LMU joined the list of colleges and universities who have signed the American Council of Education's (ACE) letter urging Congress to pass protections for DREAMers. 

DREAMers is the term used for undocumented people who have qualified for this status under the Development, Relief, and Education for Minors Act (DREAM) and have lived most of their lives in the United States, according to World Relief. This means that often they were young children or infants when they arrived in the United States and had no say in the means of their immigration status, according to World Relief.

On Aug. 29 President Timothy Law Snyder, Ph.D. tweeted, urging members of Congress to pass legislation for DREAMers under the now rescinded DACA policy. Snyder urged colleagues to sign a letter to Congress.

In the letter, the ACE called for “bipartisan legislation” that would enact “permanent protection for DREAMers.” 

“Recently, on Twitter, I called on my colleagues to urge Congress to pass legislation to protect our DREAMers,” said Snyder to the Loyolan. “I am resolute that we not wait to tie their futures to some mammoth immigration reform bill. This divisive tactic leverages creative, loving, honorable human beings—and their families—as negotiating tools.”

President Snyder emphasized that the University has a “steadfast” commitment to supporting DREAMers. “As we approach the second anniversary of the rescission of DACA and await arguments in the Supreme Court, the higher education community must remind Congress of the benefits our country has experienced: DREAMers contribute to our communities and they strengthen our economy in ways profound,” said Snyder. “They represent what is best about America — the country in which they have been raised.”

In the wake of recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, DREAMers have been detained by officers regardless of their status, according to The Atlantic.

President Snyder responded to this by stating that he has informed the “general counsel” and “senior leadership” to protect undocumented students on campus “to the fullest extent of the law.” Snyder also referred to the Immigration FAQs on LMU’s Public Safety page. The page states that if an ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer is seen on campus, it should be reported to DPS.

In response to the issue of whether or not DPS is obligated to work with or help immigration officers, the page states: “LMU is required to comply with its legal obligations. LMU is not required, and its policy is not to work voluntarily with ICE or CBP officers to apprehend and remove individuals alleged to be unlawfully in the United States.” If students are presented a warrant or a subpoena, they are instructed to tell the officer to first contact DPS, according to the LMU Public Safety Immigration FAQs.

Desiree Diaz, a junior journalism and communication studies double major and president of Resilience, spoke about how her organization relates to this. Resilience is an immigration awareness and advocacy group. Their main mission is to educate students and the broader community about advocacy regarding immigration and allyship for immigrant students. 

Diaz has concerns with and feels that LMU hasn’t made its procedures clear enough. While Diaz is not undocumented, she understands the fears and pressures of everyday life when you are undocumented in today’s climate. “When these things come up, when they aren’t just things you read about, when they become applicable to your life ... it becomes very real ... think about that from immigrant students’ perspectives ... this is something that is very real to them. It affects the way that they live their lives,” said Diaz.

“When you have [undocumented students] on your campus and they are a part of your community then you have to stand up for them ... they can’t always do it for themselves because of that fear. That fear that something will happen to them, that fear that an ICE officer is going to come onto campus and the only thing that they could possibly do is direct them to DPS. That’s not enough,” said Diaz.

Diaz recommends anyone interested in making a change to get involved on campus. “So much of education and so much of social movements come on the backs of people of color and that’s kind of the atmosphere that we have here for a lot of things,” said Diaz. She believes that half the issue is getting students to care more and get more involved. However, she urges the administration to make it easier to keep students informed. “Blow up my email box ... send out things that are informative ... have people like President Snyder speak on this constantly,” said Diaz.

For students looking to get involved with immigration reform on campus, Diaz’s organization, Resilience, meets every other Wednesday, in St. Robert’s Hall 246 at 8 p.m. Their next meeting is on Oct. 2.


Grace McCauley is a sophomore journalism major from Evanston, IL. She enjoys spending time on twitter, and listening to the masterpiece that is Chief Keef's "Love Sosa".

(1) comment



Leaving aside all of the deceitful provisions that have been built into the bill that makes it a much broader amnesty than proponents let on, it is important to address the fundamental premise that passing the bill is a moral imperative because the people who would benefit are blameless for being here illegally.

1. The DREAM Act fulfills the parents’ principle reason for breaking the law in the first place. Ask the typical illegal alien why he or she came to United States illegally, and invariably the answer is, “I wanted to do better for my family.” This is a perfectly rational and understandable response, but not a justification for violating the law. In essence, what the DREAM Act does is provide the parents precisely what they sought when they brought their kids illegally to the United States: a green card and all of the benefits that America has to offer. Even if the bill were to include a provision that DREAM Act beneficiaries could never sponsor the parents who brought them to the country illegally, it would still fulfill the parents’ primary objective for bringing them here.

2. The DREAM Act would touch-off an even greater wave of illegal immigration. Because the DREAM Act is being marketed as a moral imperative – as opposed to a more general amnesty, which is sold as bowing to reality – it comes with an absolute assurance that it will be repeated. If we have a moral imperative to provide amnesty to the current population of people who were brought here as kids, won’t we have the same moral imperative for the next generation of people who arrive under similar circumstances? The unmistakable message to people all around the world is: Get over here and bring your kids. America will feel morally obligated to give them green cards too.

3. The DREAM Act absolves illegal aliens of their fundamental responsibilities as parents. There is a fundamental principle that parents are responsible for the consequences that their actions and choices have on their kids. Unfortunately, children inevitably pay a price when parents make bad decisions or break laws. The DREAM Act carves out a single exception to this universal tenet of the social contract. The message it sends is that if you violate U.S. immigration law, American society is responsible for fixing the mess you created for your kids.

4. The absence of a reward or benefit is not the same as a punishment. DREAM Act proponents repeatedly argue that by not granting legal status to targeted beneficiaries we are, essentially, punishing children for the sins of their parents. This is an absolutely specious claim. By no stretch of the imagination are the children of illegal aliens being punished. Not rewarding them with legal residence and expensive college tuition subsidies is simply withholding benefits to which they never had any entitlement in the first place.

5. Adults have the obligation to do the right thing, even if their parents have done the wrong thing. Society glorifies people who do what is right, especially when doing what is right comes at some significant cost. Yes, many would-be DREAM Act beneficiaries have been dealt a bad hand (by their parents). As difficult (even unfair) as it may be, upon reaching adulthood they have the responsibility to obey the law. When, for example, Jose Antonio Vargas proclaims on the pages of The New York Times Magazine, that he knowingly engaged in illegal activities in order to remain and work in the United States illegally, he became culpable in his own right. While he, and others like him, may be more sympathetic than the people who committed the predicate offense, their situation does not excuse their own illegal acts.

Ira Mehlman

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.