The Dream Act - Essay Example

The Dream Act On the 1st of August 2001, two Americans, Hatch and Dick Durbin presented a proposal known as the “Dream Act” to the Senate. The legislative proposal called for the provision of permanent residency for immigrants who proved to be of good morals, under conditions. The qualifying immigrants would be required to have graduated from United States high schools, to have arrived in the United States as minors, and must have been residing in the United States for a minimum of five years before the introduction of the bill. In addition, if these qualifying immigrants completed at least two years of military service at a higher learning institution, they would earn a six year temporary residence, within which they could qualify for permanent residency only if; one, they achieved a degree from a higher education institution in the U.S, too, they served in the military for two years, and three, to have completed two years while pursuing a higher or bachelor’s degree within the country (“DREAM Act Summary” n.p.). Come November 2013, most (14) states introduced customized versions of the Dream Act that controls the financial aid and tuition charges for state-level universities. The mentioned act resulted in both embracement and rebellions as well. The proposers supported the bill, saying it would create economic and social positives in that it would not support an amnesty program. Opposers on their part criticized the bill as one that would feed and promote illegal immigration, in addition to crippling deportations. The following text will discuss the Dream Act, focusing from an anthropological point on biopolitics and hegemony as social forms of governmentality. An overall definition of the term hegemony refers to it as a success of equalizing status quos between dominant classes and subordinate classes by presenting and exercising a common customized definition of reality as per a general worldview, and enforcing it on the different classes such that they accept it as common sense in achieving similar grounds. It is a rather effective mode of eliminating mean dominance in it eliminates exercising indirect dictatorship on other classes which establish status quos that only benefit members of their own while discriminating on the others. This is the “cultural hegemony” theory as explained by one Italian Marxist Gramsci. Concisely, the dominating class, by use of consensus pushes other classes into accepting their perspectives of the world as the only ones, therefore marginalizes them. Gramsci however, explains there is no one single dominating class, but rather, there is always a constant struggle shifting between varying groupings or classes (Goldberg n.p.). This means that while the dominant class strives to impose their limits and terms designed in the manners of their preference on subordinate classes, the subordinate classes are on their part ever struggling to further and maintain the effectiveness and validities of what they consider real in their own worldviews. This obviously means that the subordinate class becomes rebellious of the dominating class. Hegemony concepts lead to formation of agencies; an agency here referring to the ability of individuals to independently or collectively make and enforce decisions. Agencies form their structures by setting their own terms and limits that enable them to come up with identities of who is, and who is not their “own”. In this case, anyone who adheres to their terms is protected as a member whereas anyone against them ends up marginalized or ever facing rebellion as they consider them “enemy”. Before the bill, [illegal] immigrants to the United States were not entitled to certain rights and advantages such as enrolling in school programs, benefitting from health policies, serving in the army, or qualifying for employment opportunities while in the country. To make matters worse, they could not acquire permanent U.S. residency under any conditions, including children born to immigrant parents. Under the law, a child born in the United States automatically becomes a full U.S. resident. These and other forms of discrimination against this group by immigration agencies led to segregation of this minority [subordinate] group as not worthy of equal opportunities and treatment as native U.S. borns. These were the factors leading to Dick and Hatch’s presentation of the bill to the house in advocating for abolishment of such. The tribulations faced by immigrations are highlighted in Law’s (n.p) article In US Since Age 10 in which an Ethiopian immigrant who has lived in the United States since she was eight describes her traumatizing events during her stay in the country. Despite her long stay decorated by loyal and moral acts to the Seattle state such as assisting ex-convicts to rebuild their lives, she is still considered an alien and faces deportation as well. Having acquired permanent residency in the U.S. under the nineteen-eighty Refugee Act, her residency was revoked after Bill Clinton signed into law the AEDPA (Anti-Effective Death Penalty Act) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act, IIRRA. These two policies revived a crime she had committed earlier at age eighteen, and that which she had served a sentence in a work-release center for six months. The policies put thousands of immigrants on the wrong side of the law, seeing above five-thousand immigrants detained as of 1994, a number that rose to an above thirteen thousand by 2001. At the detention camps, the detainees underwent atrocities such as being forced to sign voluntary removal order papers, being physically, verbally and sexually abused, medical negligence, denial of attorney access, and subjected to strip searches amongst others. From this narration, one can tell the dominance of the white society over immigrants and particularly people of color. In the case of the Dream Act, hegemony bravely manifests itself in a rather open way. According to Nopper, it is clear that the act points at evaluating the viewing of immigrants in a similar way as that which some classes or identities in society perceive of lesbians and the gay. This interprets to that immigrants are not normal or legal members of the American society, and are therefore discriminated or marginalized in that some of their rights, equalities, and other disproportional disadvantages are hurled at them in anti-immigrant legislations or terms. The hegemony targeted by the Dream Act in this context is white nationalism, otherwise referred to as white supremacy. This is when and where the act comes into play. According to Jordan (n.p.), the Dream Act will encourage young residents of the United States to enroll to college and volunteer for the military, both of which will be positive in developing the economy of America, and strengthen the number, thus capacity, of the Armed Forces. The bill attracts many key supporters, who include Pentagon officials who perceive of the act as a tactful and witty way of attracting recruits for the army. Other benefits of eliminating the marginalization of immigrants include enabling more illegal immigrants to afford college charges and achieve higher education, who, according to a 1982 ruling by the Supreme Court have access to K-12 schooling. Additional statistics by the Independent Migration Policy indicate that approximately eight-hundred and twenty five young immigrants currently residing in the United States are potential qualifiers of the bill. Of this number, for every four qualifiers, three will originate from some ten states, among them Arizona, California, New York, Texas, and Florida. From these discussions, it is evident that hegemony employs a system that contains both coercion of an informal government and also considers democratic participation’s consent rather than use a directed forceful or armed system (Florig, n.p.). Biopolitics, as “Biopolitics: An Overview” (n.p.) defines it, is a complex concept that has time and again been used and involved in coming up with social theories. The concept examines mechanisms and strategies that human processes are subjected to by management exercised by authorities with regard to power and knowledge. In biopolitics, the perspective that one takes towards this concept depends on whether one believes that life is the determinant of politics or the vice versa; politics determine life. These concepts are derived from theorists such as Michael Foucault and Thomas Lemke’s indulgence in researching and studying on the topic. Foucalt describes biopolitics or biopower as a technological way of managing people collectively in a group, an attribute that makes it a successful feature in supporting contemporary capitalism and national status (Lemke & Rose 195-217). To him, emperor’s medieval ruling systems, Monarchy, and Kingship and Greco-Roman ruling were all mean and individualized modes of ruling, all of which underwent transformation during the eighteenth century. In a summary, Michel Foucault in his governmentality theories portrays right as the instrument that can be used to rule and that the relations regarding power are concealed behind the discourse of right. To do this, he explains, political philosophy is paramount, but it should not be based on sovereignty, rather, it should focus on eliminating the issue of subjugation and domination. Foucault highlights five precautions, or methodologies to apply in revealing power relations hidden by the discourse of observing rights (Walters 11-14). These are; a) Power should not concentrate on its centralization; rather, it should not be perceived as a force pressing down from above, but should base its execution on rights and focus on points where it graduates to less juridical. b) Power should have an institutional and realistic point of view rather than have an internalized one. This means that it should not have a concern as to what the reasons are behind it, but should focus on how the power will work. c) Power should not be limited to just one person, but should transit and move through different people, in turns. As an individual, one should just act as a transporter of power, sharing it with others from time to time. d) Power should cut across varying levels of application, unlike other theories that center their analysis of power in an ascending trend. Concisely, it should focus on how both and high levels of power are acceptable in general scale in order to achieve global domination. e) Power mechanisms are not made from ideologies, and that they would not succeed if there was no creation, organization, and circulation of these mechanisms. Focusing on the Dream Act, knowledge can be turned into power in that by granting college access to immigrants as well, the economy will benefit from their production which will arise from them working after their studies. In addition, allowing them, to join the armed forces will strengthen the force, of which a strong force means power. According to theorist Guy Debord’s “society of spectacle” concept, spectacles determine a society’s values and play a role in shaping its ways of life, such as conflict resolution, lifestyle, and dramatizing its struggles and controversies. The most dominant method of shaping knowledge in public arenas nowadays is the use of the media. The media are a vital sector that is effective in seducing and fascinating the society in general and involves them in new world semiotics, thus influencing their actions and thoughts. This influence by the social spectacle leads to the production or the creations of knowledge concerning people or a situation (Kellner, n.p.). Different methods exist of how humans make or create knowledge about such. These might include asking and answering to questions, making plans and informing others of them, comprehending what others say, and last but not least, sharing information about what they know concerning the situation or person. Referring to Foucault’s idea of practicing power through “governmentality”, he somehow portrays that power exists all over, but not all of it is oppressive, in fact, it has a potential positive effect in that if employed and circulated through a social framework, it can execute the role of coercion or persuasion. These two would see people even in undocumented or marginalized contexts act of self-motivated ways that would lead to their self-development, both of which would contribute to good in the general society. This can apply in the Dream Act’s objective in that if education is made accessible to all without discrimination, the benefits are directly to the beneficiaries and indirectly for the state’s prosperity as well. The concealed secret is that instead of deporting or leaving out the said immigrants, offering those equal opportunities, develops them while at the same time; this is going to benefit the U.S’s prosperity and development more. In short, this is an effective way of extending power to the people; it is ruling through the people by turning them into objects of power. Under the context of higher education that is the key target of the Dream Act, society groups such as the Congress, higher learning institutions, and the central governments itself are the ones with the authority and ability to enable the people to rule through such means. The cycle should flow in that Congress approves the bill, higher institutions respond by absorbing the undocumented marginalized immigrants, and the central government on its part oversees the abolishment of all kinds of discrimination. By so doing, power circulates through the people rather than maintain a mean, central system, and the result from this is a united America, capable of covering more development mileage in that state. Works Cited Biopolitics, An Overview.. The Anthropology of Biopolitics, January 2013. Web. 23 February 23, 2014. DREAM Act: Summary. National immigration Law Center, May 2011. Web. 23 February, 2014. Florig, Dennis. “Hegemony, Counter-Hegemony, and Stability”. Dflorig.com, 2010. Web. 23 February, 2014. Goldberg, Michael L. “Hegemony”.. Faculty.Washington.edu, 2001. Web. 23 February, 2014. Jordan, Miriam. “A route to Citizenship in Defense Bill”,. The wall street journa, 2010. Web. 23 February, 2014. Kellner, Douglas. “Media Culture and the Triumph of the Spectacle”. Web. 23 February, 2014. Law, Victoria. “In US Since Age 10, But No Dream Act for Young Activist Who Helps Others”,. Truth-Out, 2012. Web. 23 February, 2014. Lemke, T. & Rose, N. “Biopower today”. Biosciences, 2006. Web. 23 February, 2014. Nopper, T. “Why I oppose repealing DADT & Passage of the DREAM Act”. Bandung 1995, 2010. Web. 23 February, 2014. Self, Will. “Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle”. The Guardian. November 2013. Web. 23 February, 2014. Walters, William. Governmentality: Critical Enncounters. Routledge, 2012. Print Read More