http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_16129083

The following article was reported on September 10, 2010 in the LA Daily News by author Cynthia Tucker. The discussion of the article was regarding the DREAM Act. Would the Dream Act be beneficial for the U.S.? Following is the definition of the DREAM Act:
The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act offers a path to citizenship for undocumented youths who arrived in the U.S. before 16 years of age, lived in the country continuously for five years and completed high school or received a GED. This provisional path would be contingent upon meeting certain higher education requirements or through military service.
The conclusion of the argument is that the DREAM Act would be good for the U.S.

The premises of the argument are that with its passage, the military enlistment rate would increase and currently undocumented immigrants would be able to make a valuable economic contribution by paying into federal taxes.

Another premise is that, others see the DREAM Act as nothing more than limited sanctuary-effectively a reward for individuals who didn’t adhere to current immigration laws.

Seventy-four thousand. That’s the number of undocumented youth in Georgia who could potentially benefit from the passage of the DREAM Act, according to a recent report issued by the Migration Policy Institute.

The bipartisan DREAM Act would provide undocumented students the opportunity to become legal residents if they graduate from high school and complete two years of college or military service. It’s a no-brainer. The DREAM Act is a tremendous investment, a great way to further integrate students who are already an integral part of our society and economy, and a great incentive for these young people to pursue higher education or military recruits.

They deserve an opportunity to contribute to the country they have known as their home for most of their lives.

This argument is in moderate condition because the second premise contains the fallacy called red herring. It is a red herring fallacy because the article is diverting attention from whether children entering into the country before 16 years of age should be granted citizenship.