Editorial
Dreaming
In July 2011, the Fil-Am
Observer published an editorial, “Dreaming of an Act,” in support of the
federal bill, popularly called DREAM Act, and reintroduced in the United States
Senate in May 2011, out from its slumber almost ten years after it was first
introduced in August 2001.
The Observer was unequivocal then—and it has not changed its
position in its support for the spirit of the proposed legislation: the giving
of a window of opportunity for our young people who have known what American
ethos is like, our young people who have practically lived all their life in
the United States, and thus, knowing not much any other ethos, steeped as they
are in the kind of style of life that they have seen in the union.
The intent of the federal bill is clear: a path to a lawful
immigration status, a path that is otherwise denied to others.
The recognition that there is this invisible group of
people—the immigrant youth in the margins; the immigrant youth pushed against
the political periphery by reason of their non-lawful status as residents; immigrant
youth that do not qualify as legal residents and yet are talented, gifted, and
who have the potential to contribute to the greatness of this land; immigrant
youth that are just out there but are never given the recognition due them, immigrants
that are never given the public space they deserve; immigrant youth that are
never given access to the resources that they need to develop themselves, get
an education, and become productive residents, and hopefully, citizens—is
something that must be thought about, again and again, with social justice
framing our way of thinking.
Hawaii, with HB 1475, has come up with its own version of
the DREAM Act.
The intents and purposes of the Hawaii legislative proposal
is the same as the federal proposal: the access given to the children of
non-lawful immigrants who are, by their being children of these immigrants,
have been reduced as well as non-lawful immigrants even if so much of their
life have been spent in Hawaii, and thus, have not known in a substantial way any
other life.
Somewhere we have argued that the case of social justice as
the frame through we take a look at this proposed law instead of looking at it
from a narrow, even myopic ‘legalistic’ sense, might lead us a more productive
debate—a more productive conversation—on this issue.
We speak here of basic rights, such as the right to
education. International covenants have spoken, and reiterated, that we cannot
deprive the young of this right to education.
The simple fact that the young are the same people that will
hold the reins of the future leads us to a basic argument that we cannot now
deprive them of the chance to prepare them so that they are able to acquire the
skills they will need when it is their time to call the shots of our collective
and social life.
We deprive our young of this chance to have a well-rounded
view of life through education, we also deprive ourselves of our meaningful
future.
We deprive our young of this chance to get the skills they
need to become economically productive residents, and hopefully, citizens, we
deprive Hawaii of an economically productive future.
We deprive our young of this chance to become well equipped
with life-skills, we deprive this state with residents who are well trained in
navigating their social life.
Anywhere we go, the argument is for the young and for a
socially just and fair treatment of the young people among us.
Anywhere we go, we cannot close our eyes to the reality that
we must now pave the way for a socially just and fair road for them so that in
the future they will be able to pave a socially just and fair road for the
others who will come after them.
This state and this country have been built upon the values
of justice and fairness.
We cannot now renege on these values we hold dear.
FAO Editorial
April 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment