Is opposition to the DREAM act discriminatory? The DREAM act would allow youths who were brought to this country illegally by their parents to obtain citizenship. These young citizens would acquire US citizenship if they attend college or join the military. Some folks oppose the DREAM Act because it would supposedly reward illegal activities or because these illegal citizens do not deserve it. They have not paid taxes, I have been told.
In employment cases, we show or "prove" discrimination in one of two ways: 1) show proof of discriminatory comments, or 2) show that the articulated reason for some adverse personnel action is false. If the employer says we need more men working here, then that constitutes evidence of discriminatory bias. If the employer says he fired someone because they ere late everyday and they were not actually late everyday, then that shows prevarication, lying. If the jury finds an employer has lied, the jury can then infer that the employer was motivated at least partly by discriminatory bias.
So, regarding the DREAM Act, is it true that illegal citizens pay no taxes, yet supposedly seek government funding? One illegal citizen, Lheezia Dhalla came from Canada. When she arrived at the age of 6, her family was legal. Over time, she somehow became illegal. She attended Reagan High school here in San Antonio and graduated summa cum laude. See San Antonio Express News report. She received a Rotary Club award for youth leadership. She is in her junior year at Northwestern University, majoring in journalism, political science and gender studies. She collected $10,000 for a bone marrow transplant for a boy with leukemia. She had never met the boy.
She is the sort of citizen we would want. But, her illegal status has come to the attention of Dept. of Homeland Defense and she faces deportation. She would be deported to Canada, not Pakistan. But, still, this is the only home she has known.
She is not eligible for student aid or public assistance, because she is illegal. Yet, her family has paid state and federal taxes for decades.
Eric Balderas came to the US with his Hispanic parents when he was small. He graduated as valedictorian from Highlands High School here in San Antonio. He was attending Harvard University when he was stopped five months ago at the Boston airport. He accepted the full Harvard scholarship because he could qualify for no other aid. See San Antonio Express News report.
So, if the rationale is that illegal immigrants have not paid taxes and that rationale is shown to be false, then the jury, aka the public, is free to presume the employer, aka the opposition, is lying. If another rationale is that they would be using public aid and that rationale is shown to be false, same result, the jury can infer prevarication. It appears that neither Lheezia or Eric have been able to obtain public aid for school.
That’s how this works in a discrimination case. Does that make sense for a proposed federal statute? In both cases, the process and how we construct the process has a huge impact on a vulnerable group of Americans, citizens or not.