• Sunday, November 8, 2009
  • Print

Bill to Extend Student Aid to Illegal Immigrants Resurfaces in U.S. Senate

Advocates of federal legislation known as the Dream Act, which would make some illegal immigrants eligible for federal student-loan and work-study programs, are once again making a push to move the measure through Congress.

The bill, S 2205, is scheduled to be considered on Wednesday by the U.S. Senate, according to Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who sponsored the legislation.

If he can win at least 60 votes, the measure would move to the Senate floor. Mr. Durbin said today that he believes his supporters number in the “mid-fifties.”

The bill does not include provisions to repeal a 1996 federal immigration law that has served as a basis for legal challenges to several state laws that extend in-state tuition rates to some students who entered the United States illegally but who graduated from those states’ high schools.

But it would open up the federal student-loan and work-study programs to immigrants who entered the United States illegally when they were under 16 and who have lived in the country for at least five years, have graduated from an American high school, and have been enrolled for at least two years in college or the military.

At a news conference with Mr. Durbin today, advocates also released a new report about the plight of undocumented children in the United States.

The report, “Wasted Talent and Broken Dreams: The Lost Potential of Undocumented Students,” was written by Roberto G. Gonzales, a doctoral student in sociology at the University of California at Irvine.

The report says that only 5 to 10 percent of high-school graduates who are illegal immigrants go on to college. About 65,000 teenagers who have lived in the United States for five years or longer graduate from high school each year, the report says.

Mr. Gonzales also concluded that the 10 states that have passed laws that allow some illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public colleges have not experienced an influx of new immigrants or faced greater financial burdens on their educational systems, as some critics of the laws had predicted. —Sara Hebel

  • Print