But opponents of the DREAM Act contend that the legislation enables the government to reward those who have committed a crime by illegally entering the country or overextending their stay.

In that vein, the Federation for American Immigration Reform—a national organization that seeks to improve border security and stop illegal immigration—opposes the proposal, viewing it as a “classic example of a mixed message,” according to FAIR spokesman Ira H. Mehlman. The DREAM Act, he said, seems to tell illegal immigrant parents, “Don’t come here, but if you do, your kids will be rewarded.”

Balderas—who said he cannot remember ever not speaking English—was only 4-years-old when he immigrated to the United States from Mexico with his family to escape domestic violence. Balderas' supporters argue that undocumented youth like him did not have a say in choosing to break the law when crossing into the United States.

But Jim Gilchrist, founder and president of the immigration law enforcement advocacy group Minuteman Project, said that if the United States is to be governed by the rule of law, the rule of law must not exempt any individual.

With approximately 11 million illegal aliens in the country and 25 million legal residents who are unemployed, illegal immigration amnesty creates more competition for jobs, according to Roy H. Beck, president of Numbers USA, an immigration reduction group that is not anti-immigration, legal or illegal. In addition, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants encourages chain migration.

“There’s no question that [Balderas] and students like him are in a difficult situation, but it is a situation of his parents’ making,” Mehlman said. “When parents violate the immigration law, somehow society has to deal with the consequences.”

Though Beck said he believes that students like Balderas need a legal remedy for their undocumented status, he added that the remedy has to create as small a negative impact on the legal residents in the United States as possible—which the DREAM Act, as currently proposed, would not provide.

For one, Beck said, the amnesty would create incentives for more people to break the law, and people who did break the law—the parents who brought over their children—should not be able to benefit from the amnesty.

In the aftermath of Balderas’ detainment on Monday, friends and activists of immigration reform have rallied to his defense, highlighting the former valedictorian’s academic prowess and arguing that his deportation would stand a loss to American society—particularly given his interest in becoming a cancer researcher.

But Gilchrist said that there is “no carte blanche” for breaking the law—even for Balderas, who is “obviously a brilliant young man.”

“We can’t have one set of rules for smart people and one set of rules for stupid people,” Mehlman said.

As a consequence of the rule of law, Gilchrist said that Balderas must be repatriated and apply for re-entry at the appropriate time.

“Not to hold that position would be to say that the rule of law is meaningless.” Gilchrist said. “It’s a sorry story for Senor Balderas, but it’s a good story for the rule of law.”

—Staff writer Xi Yu can be reached at xyu@college.harvard.edu.