Jesse Singal of the Washington Monthly discusses the Julia Preston story about the DREAM Act and says ( peekURL.com/z2kCSje ):

As a quick aside, I’ve always thought that some of the more strident members of the anti-immigration did untold damage to their group by failing to exhibit any nuance on the question of young undocumented immigrants who came here as infants or children. If I’m the hypothetical median American voter, the second you tell me that we should be deporting a 25-year-old whose parents took her here when she was 3, I am going to tune you out and go check Facebook or something. And the next time one of your allies comes to me complaining about "amnesty" or whatever, I’ll be less likely to listen.

And, that's why Jesse Singal shouldn't be allowed anywhere near policy making.

I could write something like his paragraph, but I'd then follow it by pointing out why the "hypothetical median American voter" shouldn't tune out. I'd point out to that voter that the DREAM Act is anti-American. As discussed at the link, the DREAM Act would let the illegal aliens covered by it deprive struggling American citizens of jobs and college educations. It would also encourage more illegal immigration and more mixed-status families. And, like any other amnesty, it would reward not just those illegal aliens who broke our laws, but the corrupt elites who enabled them and who are trying to profit from illegal activity in one way or another. I'd also point out that the DREAM Act would deprive struggling foreign countries of the people they need to grow (see skilled immigration).

Yet, Singal doesn't do that. Instead, his opinion clearly aligns with those voters who'd tune out. Thankfully, most voters are smarter and more patriotic than Singal.