in 

getting more young people college educated would somehow hurt 

the economy. It is just absolutely counterintuitive. We desperately, 

frankly, need many more young people in this country not just 

going to college but graduating, and we have so much talent here, 

so much potential to leave them on the sidelines, it sickens me. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, I am not going to disagree with that. 

There were some statistics in the paper the other day, the number 

of States with aging populations. We ought to be getting well-educated young people into our workforce, not the other way around. 

Secretary DUNCAN. We have gone from first in the world in college graduates to ninth, and I think we are paying a real price for 

that economically. And the President has challenged us to again 

lead the world in college graduates by 2020, and we have so many 

people who can contribute to us again leading the world. To not 

give them that opportunity is nonsensical. 
27 

Chairman LEAHY. Secretary Duncan, you have been to my State. 

I still think of the day when both you and my wife received honorary degrees from St. Michael’s College. You came to a very diverse school in the area where a lot of immigrants have come and 

a lot of refugees have come. There are dozens of languages spoken 

there. But our State as a whole is not a diverse State. I think we 

are 97-percent white. But I have got to tell you, in my State of 

Vermont there is strong, strong support for the DREAM Act, strong 

support for it because Vermonters believe in fairness. It certainly 

is not something that will affect a lot of those young children you 

had school lunch with that day. But we Vermonters believe it is 

simply a matter of fairness, and an awful lot of Vermonters are 

only a generation or two away from immigrant status. We believe 

it is a matter of fairness. I believe it is a matter of fairness. And 

for whatever time I have left in the Senate, I will fight, along with 

Senator Durbin, for it. 

Senator DURBIN. I need your help. Thank you. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also want to thank you, Secretary Napolitano, Secretary Duncan, and Dr. Stanley, and I especially want to thank all the students who are in the audience today. I think what you are doing 

is important and I think it is brave, and I commend you for it. 

Now, before I begin my questioning, I want to take a moment to 

explain why I support the DREAM Act. Since coming to office, I 

have learned a lot about so many Minnesotans—so many students 

like yourselves. I learned about a student whose parents brought 

him to the United States—to the suburbs of the Twin Cities of 

Minneapolis-St. Paul—when he was 8 years old, and he saves up 

all his money every year just to take one class at the University 

of Minnesota because that is all he can afford. 

I learned about a young woman who cleans bathrooms in a dental clinic in Apple Valley in Dakota County who wants to start her 

own design business. 

I learned about a young man who is student body president of 

his Minnesota college and wants to become an educator for kids 

who are poor like him. 

Each of those students is just like you. Each of those students 

is so smart and so capable and so good. And each one of those students has a dream, but because of this injustice in our law, those 

students are stuck. I applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for drafting a bill 

that would end that injustice, and I am a proud supporter of this 

bill. 

Dr. Stanley, I sincerely believe that the day after it passes there 

will be lines out the doors of college registrars and military recruiters, across this country. 

I did a lot of USO tours, and the USO asked me to go to Walter 

Reed. I had the same experience that I think everybody who goes 

to Walter Reed has, which is: You go there thinking, ‘‘How am I 

going to cheer up a guy who has lost some limbs?’’ And you always 

end up getting cheered up yourself. I am sure you have had that. 

It is everyone’s first experience. 

So I go there, and they have to go in and ask each wounded soldier whether they want a visitor. I remember—it was Specialist 
28 

Melendez—I saw his name on the door—and they went in, came 

out and said, ‘‘Okay, Al, go in.’’ I was nervous. I saw Specialist 

Melendez, and he was grinning ear to ear, not because I was coming in—I thought it was because he was watching something on 

TV. And his dad was there grinning ear to ear. I started talking 

to him. He had lost one leg right up to his hip and the other leg 

above the knee. He was grinning because he had just become a citizen. I asked him how many guys in his unit were immigrants, and 

he said five, back in Iraq. I guess none of them had become citizens 

yet. 

I also learned on those tours that there are undocumenteds serving in our military. Is that the case, Dr. Stanley? I mean, there are 

not supposed to be, but there are, right? 

Mr. STANLEY. Senator, I have to take it for the record. That I do 

not know. About undocumented? 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. I have seen reports that they manage to 

do it. 

Let me ask a question. Say an undocumented managed to get 

into the military, which they do, from reports I have read, and they 

got wounded, say, after this was passed, but they had committed 

a couple of misdemeanors. If this person had lost a leg while fighting and serving in our military, would you be able to give them a 

waiver, Madam Secretary? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, you present a compelling case, and 

every exercise of waiver authority needs to be narrowly construed 

because we want to follow the words of the statute. But the case 

you described, depending on what the misdemeanors were, if they 

were truly minor misdemeanors and someone had sacrificed limbs 

for their country and they otherwise met every other criteria, of 

which there is a long laundry list of in this bill, that would be 

something that would be considered for a waiver, yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. So maybe that waiver is a good thing. 

Mr. Chairman, 2 months ago you sent a letter with 21 other Senators to President Obama asking him to grant deferred action to 

DREAM Act-eligible students while we work on passing this legislation. I would like to let everyone know that today I will be sending my own letter to the President in support of deferred action. 

I think it is the least that we can do to stop this injustice from getting any worse. 

Secretary Duncan, you talked about the CBO report on how passing the DREAM Act would affect our deficit. We are now in the 

middle of talks about budget, and about deficits, and about the 

long-term sustainability of our debt. Can you talk about what this 

would do in terms of bringing down our debt? 

Secretary DUNCAN. These are the CBO’s numbers, not mine, and 

CBO, as you know, is nonpartisan. Their numbers are very simple. 

They estimate that if the DREAM Act would pass, it would generate $1.4 billion more in revenue—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Trillion. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Billion, $1.4 billion more in revenue than it 

would add in costs over the next decade. So this is a deficit reducer. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am sorry, $1.4 trillion is the amount of income they would have, but $1.4 billion—— 
29 

Secretary DUNCAN. That is the deficit reduction. The $1.4 trillion, that is the bottom number in terms of income. It was a range 

between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion. So these are huge numbers. 

And, again, you know all the buying power, purchasing power, and 

what that would mean for our country to have that happening 

rather than, again, a bunch of people working for peanuts under 

the table. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. In light of the figures that were just given, 

I have to ask—based upon what the Congressional Budget Office 

assessed a version of the DREAM Act this past December—so I am 

going to ask Secretary Napolitano: Their estimate of a $5 billion increase to the deficit, while a huge burden, does not come close, in 

my opinion, to the actual cost of implementation of the bill, so a 

simple question to you: What is the Department’s estimate of the 

implementation of this bill? And where will the money come from? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we think we could handle the implementation of this bill in CIS, and if I am not mistaken, I believe 

there is also a fee mechanism in the bill as well, as there are for 

many of the citizenship programs that we administer. This is a 

budget-neutral bill, in other words. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. So your opinion is a lot different than 

what the Congressional Budget Office had. 

Let me go on to another point. On May 10, 2011, President 

Obama addressed an El Paso, Texas, crowd on immigration. In that 

speech he stated, ‘‘And sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law 

myself. But that is not how our democracy works.’’ 

On June 17th, a memo was released giving ICE officers, agents, 

and attorneys prosecutorial discretion, for instance, as involving 

undocumented immigrants on a case-by-case basis. Does this 

change in course reflect an administrative bypass of Congress? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I believe, Senator Grassley, you are referring to the memo from the ICE Director to the field? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Okay. No, it does not bypass Congress at 

all. It recognizes that we have sworn to uphold the existing immigration law, which we will. But we are in essence in many respects 

a prosecution office, and prosecution offices have priorities. The Department of Justice, the United States Attorneys offices have priorities. There is the U.S. Attorney’s manual that governs priorities. 

It is about allocating properly, and with the public safety of the 

country number one in mind, the resources that we are given by 

the Congress. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Secretary Napolitano, again, if the Congress 

fails to enact a version of the DREAM Act, will the President and/ 

or the Department bypass Congress and implement it administratively? Can you give this Committee assurances a mass amnesty 

will not be done administratively under President Obama? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and the President has been very 

firm on this. In meeting with groups that very much want him to 
30 

accomplish a DREAM Act administratively, he has said no. This is 

for the Congress to debate and to decide. But what is within the 

Executive prerogative is to set prosecution priorities, which is what 

we have done. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You used the words ‘‘prosecution priorities.’’ 

I was asking about would there be any mass amnesty done. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Perhaps we are just thinking about the 

same thing and using different words. There is no mass amnesty 

here. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Are you aware of any discussions within the Department to extend deferred action or humanitarian parole on a categorical basis such as those who would benefit under 

the DREAM Act? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am aware that there were some lowerlevel discussions, but the policy of the Department is that there can 

be no categorical amnesty, and there will not be, which is why the 

Congress needs to act. There is some urgency here with these 

young people. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Would you be willing to give the Committee 

notification of every instance the Department grants deferred action to a DREAM Act-eligible person so that we know that you are 

truly doing this on a case-by-case basis? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We would be willing to discuss that with 

you, a process for that, yes. 

Senator GRASSLEY. We have had so much correspondence here 

over the last year on this issue. I am not sure we have not already 

asked you that, so I am not sure I want to discuss it anymore. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, we have had an awful lot of correspondence with the Committee on various issues, but I think the 

point of the question is would we agree to some oversight of how 

the deferred action process is being administered, and the answer 

is we want to be very transparent about how we are exercising the 

authorities the statutes give us. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. In response to the discretionary memo 

of June 23, 2011, Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, stated, ‘‘Any American concerned about immigration needs to 

brace themselves for what is coming. This is just one of many new 

ICE policies aimed at stopping the enforcement of U.S. immigration 

laws in the United States. Unable to pass its immigration agenda 

through legislation, the administration is now implementing it 

through agency policy.’’ 

I would like to have you rebut this assertion that the Department is bypassing Congress. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think it could not be more wrong, and 

I do not know where he gets his information, but the enforcement 

record of this administration is unparalleled. We have enforced the 

law. We have improved the removal of criminal aliens. We have removed more people from the country. And we get criticized for that. 

In fact, I suspect we have been criticized by some of the people attending in this room in support of the DREAM Act. But it is our 

belief that enforcement of the immigration law is very important, 

and must be done smartly intelligently, effectively, and fairly. 

We also believe, however, that the DREAM Act-eligible students 

or applicants for the military are not those against whom the full 
31 

force of the immigration law and removal from the country is appropriate. That is why we believe that Congress should address 

this and provide a legislative fix for this problem. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Unrelated to the DREAM Act, because I 

promised—I am not going to ask you a question for answer orally, 

but I would like to have an answer in writing. This is because I 

promised the Brian Terry family that every time I got an opportunity to ask somebody that had anything to do with Fast and Furious or immigration, I would ask this question. 

Last week Chairman Issa and I sent a letter regarding your Department’s involvement in that. It is a follow-up letter that I sent 

in March that Customs and Border Protection refused to answer. 

I would like to have you give a complete and thorough, timely response to that letter. In addition to what is in that letter, I would 

like to ask you to comment, not now but in writing. The U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Dennis Burke, is your former chief of staff. Have 

you had any communications with him about Operation Fast and 

Furious or about Agent Terry’s death at the time? And if so, I 

would like to have you describe that communication. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. Now, I have got an opportunity for one more 

question. The legislation broadly allows the Secretary to set forth 

the manner in which those seeking benefits under the DREAM Act 

to apply. This concerns me. One requirement is the undocumented 

person must initially enter the U.S. before the age of 16. As you 

know, many countries do not keep accurate records of birth, and 

fraudulent documents are rampant. What documents would you require to determine age? And how will you determine when the undocumented person actually entered the United States? And what 

steps will you take to ensure this legislation does not exacerbate 

the black market for fraudulent documents? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will obviously take up administratively, but one of the things we have done in the last 2 years is 

greatly increase our anti-fraud efforts in the entire immigration 

benefit process. So, for example, we now have anti-fraud officers in 

all of 184 field offices. We have special anti-fraud units that are in 

some of the highest-use offices. We have a lot better way of checking records and verifying records, in part because of the greater use 

of biometrics, biometric passports and the like. 

So we have a number of different ways to address that particular 

issue to make sure that the DREAM Act is not used as a vehicle 

for fraud. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Madam Secretary. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. 

I know Senator Blumenthal was trying to join us, so if he arrives 

in a minute or two, I am going to give him a chance to ask questions. 

At the end of the hearing, I am going to be entering into the 

record 141 statements of support for the DREAM Act, and I would 

like to just say to this panel, because we have had a number of 

questions related to the impact of the DREAM Act on education, 

and I want to make it clear that we have statements of endorsement of this legislation from a long, long list of colleges and univer-
32 

sities across the United States, including the American Association 

of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges 

and Universities, the American Council of Education, the Association of Jesuit Colleges—the list goes on and on. If these organizations thought the DREAM Act was a threat to the future of education, they certainly would not endorse it. They have, and we are 

honored to have their support. 

I am also happy to have the support of so many different religious organizations who have weighed in on behalf of this, from 

Christian and Jewish and different organizations including the Association of Catholic Colleges, the National Association of 

Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention. It is just a broad 

array of people who are supporting this in principle. 

Senator Blumenthal cannot make it in time, so I am going to 

thank this panel for their testimony. We appreciate so much your 

being here. There may be some written questions coming from 

other Members of the Committee, and I hope you can respond to 

them in a timely way. I appreciate very much your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Senator DURBIN. I am now going to invite the second panel to 

come before us, and as they do, I am going to read their introductions in the interest of time. 

Our first testimony is going to come from Ola Kaso, who is sitting down at the table now. We welcome you. We have a statement 

from Senator Carl Levin, who was honored to bring her to this 

hearing this morning. He called me because he was so excited 

about her testimony. He is stuck in another Committee hearing, 

but strongly supports the DREAM Act and is standing behind Ola 

Kaso’s testimony. She graduated from high school in Warren, 

Michigan, earlier this month with a 4.4 grade point average. She 

is enrolled in the honors program at the University of Michigan, 

where she will be a pre-med student. 

Senator Carl Levin is a cosponsor and strong supporter of the 

DREAM Act, as I mentioned. Earlier this year he intervened with 

the Department of Homeland Security to stop Ms. Kaso’s deportation. Senator Levin submitted a statement for the record, and here 

is what it says: 

‘‘We need for Ola Kaso to be able to stay in this country. We need 

her and the people like her in our communities and our schools and 

universities and our businesses. This is a matter not of Democrats 

and Republicans, left and right, but of right and wrong, and I encourage this Subcommittee and my colleagues in the Senate to embrace Ola Kaso and young Americans like her who will make our 

country stronger, if only we allow them to.’’ 

Ms. Kaso, thank you for being here today, fresh out of your high 

school graduation, and we would like to give you a chance now to 

make an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF OLA KASO, WARREN, MICHIGAN 

Ms. KASO. Thank you. Chairman Durbin and Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. 

I was 5 years old, but I remember it like it was yesterday. Apprehensively, I teetered into the perplexing classroom. Students spoke 
33 

in a language completely foreign to me. The teacher, too, spoke and 

pointed a certain direction. What did she want me to do? Where 

did she want me to go? I stood there, frozen still and silent like 

a statue. The children stared and they laughed. After a week of my 

unremitting silence, I was directed into the principal’s office. My 

mother was there, too, seated to the right of the translator that 

had helped her enroll me in school. The teacher spoke, and the 

translator began speaking too. 

‘‘She says Ola might need special attention. She barely socializes 

with the other kids and she is not learning anything. She suggests 

that Ola be taken out of the general class and be placed into the 

ELL program so she can get the extra assistance she needs.’’ 

I have come a long way since that day 13 years ago. I have become proficient in the English language, and I have excelled in my 

studies. 

Since the third grade, I have been placed in advanced programs, 

all of which I have fully utilized. I have taken every Advanced 

Placement course my high school has offered, and I have earned a 

4.4 GPA doing so. I earned a 30 on my ACT with English being 

my highest score. In high school I was a varsity athlete. I ran cross 

country in the fall, and I played tennis in the spring. I was the 

treasurer of the Student Council, and I was the treasurer of the 

National Honor Society at my school. Furthermore, I tutor students 

that are still struggling to become proficient in English, and I have 

received numerous scholarship offers, and I have been accepted to 

several universities. 

I commit countless hours to community service and charity 

events because I feel that big change comes through little steps. I 

juggle all my school work, after-school activities, and community 

service projects while also having a job. I have completely immersed myself within the American culture, of which I so strongly 

desire to become a citizen. 

I am currently enrolled at the University of Michigan, one of the 

most prestigious public universities in the Nation, where this fall 

I will be majoring in brain, behavioral, and cognitive science with 

a concentration in pre-med. 

I ultimately aspire to become a surgical oncologist, but more importantly, despite seemingly endless obstacles, I intend to work for 

patients that cannot afford the astronomical fees accompanying 

life-saving surgeries, patients that are denied the medical treatment they deserve. My goal is not to increase my bank account; my 

goal is to decrease the amount of preventable deaths. How can I 

go to a lucrative job every day knowing that there are mothers 

wasting away in front of their children because they cannot afford 

surgery? I cannot and I will not. I wish to remain in this country 

to make a difference. I wish to remain in this country to help 

American citizens. 

On March 28th, I was spontaneously told that I would be deported in less than a week despite the fact that my family has complied with all immigration laws for the last 13 years. I was 2 

months short of obtaining my high school diploma. I was shocked. 

How could I be sent to a place I did not even remember, a culture 

that is completely foreign to me? I am not even fluent in Albanian, 

so if I were to be sent back, I could not pursue a college education. 
34 

My hard work, my dreams, and my future were at risk of being 

eradicated. I have considered one country, and one country only, to 

be my home. America is my home, not Albania. 

My community rallied behind me. They asked for my deportation 

to be suspended, and the Department of Homeland Security responded and granted me deferred action for 1 year so I can continue my studies. 

My family came here legally, and we followed the law every step 

of the way. Despite my compliance with the law, there is no way 

I can obtain citizenship under the current law; despite all my hard 

work and contributions, I face removal from the only country I 

have ever considered home. Despite my aspirations and good intentions for my country, I face deportation in less than a year. 

I am a DREAM Act student. I was brought to this country when 

I was 5 years old. I grew up here. I am an American at heart. 

There are thousands of other Dreamers just like me. Look 

around the room and you will see hundreds of them today. All we 

are asking for is a chance to contribute to the country that we love. 

Please support the DREAM Act. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of 

all of the Dreamers. 

[The prepared statement of Ola Kaso appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Ola, thank you. You were speaking for thousands just like you all across America, and you were very effective. 

Thank you for doing that. 

Our next witness is Margaret Stock, a retired Lieutenant Colonel 

in the U.S. Army Reserve. Lieutenant Colonel Stock is counsel at 

the law firm of Lane Powell. Previously, she was a professor at the 

U.S. Military Academy at West Point, a partner at the law firm of 

Stock and Mueller and an associate at the law firm of Atkinson, 

Conway & Gagnon. Lieutenant Colonel Stock received a bachelor’s 

from Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges, a J.D. from Harvard Law 

School, a master’s in public affairs from Harvard’s Kennedy School 

of Government, and a master’s of strategic studies from the U.S. 

Army War College. 

Lieutenant Colonel Stock, we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL MARGARET D. STOCK, 

U.S. ARMY RESERVE, RETIRED, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 

Ms. STOCK. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the DREAM Act. 

In addition to the qualifications that you mentioned, I earlier 

heard a question from Senator Cornyn regarding the MAVNI Program, and I would like to mention that I was the original project 

officer for the MAVNI program under the Bush administration, so 

I am prepared to answer questions about that issue, although that 

is not the subject of the hearing today. 

I would also like to mention that among my professional affiliations I have membership in the American Bar Association where 

I am a commissioner of the Commission on Immigration, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Federalist Society for 

Law and Public Policy, and the Republican National Lawyers Asso-
35 

ciation. I am mentioning those only to reveal my potential biases 

at this hearing. 

Over the years, as an attorney I have represented hundreds of 

businesses, immigrants, and citizens who seek to navigate the difficult maze of U.S. immigration law, and I am prepared at this 

hearing to address some of the specific questions that Senator 

Cornyn and others raised earlier about, for example, the effect of 

the provision in the new version of the DREAM Act with regard to 

good moral character, from which there is no waiver authority 

granted to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. 

So I would like to mention that I would like to address that later. 

I am honored to be appearing before you this morning to discuss 

the DREAM Act because the DREAM Act is essential to our national security, our economy, and it is necessary to end the colossal 

waste of human talent that is going on right now with the status 

of these American-educated young people. 

The DREAM Act is part of a comprehensive solution to our Nation’s immigration problems, but as others have noted, it is perfectly reasonable to pass it as a stand-alone bill, and I applaud you 

for holding a hearing to address that issue in hopes that this can 

be passed. 

As the Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force on 

U.S. Immigration Policy explained recently—and I also should reveal that I served on that task force under Jeb Bush and Mack 

McLarty—the Independent Task Force endorsed the DREAM Act 

saying, ‘‘The DREAM Act is no amnesty. It offers to young people 

who had no responsibility for their parents’ initial decision to bring 

them into the United States the opportunity to earn their way to 

remain here.’’ And more particularly, the DREAM Act will enhance 

America’s ability to obtain future high-quality recruits for the 

United States Armed Forces. 

The reality of our Nation’s broken immigration system has been 

that we now have in the United States today a very large population of persons who have no means of obtaining lawful permanent 

residence here, even if they have lived in America for decades, gone 

to school here, paid their taxes, and committed no crimes. Many of 

these individuals are legally in the U.S. in some status that falls 

short of lawful permanent residence, but some 12 million are unauthorized, including an estimated 2.1 million youth and young 

adults. 

Despite the fact that many of these undocumented young people 

have grown up in the U.S., attended our schools, and demonstrated 

a sustained commitment to this country by learning English and 

succeeding in our educational system, U.S. immigration laws provide no avenue for them to obtain any legal status. 

The DREAM Act would allow those young people who have 

grown up in this country, graduated from high school, been acculturated as Americans, and have no serious criminal record and 

meet the good moral character requirements to go to college or 

serve in the military and thereby legalize their immigration status. 

Those who oppose the DREAM Act often mistakenly repeat the 

popular misconception that these young people should just ‘‘get in 

line like everyone else.’’ But without the DREAM Act, there is no 

line for them to stand in. 
36 

The inability of this large group of young people to obtain any 

legal status has far-ranging social and economic impacts, not least 

of which is an obvious impact on the qualified manpower available 

for the U.S. Armed Forces. Currently, unauthorized young people 

are barred from enlisting in the U.S. military. And I would just 

note for the record that the suggestion that the Department of Defense should be hiring undocumented persons who are not authorized to work in the United States is interesting in light of the fact 

that every other U.S. employer is barred from employing people 

who are not authorized to work in the United States. 

Persons lacking familiarity with today’s enlistment process might 

believe it is possible for the services to enlist undocumented immigrants, but in reality the services do not have the legal or administrative authority to enlist somebody who has no record with the 

Department of Homeland Security and is not authorized to work in 

the United States and who has no valid Social Security number. So 

the services cannot use their 10 United States Code 504 enlistment 

authority to enlist undocumented immigrants. 

In contrast, the Department of Homeland Security has the institutional expertise and processing systems required to take applications from unauthorized immigrants, fingerprint them, collect their 

filing fees, vet them against complex inadmissibility and removability criteria, create ‘‘alien files’’ on them, assign them alien numbers, and otherwise process them for conditional permanent residence status. And under the DREAM Act, this process will happen 

before these young people appear at a recruiting station and try to 

enlist. So they will be legal when they approach a military recruiter. The Department of Defense will not be in the position of 

trying to hire people who are unauthorized to work. 

The DHS process will be a first gate to screen out persons who 

are unsuitable for military service as a result of having serious 

criminal or immigration violations or who lack good moral character. And the DREAM Act appropriately assigns to DHS the role 

of accepting these applications and conducting this immigration 

law vetting before any of them are given the conditional lawful residence status. 

Under the DREAM Act, all DREAM Act beneficiaries who attempt to enlist will have conditional lawful permanent residence, 

a status that is already recognized in existing enlistment statutes 

and military regulations. Some people have suggested that the Department of Defense create a ‘‘military only’’ DREAM Act, but such 

a program would present a greater security risk to DOD, would 

flood military recruiters with unqualified applicants for enlistment, 

and would require significant changes in military enlistment regulations and recruiting resources. A ‘‘military only’’ DREAM Act 

would also contradict the fundamental premise of the all-volunteer 

force, as many DREAM Act beneficiaries would be motivated to join 

the military out of a desperate desire to legalize their status and 

not because they are truly interested in military service. 

It is important to note—and other witnesses stated this earlier— 

that DREAM Act beneficiaries will have the same statutory or contractual enlistment obligations as all other military personnel. The 

only difference is that they will be unable to naturalize through 

military service until they have lifted the conditions on their lawful 
37 

permanent residence status, a process that is likely to take about 

7 years in most cases. So they will not be eligible to become citizens immediately under military naturalization statutes. 

Some have opined that the DREAM Act is unnecessary because 

the Armed Forces are currently meeting their enlistment goals, but 

this is also a misinformed opinion. The current beneficial recruiting 

environment is a direct result of the poor state of the United States 

economy. As the U.S. economy recovers from the current recession 

and our population continues to age, the Armed Forces will face a 

very difficult recruiting climate. 

Now, we know that DREAM Act beneficiaries are going to help 

meet our Nation’s future need for individuals who are highly qualified and are interested in joining the Armed Forces because this 

population highly propensed to serve. I want to mention not only 

the fact that the DREAM Act creates a strong incentive for military 

service, but that past DOD studies have shown that this particular 

population comes from a demographic group that is already heavily 

predisposed to military service. 

A 2004 survey by the Rand Corporation found that 45 percent of 

Hispanic males and 31 percent of Hispanic females between ages 

16 and 21 were very likely to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces compared to 24 percent of white men and 10 percent of white women. 

Senator DURBIN. Colonel Stock, I am sorry. We have a vote in 

just a few moment, and I want to make sure we can wrap up this 

Committee hearing. So if you could conclude, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. STOCK. Absolutely. 

As mentioned above, Senator, I am a member of the retired Reserve of the U.S. Army Reserve, and I served in the U.S. Army Reserve for 28 years. During that time I learned of many undocumented immigrants who wanted to serve America by joining the 

all-volunteer force. I often had the unpleasant task of explaining to 

these eager, patriotic, and energetic young people that they were 

barred from enlisting because of their lack of legal status. 

I also talked to many military members who were trying to get 

promising young people to enlist. They would approach me, and I 

would have to give them the same bad news. And over and over 

again I would hear the comment, ‘‘Ma’am, this makes no sense. All 

they want to do is serve the United States. Why don’t we let 

them?’’ 

In my written testimony, I have given you anecdotes from several of our Junior ROTC instructors who were in public schools in 

America that have large numbers of undocumented people in them. 

These anecdotes illustrate the propensity of these young people to 

serve America and the propensity of these young people to perform 

well through military service. 

It makes little sense to deport these American-educated youth. It 

is expensive to locate, arrest, imprison, and deport them. The 

DREAM Act would help to fix our dysfunctional immigration system. It is good for our national security, and it is good for our economy. Pass the DREAM Act and let these promising young people 

serve America. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Margaret D. Stock appears as a submission for the record.] 
38 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Colonel Stock. 

Dr. Camarota is the director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia in 

public policy analysis and a master’s degree in political science 

from the University of Pennsylvania. 

Dr. Camarota, thanks for being here today. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA, PH.D., DIRECTOR 

OF RESEARCH, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. CAMAROTA. I would like to thank the Committee for inviting 

me to speak here today. 

The recently introduced or reintroduced DREAM Act attempts to 

deal with one of the more vexing issues in immigration. The Act 

offers permanent legal status to illegal immigrants, up to age 35, 

who arrived in the United States before age 16. These individuals 

are one of the most compelling groups of illegal immigrants because in almost every case their parents are to blame for their situation, not them. 

However, as currently written, the law has a number of significant problems. In my oral testimony I will highlight four main 

problems, and I will suggest possible solutions. My written testimony has a more extensive list. 

First, there is the issue of cost. The DREAM Act requires 2 years 

of college but no degree is necessary. Given the low income of illegal immigrants, most can be expected to attend State- and countysupported colleges. Not including illegal immigrants already enrolled, the cost to taxpayers in tuition subsidies for these State-supported schools for the roughly 1 million students we think will attend is about $12 billion for the State schools and the community 

colleges. 

In addition to the cost to taxpayers, there is the related issue of 

crowding-out U.S. citizens and legal immigrants in these public institutions that are already reeling from budget cuts at the State 

and local level. It is important to remember that the illegal immigrant population is concentrated in only about a dozen States, and 

enrollment slots are not unlimited in those States. There is a limit 

to how many people can attend, at least in the short term. 

Now, advocates of the DREAM Act argue that it will significantly 

increase tax revenue because once they have a college education recipients will earn more and pay more in taxes. Whether that is 

true or not, it is important to understand that any hoped-for tax 

benefit will come only in the long term and will not help public institutions deal with the large influx of students the Act creates in 

a relatively short period of time. 

Further Census Bureau data show that the income gains for having some college, but no degree of any kind, are quite modest. So 

the resulting income gains in tax revenue will be small, at least as 

currently written. 

Now, one way to deal with this situation is for Congress simply 

to provide additional funds to State universities and community 

colleges. If the idea behind the DREAM Act has merit—which I 

think it does—then acknowledging these costs and being honest 
39 

with the public and including these costs in the law is clearly necessary. 

Now, a second major issue with the bill is that any legalization 

for illegal immigrants unavoidably encourages more illegal immigration. We have seen that in the past, and that is always an issue. 

Now, the best remedy would be to include some important enforcement mechanisms in the law, such as full implementation of 

the US-VISIT program, which tracks the arrival and departure of 

visitors to our country. Also including mandatory e-Verify, which 

verifies the legal status of workers would make sense. A more 

rapid implementation of the Secure Communities program and 

adding funding for the 287g program—Secure Communities and 

287g, as you all know, deals with criminal aliens. If we take these 

simple steps, we can help discourage future illegal immigration. 

Now, a third issue with the Act is that it is an invitation to fraud 

in many ways. First off, the confidentiality means that if somebody 

commits fraud, the bureaucracy is in kind of a box because they 

cannot use the information that they learn in the application process against that individual, as I read the Act. Also, the Act does 

not have a clear list of documents that will be acceptable for identification. This happened also in 1986 in the IRCA amnesty. Most estimates show that about 700,000 illegal immigrants who were not 

qualified for that legalization got legalization because at the time 

the bureaucracy was overwhelmed, as it is now. There was no clear 

list of documents. They could not do all the investigations. We are 

setting ourselves up for a repeat of that situation. 

The most obvious way to fix this problem is to give the immigration bureaucracy a lot more money, let it hire the staff and train 

up, so it could process all these applications, also change the fraud 

situation. If somebody provides fraudulent information, you have to 

be able to use the information in the application against that person, so you can go to the address, for example, that they might give 

you. 

Now, the fourth problem—and I will just touch on it—with the 

DREAM Act is that a person convicted of two serious misdemeanors could still qualify. We have heard a lot of talk about 

this, and we know that some misdemeanors are pretty serious. 

There is a very simple solution. Just put in the law that people 

convicted of drunk driving or a sexual offense or a violent offense, 

even if it is a misdemeanor, are ineligible. It is a pretty obvious 

and quick thing to do, and I think it would reassure the public. 

In conclusion, while illegal immigrants raised in the United 

States do not have a right to stay in our country, they certainly 

have a claim on our conscience. We should act on that claim. But 

we should do so in a manner that limits unintended consequences. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Steven A. Camarota appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Dr. Camarota. 

In 2007, when I was bringing the DREAM Act up, you were 

interviewed by C–SPAN, and you said something a little different 

than your testimony today. You said, ‘‘Children pay the penalty for 

their parents’ misdeeds. If a parent does not pay the mortgage and 

the house gets foreclosed, sometimes the children suffer. We incar-
40 

cerate hundreds of thousands of parents each year and deprive 

those children of their parents.’’ 

Then when I brought several Dreamers to a press conference 

which I had, you also said, ‘‘U.S. Congressmen should not be harboring and giving a podium to people who knowingly and willfully 

violate our laws. I hope they would not do it with tax cheats, I hope 

they would not do it with robbers, and I hope they would not do 

it with illegal aliens.’’ 

You have given a much more moderate statement today. Have 

you had a change of heart? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, I certainly agree with the second part completely. I do not think that you should give a podium to people who 

are in our country illegally, just like I do not think you should give 

a podium to anyone who is currently and admittedly violating our 

law. Now, that is my opinion. You are the Senator. You will ultimately make that determination. 

On the question of whether children pay the penalty for their 

parents’ misdeeds is undoubtedly true, both philosophically and 

just as a matter of fact. Bad parents abuse their children. Bad parents do all kinds of things. In this case it is the bad act of the parent that is causing injury to the child. 

But I never said that I was completely opposed to the idea of the 

DREAM Act. I am not completely opposed. 

Senator DURBIN. So when you talk about educational costs, we 

talked about that earlier, and it appears that there are some people 

who disagree with you—the Secretary of Education as well as the 

Association of Colleges and Universities and a long, long list of 

schools who do not believe the DREAM Act would be a burden but, 

rather, an opportunity. 

I might also add that among those hundreds who are here today 

are many who are going to school right now, paying out of their 

own pockets to go to school. So to think that this is a possibility 

of 50,000 new students arriving on the scene, many of them are already making extraordinary sacrifices to go to school. They are enrolled currently. So how do you respond to that? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. I think you misunderstood me. The CBO estimate, as I understand it, dealt with the Federal budget, and we 

could talk about that and whether it is right or wrong. But we are 

talking here about costs at the State and local level only. And so 

most people, the average subsidy for a State school is, like $12,000. 

For a community college it is a few thousand. I assume in my research that about 80 percent of DREAM Act recipients would go to 

community college, which is a lot cheaper. Now, if they go to State 

school, it will be a lot more, but I do not think that is what is going 

to happen. 

On the question of whether it is a burden because there are already people here, we think that about 60,000 students currently 

attend in-State school at in-State prices who are here illegally 

based on some research. Your bill is looking to add about a million 

people to that system, 500,000 of whom, given their age and soon 

graduation or have already graduated, about half a million, like I 

said, 500,000, will be enrolling in a very short time. That is why 

I would urge you to provide the billions of dollars necessary for 

these schools to take in those kids. 
41 

Senator DURBIN. So you would disagree with the conclusion of 

the Secretary of Education that ultimately America will be a 

stronger Nation once these students have graduated from school 

and are taxpaying citizens, providing assistance for their children 

and for other families? You disagree with that conclusion? 

Mr. CAMAROTA. Well, let us be clear. It only requires 2 years of 

college. The income gains for 2 years of college is not very great 

if you do not get any degree. So maybe if you wanted to ensure you 

could have it so that it gets a degree, and I cite the research on 

how much income gains you would get. But the bigger question is 

if you hope that this will be a tax gain for the taxpayers—let us 

assume that this is a good deal for taxpayers—that is in the long 

run. You are still looking at adding hundreds of thousands of new 

students who are currently not enrolled to say our community college system in only about 12 States. 

So if you think it is going to be a benefit in the long run—and 

that is a fascinating and interesting discussion we could have. But 

if you think that is the case, provide the money to these schools 

so there is not this crush given the limited resources. 

Senator DURBIN. It sounds very rational and logical, but for one 

important fact. Even the State of Texas has decided that these students will be given in-State tuition. They have decided these students are worth keeping in Texas. We think they are worth keeping in America. And so every State should be offering at least an 

opportunity for them. So this notion that somehow these are just 

a drain on the system, I just do not buy your premise on that. 

One last point. Colonel Stock, I want to get back to the point that 

Dr. Camarota raised again. I think the ultimate test of these students is going to be the question of good moral character and 

whether or not we specify which misdemeanors are acceptable, 

which are not, it comes down to that final—as Secretary 

Napolitano said—evaluation of their total life experience as to 

whether or not they ultimately will have a chance. 

Do you see this the same way, that this is the last stop in the 

most important comprehensive look at their lives? 

Ms. STOCK. I do not see it the same way as Dr. Camarota, Senator Durbin, because I have a background in immigration law, and 

I know what good moral character means. And I know that you 

have put that in the law, and you have not provided the opportunity for the Secretary to waive that requirement. She has no 

ability to waive that. 

I believe that some people may be unfamiliar with the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(f), which provides a statutory 

bar to showing good moral character for certain offenses, and there 

is a laundry list of those offenses. Any person who has committed 

any violation of the law that would bar good moral character under 

101(f) would be barred from applying for DREAM Act benefits. 

So this business of, well, we have to name the specific offenses, 

I think the Immigration and Nationality Act provides an answer to 

that, which is simply that this good moral character requirement 

is a nice, neat way to encapsulate a whole bunch of offenses, including every single one that Senator Cornyn mentioned earlier before he had to leave the hearing. 
42 

So I think this is a red herring that is distracting us from the 

actual necessity to solve our Nation’s problem here, which is this 

colossal waste of educated person power that is going on here. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Since Senator Blumenthal was not able to ask 

questions of the first panel, I would like to give him the opportunity to speak and ask questions. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. I really appreciate that, Senator Franken, and I will not take the full time. 

I just want to thank Senator Durbin for his very passionate and 

persevering commitment to this cause. As a new United States 

Senator, I want to join him in his strong advocacy for this measure. 

We have just given a face to it in Connecticut with a young man 

named Mariano Cardoso, who was brought to this country when he 

was 22 months old. He just graduated from community college. He 

is 23 now, and he is going to be a civil engineer in Connecticut. He 

has had the courage to become a face and a voice for this measure, 

and it takes real courage to do it, and I want to thank whoever is 

here today to join us, because many of them across the country I 

think have been the most effective advocates for this cause. When 

people see the young people who are actually involved, they really 

put aside all of the—excuse me, all of the somewhat more abstract 

points in favor, some against, because they are such an enormous 

potential asset to this country, as Senator Durbin and Senator 

Franken have expressed so powerfully in what they have said so 

far. 

So I just want to join the advocates who are here today in this 

cause and say to the folks who have come to testify and to be here 

today, thank you for enlightening us further. And I know we have 

a vote, so I am going to defer to Senator Franken, if I may, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator, and I associate myself 

with all your remarks. 

Ms. Kaso, I think you are very brave to be here, and I thank you 

for being here. Let me ask you a question. Did you make the decision to come to the United States? Was it you? 

Ms. KASO. I did not, no. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. How old were you when you came to 

the United States? 

Ms. KASO. I was 5 years old. 

Senator FRANKEN. I was 4 when I came to Minnesota. I consider 

myself a Minnesotan, but I had a year on you there. But you consider yourself an American, right? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. KASO. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, great. Now, tell me again what you 

want to do for a living. It sounded like you wanted to be a doctor. 

Ms. KASO. A surgical oncologist. I want to remove cancer tumors. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. And you want to be able to help people 

who cannot afford health care? 

Ms. KASO. That is correct, yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Well, hopefully we will have taken care 

of that, too. 
43 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you for being here. 

Ms. KASO. Thank you for the opportunity. 

Senator FRANKEN. Lieutenant Colonel Stock, let me just ask you 

this: I talked about doing USO tours before. During 2005 and 2006, 

you talked in your testimony about how right now we are able to 

be in a recruiting—okay, I guess I have to go to vote, but what I 

am going to do is ask a question, and then I am going to leave, and 

you are going to answer to—— 

Ms. STOCK. Can I also answer your question about undocumented immigrants while you leave, too? 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, sure. Say anything you want after I 

leave. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. And I will hear it later. But what I know is 

that in 2005 and 2006 especially, we were not meeting our recruiting numbers, and we had moral waivers, right? And we had cognitive waivers. We really needed to be able to recruit. It would 

have been great to have this group of people to recruit, wouldn’t 

it have? 

Ms. STOCK. It would have absolutely been great. We would not 

have had to give morals waivers to some of the people who came 

into the service and later engaged in misbehavior. 

I would like to address the question regarding undocumented immigrants. I read occasionally that there are lots of these undocumented immigrants allegedly in the military. But, in fact, that is 

not the case. I know this because I work with the American Immigration Lawyers’ Military Assistance Program, and the few undocumented immigrants who serve in the military come forward to that 

program often seeking help. And I can tell you, Senator Durbin, the 

outcome for these people is not rosy. Occasionally some of them are 

able to get United States citizenship through their military service, 

but in other cases, the outcome is not a pretty one, and I will just 

offer the example of a young man who was DREAM Act eligible, 

or would have been if the DREAM Act had been passed. He tried 

to join the U.S. Marine Corps a few months ago. He was processed 

by an unscrupulous recruiter and brought into the Marine Corps, 

whereupon, the Marine Corps turned him over to Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement and had him deported to Mexico when he reported for basic training. So this idea that there are lots of undocumented immigrants in the military is a misguided myth. The few 

that we have found in the military are people who have come in 

through the use of bad documents or by mistake, and most of them 

would be ineligible under the strict good moral character requirement that you have in the current version of the DREAM Act. They 

would not be eligible to get status through the DREAM Act. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. As you can see, I have been abandoned by my colleagues who are off to vote, which I have to do myself in just a few moments. But, in conclusion, thank you to Dr. 

Camarota, Lieutenant Colonel Stock—and, Ola, how is your last 

name pronounced? 

Ms. KASO. ‘‘Kass-o.’’ 

Senator DURBIN. So we all got it wrong. Ola Kaso, thank you so 

much for your great story, compelling story that you gave us. 
44 

I am going to ask unanimous consent—and since there is no one 

here to object, I am going to get it—to enter into the record 141 

statements of support for the DREAM Act included here, and I 

mentioned earlier the wide array of organizations that support this. 

I am discouraged that after 10 years this law has not passed, but 

I am not so discouraged as to give up the effort. I believe in all of 

you, and I want you to believe in this country. Sometimes it takes 

us a long time to get to the right conclusion and to reach fairness 

and justice. But we do get there. And those of you who are waiting 

patiently with your lives on hold and with real uncertainty, know 

I hope from some of the statements made by my colleagues today 

the deep feelings we have that this is a cause of justice and once 

that we are going to continue to pursue. Our day will come. This 

dream will come true. 

The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(45) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
46 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD L. STANLEY
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OLA KASO
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGARET D. STOCK
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PATRICK J. LEAHY
96 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CHUCK GRASSLEY
97 
98 
99 
100 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DICK DURBIN
101 
102 
103 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. JANET NAPOLITANO BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
104 
105 
106 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. ARNE DUNCAN BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
107 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO CLIFFORD L. STANLEY BY SENATOR GRASSLEY

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses from Clifford L. Stanley.] 
108 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO STEVEN A. CAMAROTA BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
109 

RESPONSES OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 

RESPONSES OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
119 
120 
121 
122 

RESPONSES OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
123 
124 
125 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
126 
127 
128 
129 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
130 
131 

Æ