I pit NJ's soon to be Illegal Immigrant Help.

[Shecky]

Gov. Jon Corzine's "blue ribbon panel" has just published a report (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--immigrantrights0330mar30,0,3459804.story) urging, among other things, in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

You know what? As a the spouse of a LEGAL immigrant, I can't help but feel this is a slap in the face for everyone who did it the right way. The application fees, the waiting, the full-on questioning that accompanied just the temporary work visa and social security number. It was all apparently worthless, because we could have just sat on our asses waiting, and then been eligible to use a taxpayer-offset rate to attend university.

I especially enjoy how they say we shouldn't blame the children of these "undocumented aliens" for making "tough decisions" on behalf of their families. That's straight CRAP. You know what, the "tough decision" meant knowingly circumventing the laws and working illegally without paying taxes? Well then, as a taxpayer, I'd like to ask you to start giving up at least 28% of your wages immediately. Oh, can't afford it because you make so little? There's always going back home.

And this disorganized rant is brought to you by the little bit of vomit in my mouth I just had when I read the article.

[DigitalC]

You know what? As a the spouse of a LEGAL immigrant, I can't help but feel this is a slap in the face for everyone who did it the right way. The application fees, the waiting, the full-on questioning that accompanied just the temporary work visa and social security number. It was all apparently worthless, because we could have just sat on our asses waiting, and then been eligible to use a taxpayer-offset rate to attend university.



Its moronic to assume illegal aliens are simply doing it the "wrong way". You should consider yourself incredibly be lucky that your spouse had the option of coming to this country legally, for most people this is simply not an option. Don't you dare compare a fucking application fee to risking your life in order to give your family a better life, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[Hampshire]

My take on illegal immigrants is that politicians and government quietly don't want to do a thing about it. The solution, if they want it, is simple: deny them the things they are coming for; work, shelter, health care.
Massive fines/jail for those employing illegals. Massive fines/jail for those renting to illegals. Those receiving medical attention could get it but would be immediately reported and deported. If you're a hospital that treated an illegal and didn't report it- massive fines/jail.
But none of this will happen because nobody really wants to do anything about it.
Which makes walls and border patrol a big joke.
It would be the same as having maximum security prisons here with guards and fences but if you manage to somehow escape you're free to get a job, apartment, treatment for you bullet wounds, and nobody will do anything about it.
My point is personally I don't care if they're here or not. But I get irritated by lawmakers gesturing that they're "doing something" with walls/fences/guns when a much easier solution exsists.

[Merijeek]

On the other hand, the OP's wife probably doesn't have to worry every time she commits a traffic violation that it will end up with her being forcefully deported.

-Joe

[DigitalC]

My take on illegal immigrants is that politicians and government quietly don't want to do a thing about it. The solution, if they want it, is simple: deny them the things they are coming for; work, shelter, health care.
Massive fines/jail for those employing illegals. Massive fines/jail for those renting to illegals. Those receiving medical attention could get it but would be immediately reported and deported. If you're a hospital that treated an illegal and didn't report it- massive fines/jail.
But none of this will happen because nobody really wants to do anything about it.
Which makes walls and border patrol a big joke.
It would be the same as having maximum security prisons here with guards and fences but if you manage to somehow escape you're free to get a job, apartment, treatment for you bullet wounds, and nobody will do anything about it.

This is 100% truth, if we didn't want illegals here they wouldn't be here, its as simple as that. I know entire families and in some cases entire neighborhoods who are just packing up and leaving florida because the housing market collapse killed all the roofing/construction/landscaping jobs, no jobs = no illegals. I know of at least three hispanic food stores closing down because all their clientele left, i don't know where the hell im going to get my peruvian candy now.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Don't you dare compare a fucking application fee to risking your life in order to give your family a better life, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.Don't you dare imply that "risking your life in order to give your family a better life" is the common plight of most, even the majority, of illegal aliens. Ducking under the border fence or overstaying a student or tourist visa aren't necessarily life-threatening. Abandoning the babymamma and the kids and sending whatever money is left after drinking doesn't necessarily count as making a better life.

There are saints and sinners in all groups, illegal imigrants included, but to paint them all as "risking their lives in order to give their family a better life" is just ignorant. You, I suspect, "have no fucking clue what you are talking about".

[Captain Amazing]

Its moronic to assume illegal aliens are simply doing it the "wrong way". You should consider yourself incredibly be lucky that your spouse had the option of coming to this country legally, for most people this is simply not an option.

Right, but why should the state then give benefits to those people? If they're not legally allowed to be in the country, shouldn't the only thing the country be doing for them is sending them back to the country they're legal residents of?

[DigitalC]

Don't you dare imply that "risking your life in order to give your family a better life" is the common plight of most, even the majority, of illegal aliens. Ducking under the border fence or overstaying a student or tourist visa aren't necessarily life-threatening. Abandoning the babymamma and the kids and sending whatever money is left after drinking doesn't necessarily count as making a better life.

There are saints and sinners in all groups, illegal imigrants included, but to paint them all as "risking their lives in order to give their family a better life" is just ignorant. You, I suspect, "have no fucking clue what you are talking about".

Whatever it is they go through and continue to put up with is still a lot harder than what legal immigrants do, implying that somehow illegal aliens have it easier because they didn't have to jump through the same legal hoops as legal aliens is no less moronic just because not everyone risks their lives crossing the border. Its not like people have a fucking choice of migrating here legally and chose to do it the hard way for the fucking hell of it.

[DigitalC]

Right, but why should the state then give benefits to those people? If they're not legally allowed to be in the country, shouldn't the only thing the country be doing for them is sending them back to the country they're legal residents of?

My only beef is with the assumption that coming here illegal is somehow easier and illegal aliens chose to do it that way rather than patiently wait in line and pay their fees like legal aliens do. Thats whats moronic about the OP, the fact that she thinks other people had the same options her spouse did to come to this country but they chose to be illegal aliens instead.

As for your opinion on the subject of illegal aliens, well if the country wanted them gone they would be gone. The fact that they are still here should tell you that the country is not entirely sure that they want them gone.

[Eva Luna]

I especially enjoy how they You know what, the "tough decision" meant knowingly circumventing the laws and working illegally without paying taxes? Well then, as a taxpayer, I'd like to ask you to start giving up at least 28% of your wages immediately. Oh, can't afford it because you make so little? There's always going back home.


You know what's crap? The claim that undocumented workers don't pay taxes. (http://immigration.server263.com/index.php?content=fc071101) More detail here. (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/index.php?content=fc080412)

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

You should consider yourself incredibly be lucky that your spouse had the option of coming to this country legally, for most people this is simply not an option.No, the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. do have the option of doing it legally. The fact that doing it legally takes a long time and lots of hoops to jump through, as the OP noted, doesn't mean it isn't an option.

[mhendo]

Massive fines/jail for those employing illegals. Massive fines/jail for those renting to illegals. Those receiving medical attention could get it but would be immediately reported and deported. If you're a hospital that treated an illegal and didn't report it- massive fines/jail.Yep.

This is the part of the equation that has always struck me, and it makes very clear that no-one is really very interested in solving the problem. For the most part, the only action taken in such cases has been against the illegals themselves. If a company is found to be employing illegals, all the illegals get rounded up an deported, while the company gets a slap on the wrist before going out to find another bunch of illegals to employ.

We can't do anything about the "push" factors that lead people to leave countries like Mexico, but we can do something about the "pull" factors, the jobs and the other stuff they get when they arrive in the United States. The fact that we've done little to address those "pull" factors suggests that we don't really want the problem solved, and that the draconian deportation measures we take against the illegals themselves are just a sop to the xenophobes, something that gives the appearance of toughness while not actually changing the situation at all.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

well if the country wanted them gone they would be gone. The fact that they are still here should tell you that the country is not entirely sure that they want them gone.There's no "the country". Hispanics tend to want them here, and they have a lot of otherwise-uncommited voters in key states. And a lot of business people want them here as well, so they can save Big Bucks on the backs of other people.

[Eva Luna]

No, the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. do have the option of doing it legally. The fact that doing it legally takes a long time and lots of hoops to jump through, as the OP noted, doesn't mean it isn't an option.

Umm, no, as it happens, you're sooooo wrong on this one. (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/factcheck/WhyDontTheyGetInLine03-08.pdf)

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Its not like people have a fucking choice of migrating here legallyActually, they do.


chose to do it the hard way for the fucking hell of it.Again, ducking under the fence or overstaying a visa is not, necessarily, "the hard way".

[Kyla]

Leaving aside the morality of illegal immigration, in this case the people being punished by the lack of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants are kids. They didn't overstay a visa or decide to cross a border on their own - their parents made the decision for them. A lot of these kids have spent the majority of their lives in the US and have gone to school here and would like to go on to higher education and are finding themselves shut out of the system.

I have a lot of sympathy for these kids.

[DigitalC]

Actually, they do.

You are wrong, Eva Luna beat me to the cite on that ridiculous claim of yours.


Again, ducking under the fence or overstaying a visa is not, necessarily, "the hard way".

Overstaying a visa is quite simple, living in the country illegally is no cake walk. Its certainly tons harder than paying a fee and waiting a while.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Umm, no, as it happens, you're sooooo wrong on this one. (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/factcheck/WhyDontTheyGetInLine03-08.pdf)A white paper published by an immigrant advocacy group is hardly convincing. Besides, that paper does support my position, but not yours. Thanks. Did you read it? It details the legal ways to immigrate.

What it also does is argue that there aren't enough "legal" slots to satisfy all the people who actually want to come here. That's a whole different argument.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I have a lot of sympathy for these kids.I actually have a lot of sympathy for the parents, let alone the kids. Quite frankly, if I was living in dirt poverty in Mexico and could make a better life by sneaking across the border I might well do it myself.

But sympathy doesn't translate into forcibly taking money from other people and giving it to them.

Or even to allowing unlimited immigration. Fact is that there's a limited amount of resources in this country (or any country). It's nice to share some, but not to share an unlimited amount of it.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

What it also does is argue that there aren't enough "legal" slots to satisfy all the people who actually want to come here. That's a whole different argument.Why is that? It seems like the same argument to me. As a practical matter, the vast majority of these people could not legally immigrate, for whatever reason.

[mhendo]

There's no "the country". Hispanics tend to want them here, and they have a lot of otherwise-uncommited voters in key states. And a lot of business people want them here as well, so they can save Big Bucks on the backs of other people.Right, but your point about there being no "the country" is, in this context, precisely irrelevant.

Every decision we take, as "the country" (i.e., as actual US policy) is the product of debate, negotiation, and concession between different factions and interest groups. There is probably not a single national policy enacted by the US government that has the support of every US citizen. Representative democracies work precisely by balancing different opinions and formulating policies based on this balance, and on elections that demonstrate levels of public support for particular people and/or policies.

You are probably right that current US immigration policy reflects the priorities of some specific groups, but that doesn't make it any less accurate to talk about "the country" when discussing US immigration policy.

[Kinthalis]

I actually have a lot of sympathy for the parents, let alone the kids. Quite frankly, if I was living in dirt poverty in Mexico and could make a better life by sneaking across the border I might well do it myself.

But sympathy doesn't translate into forcibly taking money from other people and giving it to them.

Or even to allowing unlimited immigration. Fact is that there's a limited amount of resources in this country (or any country). It's nice to share some, but not to share an unlimited amount of it.

I share your sympathy as well. Frankly I think some of the hate rhetoric comes from people that deep inside realize that if they were in the same situation they would be too afraid to risk so much for their loved ones.

Agree or disagree, I don't care, what I really came in to say is that illegal immigrants give as much as they take. Why do you think we pay such a low price for many goods and services? It's not because we're paying them a fare wage, that's for sure.

[mhendo]

What it also does is argue that there aren't enough "legal" slots to satisfy all the people who actually want to come here. That's a whole different argument.No, it's a distinction without a difference.

If we make a policy whereby the only requirement for immigration is turning up at a border checkpoint with a red suitcase, but then put a limit of 10 people per year who can immigrate using the Red Suitcase Clause, it's effectively the same, for everyone except the first 10 people, as having no immigration avenues at all.

From the point of view of the immigrant himself, especially a poor immigrant, "no legal means of immigration" and "not enough slots for immigration" are effectively the same thing.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Right, but your point about there being no "the country" is, in this context, precisely irrelevant.Au contraire. It's exactly relevant in this precise context.

Captain Amazing is advocating a position that since these people are here illegally they should not be rewarded by receiving benefits. DigitalC responded that the country wants them here. That is only a valid response if it meant that the majority of the country wanted them here, in which case there is some implication that it benefits the most people. If that's not true, then it just means that the political process is such that in this case narrow interests have triumphed over the passive majority.

Of course, that's the way the political process works. That doesn't make it right and doesn't mean that people can't advocate against such policies.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

As a practical matter, the vast majority of these people could not legally immigrate, for whatever reason.You know, that's a reasonable, rational, valid way of putting it. Touché. Hmmm.... I'm going to have to mentally chew on that a while.


First stab at a response...

1. "I want to do something."

2. "What I want to do is illegal."

3. "Therefore, I have no choice but to do it illegally."

No, there is another choice. Don't do it.

I realize that most illegal immigrants come here looking for a better life for themselves (and possibly for their families). I am sympathetic to that. Given the circumstances many of them are coming from, I feel downright sorry for them. That being said, I think the U.S. can't be, shouldn't be, the welfare state of choice for those who want a better life than what their own home country has to offer them.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

From the point of view of the immigrant himself, especially a poor immigrant, "no legal means of immigration" and "not enough slots for immigration" are effectively the same thing.Touché. Kind of like it was legal to sell marijuana, but only if you had a tax stamp. And they didn't issue the tax stamps. Got it.

[mhendo]

Au contraire. It's exactly relevant in this precise context.

Captain Amazing is advocating a position that since these people are here illegally they should not be rewarded by receiving benefits. DigitalC responded that the country wants them here. That is only a valid response if it meant that the majority of the country wanted them here, in which case there is some implication that it benefits the most people. If that's not true, then it just means that the political process is such that in this case narrow interests have triumphed over the passive majority.

Of course, that's the way the political process works. That doesn't make it right and doesn't mean that people can't advocate against such policies.But "the country," in the form of current policies and practices, has made quite clear that getting rid of them isn't important enough to actually do anything about it.

Narrow interests generally have most success in setting policy agendas when everyone else doesn't care enough about their particular interest to spend much time and effort opposing it. Or, as in this case, when those opposing it are more satisfied with narrow xenophobic "solutions" that don't actually address the issue than they are with addressing the issue in a rational manner.

I never said that people can't, or shouldn't, advocate against policies they don't like. But the fact is that "the country" is, for better or worse, precisely represented by national policy on this issue, as on many others.

I think what we see in attitudes like the OP's, and in many others who oppose specific measures like drivers licenses for illegals, is an outlook that says "I don't care if they're here washing my dishes or mowing my lawn, as long as i don't have to fork out any tax money to deal with them." In fact, i think that's possibly the single most prevalent attitude among Americans who oppose measures like this.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Agree or disagree, I don't care, what I really came in to say is that illegal immigrants give as much as they take. Why do you think we pay such a low price for many goods and services? It's not because we're paying them a fare wage, that's for sure.There's been a lot of analysis on both sides of this by all sorts of Smart Guys, but my inclination is that it's not true. I think there are a lot of unknowns in play, and also there are a lot of complex effects that are not always included in the various studies.

As an example, many many illegal immigrants get "free" healthcare by using the local emergency room as their doctor. This cost is hard to quantify, but it's there, and everyone else pays for it in the form of higher hospital bills, IOW higher insurance premiums.

There's no doubt that the average illegal immigrant lives a lower class lifestyle than the average middle class American, and lower even than whoever would have been doing their job had they not underbid it. They also seem to be rather hardworking, as a group. So from that perspective you could say that they are giving more than they're getting. But that ignores the impact on the other wage-earners. If you have a guy who might have been doing landscaping for a half-decent salary and now he has to do it for minimum wage, or get some other barely-above-minimum-wage job because the jobs he might have been doing are underbid by illegal immigrants, then that guy is a net loser.

It's hard to add up all the winners (mostly business people) and losers (mostly blue collar workers). But my sense is that overall it's a losing proposition, and that "big picture" the country's resources are being spread over a larger group of people without a corresponding growth in productivity. I could be wrong.

More significant than the above is the impact on the next generation. I am convinced that a big part of why the illegals are so hard-working and willing to live such humble lifestyles is precisely because they are illegal and can't do any better, and it still beats their home countries. But their kids are going to be US citizens, and they are not going to live in fear of the INS, and they are going to be eligible for all sorts of government handouts. So they are not going to be motivated to work long hours for minimum wages when they can apply for government programs that will support them a lot better with a lot less effort.

So the real price we pay is yet to come.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

But "the country," in the form of current policies and practices, has made quite clear that getting rid of them isn't important enough to actually do anything about it.OK. What of it?

I never said that people can't, or shouldn't, advocate against policies they don't like.That's all I see going on in this thread.But the fact is that "the country" is, for better or worse, precisely represented by national policy on this issue, as on many others.Well the way you frame it, the country is precisely represented by national policy on every issue, by definition.

I think what we see in attitudes like the OP's, and in many others who oppose specific measures like drivers licenses for illegals, is an outlook that says "I don't care if they're here washing my dishes or mowing my lawn, as long as i don't have to fork out any tax money to deal with them." In fact, i think that's possibly the single most prevalent attitude among Americans who oppose measures like this.That attitute makes a lot of sense to me, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Another way of putting it is "I would rather if they weren't here, but once they are I may as well take advantage of what they do have to offer.".

[Thorium Indium Potassium]

You know, that's a reasonable, rational, valid way of putting it. Touché. Hmmm.... I'm going to have to mentally chew on that a while.

First let me just say that I'm impressed that you're actually reading other people's responses and at least thinking about them. So often in the Pit and on other boards, people argue vehemently from other sides for no apparent reason because neither side actually reads what the other is typing.

As for this line:
I think the U.S. can't be, shouldn't be, the welfare state of choice for those who want a better life than what their own home country has to offer them.

Isn't that exactly what the US has attempted to be for at least a century? Our main beacon - the Statute of Liberty - has this plaque on it:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


When did the US drift away from this? When it got too hard?

[billfish678]

When did the US drift away from this? When it got too hard?


We can't be the lifeboat for the world.

Seriously, we can only absorb so many at time. Hence the whole LEGAL alien angle.

You think if we instanty moved all of the Mexicans to Florida they would magically be fully integrated, speak perfect english, have good educations, and all have good paying middle class jobs?


No it would just be Mexico in a different location with a few Crackers and retired New Yorks wondering WTF just happened.

[Saintly Loser]

More significant than the above is the impact on the next generation. I am convinced that a big part of why the illegals are so hard-working and willing to live such humble lifestyles is precisely because they are illegal and can't do any better, and it still beats their home countries. But their kids are going to be US citizens, and they are not going to live in fear of the INS, and they are going to be eligible for all sorts of government handouts. So they are not going to be motivated to work long hours for minimum wages when they can apply for government programs that will support them a lot better with a lot less effort.

The assumption that the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "not going to be motivated to work long hours for minimum wages when they can apply for government programs. . ." is unwarranted, don't you think? Perhaps those children will be highly motivated, work their butts off and achieve quite a bit. It's certainly arguable that the children of parents with a serious work ethic will have a good work ethic themselves.

[mhendo]

That's all I see going on in this thread.There's a difference between arguing against someone's position, on the one hand, and saying that they shouldn't take a position that they feel is right, on the other. If someone doesn't like current immigration policy, i completely support their right to argue against it, and to lobby against it, and to vote against it. But it doesn't mean that i'm going to agree with the actual position they take, or that i won't call their position "stupid" if that's what i think of it.Well the way you frame it, the country is precisely represented by national policy on every issue, by definition.Isn't that really true, though? I mean, we elect our representatives to make national policy on our behalf, so any and every policy they enact is, by definition, representative of the nation.

And i think this is true for policies i agree with, as well as policies that i don't. For example, i think federal drug laws are ridiculous, and that we need a completely new strategy in the so-called Drug War. But current drug policy is the policy of "the country," whether i like it or not. It doesn't mean that i agree with it, or that i won't argue against it. It's simply a truism, is all.That attitude makes a lot of sense to me, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Another way of putting it is "I would rather if they weren't here, but once they are I may as well take advantage of what they do have to offer.".And, given their willingness to "take advantage of what [illegals] have to offer," i think it's perfectly reasonable to accuse them of rank hypocrisy when they start whining about illegals. If you really don't want them here, then do your best to make sure that you are not part of the "pull" factor that attracts them in the first place.

[hdc_bst]

More significant than the above is the impact on the next generation. I am convinced that a big part of why the illegals are so hard-working and willing to live such humble lifestyles is precisely because they are illegal and can't do any better, and it still beats their home countries. But their kids are going to be US citizens, and they are not going to live in fear of the INS, and they are going to be eligible for all sorts of government handouts. So they are not going to be motivated to work long hours for minimum wages when they can apply for government programs that will support them a lot better with a lot less effort.

So the real price we pay is yet to come.

I'm a bit on the fence in this issue. I agree with Jimmy Joe's preference that people abide by the law, but trying to provide a better life for your family strikes a powerful sympathetic chord.

In response to Fotheringay's posted concern, does anyone have any statistics either way? Second generation immigrants in general, I believe, tend to be hard working and productive. Are there any studies to support or deny this? Any studies that also include legality of parents?

On preview I see Saintly Loser is thinking along the same lines.

[Thorium Indium Potassium]

We can't be the lifeboat for the world.

Seriously, we can only absorb so many at time. Hence the whole LEGAL alien angle.

You think if we instanty moved all of the Mexicans to Florida they would magically be fully integrated, speak perfect english, have good educations, and all have good paying middle class jobs?


No it would just be Mexico in a different location with a few Crackers and retired New Yorks wondering WTF just happened.

I understand that we can only absorb a certain amount at once, and I'm wholly behind legal immigration (shoot, my husband is a legal immigrant). I just think that it's been proven time and time and time again that our current legal immigration system is utter crap. It's simply not working and we can't just stand around and say, "sorry folks, we're closed." It goes against what America stands for (or at least what it used to stand for).

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Isn't that exactly what the US has attempted to be for at least a century? Our main beacon - the Statute of Liberty - has this plaque on it... When did the US drift away from this? When it got too hard?Unfortunately, the fact is that our resources are finite. There comes a time when we simply can't support any more people. While I admire the lofty aspiration of more than a century ago, I also sadly conclude that Miss Liberty will, one day but hopefully none too soon, resemble the leg of Ozymandias. Yes, taking in all the tired, the poor, the huddled masses is a laudable sentiment, but it isn't sustainable forever.

[Spiny Norman]

The assumption that the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "not going to be motivated to work long hours for minimum wages when they can apply for government programs. . ." is unwarranted, don't you think? Perhaps those children will be highly motivated, work their butts off and achieve quite a bit. It's certainly arguable that the children of parents with a serious work ethic will have a good work ethic themselves.

At any rate, it's unlikely they'll be comparing their situations to living in the impoverished homeland of their parents. They'll be wanting the Jeep Cherokee and plasma TV life, and with a bit of luck, their folks will have instilled some work ethics in them.

[Miller]

Those receiving medical attention could get it but would be immediately reported and deported. If you're a hospital that treated an illegal and didn't report it- massive fines/jail.

Can I just say that this part, at least, is an extremely bad idea? The net result of it is going to be fewer illegal immigrants seeking health care. Not just for physical injuries, but also for communicable diseases. Jose has a persistent hacking cough, but he doesn't dare go to a hospital because he doesn't want to be sent back to Bolivia. And next thing you know, you've got an outbreak of tubercleosis. And that puts everyone's health at risk, regardless of what color their passport is.

That being said, I think the U.S. can't be, shouldn't be, the welfare state of choice for those who want a better life than what their own home country has to offer them.

If they're coming here to work, then we're not playing welfare state to them, are we?

[Captain Carrot]

1. "I want to do something."

2. "What I want to do is illegal."

3. "Therefore, I have no choice but to do it illegally."

No, there is another choice. Don't do it.
And expecting someone to live in abject poverty (which is the case for a hell of a lot of people in Central and South America who want to come to the US) and condemn their family to the same, instead of breaking the law to try to get a job in a country that actually has them, is an absurd choice. We are a nation of immigrants -- all immigrants, not just the ones who got here first.

[Cheesesteak]

First stab at a response...

1. "I want to do something."

2. "What I want to do is illegal."

3. "Therefore, I have no choice but to do it illegally."

No, there is another choice. Don't do it. We could say the same thing about speeding. Get on certain highways, and you'll find 90% of the people speeding because they want to get to their destination faster than the law allows. These immigrants are doing essentially the same thing, getting to their destination faster.

Both speeding and immigration laws are poorly enforced, which is an indication that the government doesn't really care all that much about the law being broken, just as long as you don't go crazy with it. Illegal immigrants generally do tough work for low pay, keep their heads down and try to not attract too much attention.

The fact is, we do not make nearly as many visas available as there are people who want to immigrate, and as there are (were) jobs for immigrants to do. Kind of like putting a 25mph limit on a superhighway.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

We are a nation of immigrants -- all immigrants, not just the ones who got here first.Jeeze, not this argument again. Ask the Native Americans how that worked out for them.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, I know... and they immigrated from Asia 10,000+ years ago, yadda yadda yadda.)

[Eva Luna]

A white paper published by an immigrant advocacy group is hardly convincing. Besides, that paper does support my position, but not yours. Thanks. Did you read it? It details the legal ways to immigrate.

What it also does is argue that there aren't enough "legal" slots to satisfy all the people who actually want to come here. That's a whole different argument.


Whether it is a different argument is highly relevant to your point, and in fact, disproves it. How is it not relevant that, for example, there are an estimated 12 million people in the U.S. with no legal status, but 5,000 green cards per year for people without specific, in-demand professional skills (which generally require at least a bachelor's degreee)? Unless you are lucky enough to have a close family relationship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, in which case, if you're lucky, it might only take you a couple of years to immigrate legally, but might also take decades?

I read this stuff nearly every day, thanks; I've been working in immigration-related fields since 1990, when I started in refugee resettlement, and have spent the past 10 years as of this May doing primarily work visas and employment-based green cards.

Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

There's a difference between arguing against someone's position, on the one hand, and saying that they shouldn't take a position that they feel is right, on the other. If someone doesn't like current immigration policy, i completely support their right to argue against it, and to lobby against it, and to vote against it. But it doesn't mean that i'm going to agree with the actual position they take, or that i won't call their position "stupid" if that's what i think of it.Nobody is asking you to agree. The point here is that you can't counter an the opposing viewpoint by merely stating that "the country" agrees with you, if you've defined the country's agreement in that manner. And that is the context in which that point was made in this thread.

Isn't that really true, though? I mean, we elect our representatives to make national policy on our behalf, so any and every policy they enact is, by definition, representative of the nation.Sure, but it's a pointless truism that is not relevant to a discussion of the issues. Anyone looking to change any public policy is looking to change something that "the country" currently agrees with. That fact carries not weight.

And, given their willingness to "take advantage of what [illegals] have to offer," i think it's perfectly reasonable to accuse them of rank hypocrisy when they start whining about illegals. If you really don't want them here, then do your best to make sure that you are not part of the "pull" factor that attracts them in the first place.This is a principle that has broader application and one that I don't agree with. One person has a very limited ability to impact the world, and no ability to stop the world from impacting him. If one individual decides to not employ illegal aliens, this will have a minuscule impact on the population of illegal immigrants, and to the extent that this person is losing out by their presence he will continue to lose out as before. But he'll also be cutting himself off from any possible benefit. No reason to do this.

(If WalMart opens a store next door to my house I would not be happy about it. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't shop there.)

Second generation immigrants in general, I believe, tend to be hard working and productive. Are there any studies to support or deny this? Any studies that also include legality of parents?I don't know of any statistics. But if there are any, I would caution that they have to include only second generation immigrants who 1) came at a time when the current level of welfare/social support was available, and 2) were children of lower class parents (i.e. excluding the children of middle & upper class parents whose kids went to college and became engineers). If I am not mistaken, Hispanics in the US have a lower HS graduation rate than African-Americans. That is not promising.

[Bricker]

Its moronic to assume illegal aliens are simply doing it the "wrong way". You should consider yourself incredibly be lucky that your spouse had the option of coming to this country legally, for most people this is simply not an option. Don't you dare compare a fucking application fee to risking your life in order to give your family a better life, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Nonsense.

A bank robber can "risk his life to give his family a better life," but that doesn't mean we should hold bank robbers blameless.

[Xan]

Nonsense.

A bank robber can "risk his life to give his family a better life," but that doesn't mean we should hold bank robbers blameless.

You're a fucking retard.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Both speeding and immigration laws are poorly enforced, which is an indication that the government doesn't really care all that much about the law being broken, just as long as you don't go crazy with it. Illegal immigrants generally do tough work for low pay, keep their heads down and try to not attract too much attention.Valid points. My replies...

4. When I get caught speeding, "The speed limit was too low!" is not a valid defense. When illegal immigrants get arrested, "The legal quota was too low!" is also not a valid defense.

5. I don't expect other people to subsidize my speeding. My speeding, generally speaking and, like you said, as long as I don't go crazy with it, generally doesn't cost anybody else anything. As has already been pointed out, not only do illegal immigrants consume expensive, obvious services like healthcare, but they also depress wages for other working class citizens. My speeding, again as long as I don't go crazy with it, doesn't affect your rate of speed. (Imperfect analogy, I know.)

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

And expecting someone to live in abject poverty (which is the case for a hell of a lot of people in Central and South America who want to come to the US) and condemn their family to the same, instead of breaking the law to try to get a job in a country that actually has them, is an absurd choice.As I have said before, I am sympathetic to their plight AND I don't think we can absorb and support everyone who wants to be here. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, nor contradictory.

[Bricker]

You're a fucking retard.

Well, you certainly rebutted my argument effectively there.

Now that you have me wriggling in the crushing grip of reason, perhaps you might offer one or two more details of your argument? You know -- just to complete the evisceration?

[Xan]

Well, you certainly rebutted my argument effectively there.

Now that you have me wriggling in the crushing grip of reason, perhaps you might offer one or two more details of your argument? You know -- just to complete the evisceration?

There is a huge fucking difference between robbery and crossing an arbitrary border.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

If they're coming here to work, then we're not playing welfare state to them, are we?As has been previously pointed out, generally speaking the quality of life for the illegal immigrant is raised, but the quality of life for citizens is lowered (via lower wages). So in that sense yes, we are playing welfare state to them.

[Bricker]

And expecting someone to live in abject poverty (which is the case for a hell of a lot of people in Central and South America who want to come to the US) and condemn their family to the same, instead of breaking the law to try to get a job in a country that actually has them, is an absurd choice. We are a nation of immigrants -- all immigrants, not just the ones who got here first.

My father came here from El Salvador, where he lived in abject poverty. Yet somehow he refused to stay when his visa expired, but returned to EL Salvador and worked on coming here legally.

Why was this an absurd choice?

[Eva Luna]

My father came here from El Salvador, where he lived in abject poverty. Yet somehow he refused to stay when his visa expired, but returned to EL Salvador and worked on coming here legally.

Why was this an absurd choice?

But apparently he had the choice; are you denying the fact that the vast majority of the human race does not have that choice?

(And out of professional curiosity, how did he qualify?)

[mhendo]

As a the spouse of a LEGAL immigrant, I can't help but feel this is a slap in the face for everyone who did it the right way.I forgot to respond to this earlier.

As someone who is currently in the process of legally becoming a US resident, my experience with the whole process gives me precisely the opposite viewpoint. I completely understand why a poor person without much English, without much money, with little formal education, would do all he or she could to avoid the process.

I am, in many ways, probably one of the most unproblematic immigration cases that the US immigration people have to deal with.

i'm married to a US citizen, so am not subject to quotas
we had been married and living together for over 4 years before i even put in my residency application, making it unlikely that my marriage is one of mere convenience
i'm from a country that is not among those considered problematic by US authorities
my first language is English
i'm have a college and postgraduate education
my wife has a solid, professional job that pays, by itself, around the US median household income
And even for me, the immigration process is a byzantine, labyrinthine succession of forms and tests and evidence and photocopies and pictures and statements. And it's fucking expensive.

As i said, our household income is around the US median, but we have student loan debts and credit card debts from grad school, and we live in a reasonably expensive city, so we need every dollar we can get. Simply applying for my residency cost me the better part of $2000.

- $930 for Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
- $80 for biometrics (fingerprints, etc.)
- $355 for Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative
- $470 for medical inspections, vaccinations, etc.
- $40 for passport photos of me and my wife

I'm not saying these charges are unreasonable or unjustified; i'm just saying that i completely understand why an illegal immigrant from Latin America or Asia or Eastern Europe might not think it worthwhile to pay them, and then to gather and present all the evidence required to convince the USCIS that they are worthy of being allowed into the country.

For someone like me, the benefits of doing it properly far outweigh the disadvantages. The jobs i want to apply for are the sort of jobs where employers do check your status, and i also have a wife who i don't want to get into trouble with US authorities. But plenty of illegals have no such incentive; for them, the costs and the difficulty make doing it right a far less attractive option.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Every time I hear in the news about something that Gov. Corzine has done, I always agree 100%.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Captain Carrot, I have a hypothetical question for you.

Would you let an illegal immigrant, whom you do not know, live in your house? He (or she) is clean, sober, decent folk, hard working, and does pay you a modest rent (but which is slightly less than you could get renting that room to someone else).

Would you let that person live in your house? One person?

OK.

How about two? Decent, clean, sober, hard working, pays a little rent. Two OK?

Three? What's wrong with three? I mean c'mon.... they're decent, clean, sober, hard working folk! How dare you discriminate against them!

Four?

Five?

Seventeen?

At what point do you say "I'm doing all that I can. I simply can not take in anybody else. Regardless of their dire situation, there is simply no more room in my house"?

And does that make you a bad person? The fact, fact mind you, that there are decent, clean, sober, hard working people living in abject poverty that you will not let into your home. Does that make you a bad person?



My argument is that we, as a country, have reached, in my opinion, the number of people we can accommodate. The fact that there are still impoverished people somewhere in the world that we can’t take in doesn’t make me, or any of us, a bad person.

[Captain Amazing]

But apparently he had the choice; are you denying the fact that the vast majority of the human race does not have that choice?

But just because somebody's life would improve if they could immigrate to the United States doesn't neccesarily mean that the United States should accomodate them. I'm not saying that people who come to the country illegally are acting irrationally, or even are bad people, but the US has the right to control its borders and decide who has the right to enter and live here.

[Eva Luna]

But just because somebody's life would improve if they could immigrate to the United States doesn't neccesarily mean that the United States should accomodate them. I'm not saying that people who come to the country illegally are acting irrationally, or even are bad people, but the US has the right to control its borders and decide who has the right to enter and live here.

That's a totally separate issue from the OP, though, which is about a state's decision, in accordance with the political process, to grant in-state tuition benefits to a subset of that population, one whose parents made that decision.

I'm just trying to dispel some of the vast ignorance about the realities of the U.S. immigration system, and the consequences thereof, that have cropped up along the way.

[Marienee]

I
As someone who is currently in the process of legally becoming a US resident, my experience with the whole process gives me precisely the opposite viewpoint. I completely understand why a poor person without much English, without much money, with little formal education, would do all he or she could to avoid the process..

Hear, hear. We started the process for Dearly Beloved to become a permanent resident in 1996. When we moved to Holland in 2002, the Agency Formerly Known as INS was not done. They finally invited us for an interview in 2003, about a year after we terminated the process.

The process required, amoung other things, the intervention of our Congresscritter on two different occasions -- just to get the agency to do what it was required to do.

I'll say it for you: the process is unreasonable, and it is unjustified. Six years and thousands of dollars to get an uncontroversial petition approved is beyond the pale.

[Malthus]

That's a totally separate issue from the OP, though, which is about a state's decision, in accordance with the political process, to grant in-state tuition benefits to a subset of that population, one whose parents made that decision.

I'm just trying to dispel some of the vast ignorance about the realities of the U.S. immigration system, and the consequences thereof, that have cropped up along the way.


Not that seperate. As mhendo mentioned, the system seems designed to incentivize illegal immigration. Adding benefits to the families of illegal immigrants is a further incentive (again, totally ignoring any justice issues for the moment).

Seems to me that what ought to be done is either or both of:

1. Making the "legal" system more useable and available; and/or

2. Creating harsher dis-incentives to illegal immigration.

Adding an incentive to illegal immigration while keeping the system as-is makes no sense (though of course it may be no less than just to the kids).

[Captain Carrot]

That's a false analogy, Jimmy Joe. (And I don't own a house.) A house has a definite, pre-defined limit on the number of people it can support. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, houses are usually built with a certain size of family in mind. The same is not true for countries.

[billfish678]

That's a false analogy, Jimmy Joe. (And I don't own a house.) A house has a definite, pre-defined limit on the number of people it can support. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, houses are usually built with a certain size of family in mind. The same is not true for countries.

The infrastructure doesnt just build itself and more free unused land just doesnt pop up either ya know.

[Captain Amazing]

That's a totally separate issue from the OP, though, which is about a state's decision, in accordance with the political process, to grant in-state tuition benefits to a subset of that population, one whose parents made that decision.

Either those students were born in the United States, in which case they're citizens, and they should already be getting in-state tuition benefits, or they were brought to the US by their parents illegally, in which case they should be deported.

[Algher]

What is the undocumented student going to do when they graduate? What company will hire an undergraduate who cannot produce the appropriate documentation?

While I can see how a cash based general contractor, restaurant or farm can get away with hiring illegals - I do not see Xerox picking up a few college educated illegals and looking the other way during the HR process.

So what is New Jersey trying to accomplish? If the goal of a state supported educational system is to have an educated workforce - educating those who can NOT legally work seems to be a waste of state money.

[Eva Luna]

Either those students were born in the United States, in which case they're citizens, and they should already be getting in-state tuition benefits, or they were brought to the US by their parents illegally, in which case they should be deported.

Nice empathy you have going there.

And by the way, did you know that in many states (Illinois included), people who are residing legally in the state (as dependents of people on work visas, for example) are not eligible for in-state tuition until their green cards are approved, which can take several years or longer depending on quota-related backlogs, etc.? Meanwhile, the principal green card applicant (and sometimes spouses and children, if they are far enough along in the green card process) can be working legally, paying taxes, etc., but not gaining many of the benefits of those taxes.

[kenner116]

The infrastructure doesnt just build itself and more free unused land just doesnt pop up either ya know.

The US only has about 80 people per square mile. We could easily handle a billion or more people in this country. Our most densely populated state is New Jersey, and it isn't even as densely populated as South Korea. I can't think of what resources we'd be short of if we quadrupled our population, except maybe water, but that is more of a regional issue.

To Algher, legalization of all illegal immigrants that have been here for 10+ years would solve that problem.

[Algher]

The US only has about 80 people per square mile. We could easily handle a billion or more people in this country. Our most densely populated state is New Jersey, and it isn't even as densely populated as South Korea. I can't think of what resources we'd be short of if we quadrupled our population, except maybe water, but that is more of a regional issue.

To Algher, legalization of all illegal immigrants that have been here for 10+ years would solve that problem.

I have no desire to achieve the population density of South Korea, personally.

As for legalization - that is a Federal issue, not a State issue. Since New Jersey is not going to be able to make all of these subsidized workers suddenly legal to work, they are instead taking money away from those people who CAN work.

[billfish678]

The US only has about 80 people per square mile. We could easily handle a billion or more people in this country. .

Fixed amount of land. More people. Drives land prices up. More people vying for ALL resources drives up the price of these resources.

And again, those infrastructers arent going to build themselves for free.

[Eva Luna]

And again, those infrastructers arent going to build themselves for free.

No, they're going to be built with the taxes that nearly ALL working people are paying, whether they are here legally or not.

[LavenderBlue]

I live in NJ and voted for Corzine enthusiastically. I happen think he's dead wrong on this issue and agree with the OP.

Three of my neighbors have lost their jobs and are still looking for jobs months later. There are for rent signs all over the neighborhood from people who cannot sell their homes. Community officials are talking about ending bus service to the local elementary school and laying off a teacher or two because revenues are down.

Oh and I have found the NJ DVM itself to be a complete nightmare to work with. I have found employees there unhelpful and unpleasant.

Of all the things he could worry about this strikes me as perhaps the least important issue possible. Let Corzine worry about bringing decent jobs to the state or even reforming the DVM so that I can actually get factual answers when I call.

If he wants to encourage educated LEGAL immigrants who will come here and stay here and maybe even employ some of my neighbors that's fine.

But granting benefits and what amounts to state issued ID to temporary migrants who may or may be here tomorrow strikes me as a ludicrous waste of both money and time. There are far better ways to help combat poverty than to encourage those suffering from it to move here.

[Ocean Annie]

It's hard to add up all the winners (mostly business people) and losers (mostly blue collar workers). But my sense is that overall it's a losing proposition, and that "big picture" the country's resources are being spread over a larger group of people without a corresponding growth in productivity. I could be wrong.

More significant than the above is the impact on the next generation. I am convinced that a big part of why the illegals are so hard-working and willing to live such humble lifestyles is precisely because they are illegal and can't do any better, and it still beats their home countries. But their kids are going to be US citizens, and they are not going to live in fear of the INS, and they are going to be eligible for all sorts of government handouts. So they are not going to be motivated to work long hours for minimum wages when they can apply for government programs that will support them a lot better with a lot less effort.

So the real price we pay is yet to come.

I read people express concern about generous government handouts. Will you provide actual government data to help me understand these programs better -- eligibility requirements, average amount people receive, length of time people live on handouts, etc.

Also, most children model their parents behavior. It seems unlikely that a child would be raised by hard working parents and not learn to value work.

[Captain Amazing]

Nice empathy you have going there.

And by the way, did you know that in many states (Illinois included), people who are residing legally in the state (as dependents of people on work visas, for example) are not eligible for in-state tuition until their green cards are approved, which can take several years or longer depending on quota-related backlogs, etc.? Meanwhile, the principal green card applicant (and sometimes spouses and children, if they are far enough along in the green card process) can be working legally, paying taxes, etc., but not gaining many of the benefits of those taxes.

I'm not an empathetic person. And no, I didn't know that until you just told me.

[Miller]

And again, those infrastructers arent going to build themselves for free.

I guess we'd need a large labor force to build them, then. I wonder where we could get one?

As has been previously pointed out, generally speaking the quality of life for the illegal immigrant is raised, but the quality of life for citizens is lowered (via lower wages). So in that sense yes, we are playing welfare state to them.

Not really. They're working, and they're paying taxes, which means they're paying for the government services they're consuming. So there's pretty much no sense in which we're playing a welfare state to them, unless you want to start inventing new definitions of the term, "welfare."

My argument is that we, as a country, have reached, in my opinion, the number of people we can accommodate.

And your basis for this conclusion is...

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I read people express concern about generous government handouts. Will you provide actual government data to help me understand these programs better -- eligibility requirements, average amount people receive, length of time people live on handouts, etc.I don't know if there are any. One aspect of welfare programs is that there are many many of them, and they work independently of each other. (In fact, one particularly outrageous aspect of the way these things typically run is that money received from working counts as "income" and affects benefit levels and eligibility, but money received from other welfare programs does not. But I digress.)

Welfare advocates like to point to the cash payment AFDC statistics, but there are any number of other welfare programs that pay for rent, utilities, food, medical care, education and more. These are frequently operated by different agencies, and I don't know if anyone has or can get an overall sense of what's going on in total.

I should make clear that with all that, no one is going to become rich by (legally) living off government handouts. But you can live fairly decently, and if you are used to that lifestyle the marginal benefit of working for a living is often not enough to overcome the natural laziness that afflicts us all.

Also, most children model their parents behavior. It seems unlikely that a child would be raised by hard working parents and not learn to value work.Many will and some won't.

In addition, many of the hardworking immigrants are not working so hard out a principled work ethic. They have no other choice. But the kids will. And when they contemplate killing themselves like their parents did to live the hardscrabble life that their parents do versus taking the offer of free whatever that the nice lady or brochure described, the latter choice will be very tempting.

Of course, I guess they could make the choice to go for the top and decide to set their goals early on on being CEOs of corporations. But I don't see that happening. Remember, this is primarily the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum that we are talking about, and one that has some amount of language barrier as well (although the children of illegals generally tend to speak English, from what I can tell).

Essentially all I'm saying is that these children of immigrants are not likely to be any different that most other people of their socioeconomic status. All we see now is a temporary disconnect because the parents have the most common option removed, by virtue of their illegal status. But I would expect things to revert to form, when this barrier is lifted.

[Carol the Impaler]

Then why not help these children of lower economic status get a college education so they can move solidly into the middle class?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

It's great if they go to college. Question is taking money from other people for that purpose.

Different people have different perspectives on taking money away from people who worked for it to give to other people. For me, it needs to be a very compelling reason, and giving it to guys who weren't supposed to be here to begin with is not compelling enough, even if it will genuinely help them. YMMV.

[Algher]

Then why not help these children of lower economic status get a college education so they can move solidly into the middle class?

Because they will not be able to use that college education to get into the middle class as they are not allowed to legally work.

[Bricker]

There is a huge fucking difference between robbery and crossing an arbitrary border.

Hey, that actually looks like an argument! (See, I was just kidding before about how good your argument was.)

Now, you're right. There are differences between illegal withdrawal of bank money and illegal border crossing.

Would you care to explain which of those differences is fatal to my analogy? Because that would be just AWESOME for the health of your struggling argument.

[Bricker]

But apparently he had the choice; are you denying the fact that the vast majority of the human race does not have that choice?

(And out of professional curiosity, how did he qualify?)

I actually don't know -- and Dad passed away, so I can't ask him. I will ask my Mom when I talk to her, though, and see if she knows.

But I agree -- since more people wish to come here than there are slots for, some are denied that choice. In fact, as I hinted above, his first try ended up not working, and he returned to El Salvador and tried again.

But my argument, "Why is it so impossible for people to choose not to obey the law?" My dad did, even when it meant he couldn't stay here. It used to infuriate him when people came here illegally, in large measure because he played by the rules, and had to leave here and return to a life of very little opportunity... but he did it, because he didn't want to live in this country as a criminal. Why is that such a ridiculous viewpoint?

[billfish678]

I Not really. They're working, and they're paying taxes, which means they're paying for the government services they're consuming. So there's pretty much no sense in which we're playing a welfare state to them, unless you want to start inventing new definitions of the term, "welfare."



So, your telling me these illegals have paid into the social security system from day one? That those day laborers (and their employers) are paying their share of SSI and FICA taxes? And any number of other "taxes" and gubment payments that LEGAL US citizens are?

News to me amigo

[Algher]

So, your telling me these illegals have paid into the social security system from day one? That those day laborers (and their employers) are paying their share of SSI and FICA taxes? And any number of other "taxes" and gubment payments that LEGAL US citizens are?

News to me amigo

Can we take the "amount of taxes that illegals pay" into a separate thread? That one is regularly hashed out, and IMHO is separate from the question of instate tuition rates for illegal immigrants.

[Tom Tildrum]

Leaving aside the morality of illegal immigration, in this case the people being punished by the lack of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants are kids. They didn't overstay a visa or decide to cross a border on their own - their parents made the decision for them. A lot of these kids have spent the majority of their lives in the US and have gone to school here and would like to go on to higher education and are finding themselves shut out of the system.

I have a lot of sympathy for these kids.

Nitpick: The article suggests that the proposed extension of in-state tuition to illegal immigrants would not be limited just to those who came here as kids.

[The Tao's Revenge]

You know, that's a reasonable, rational, valid way of putting it. Touché. Hmmm.... I'm going to have to mentally chew on that a while.


First stab at a response...

1. "I want to do something."

2. "What I want to do is illegal."

3. "Therefore, I have no choice but to do it illegally."

No, there is another choice. Don't do it.

I realize that most illegal immigrants come here looking for a better life for themselves (and possibly for their families). I am sympathetic to that. Given the circumstances many of them are coming from, I feel downright sorry for them. That being said, I think the U.S. can't be, shouldn't be, the welfare state of choice for those who want a better life than what their own home country has to offer them.

This isn't a "but I want to walk on the grass!" type law break. In many cases it's a "I'm too poor to afford food in my home country so I'll take my chances here" type law break.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Jeeze, not this argument again. Ask the Native Americans how that worked out for them.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, I know... and they immigrated from Asia 10,000+ years ago, yadda yadda yadda.)

Generally Mexicans aren't genocidal smallpox infested maniacs like the American forebearers were.

[billfish678]

Can we take the "amount of taxes that illegals pay" into a separate thread? That one is regularly hashed out, and IMHO is separate from the question of instate tuition rates for illegal immigrants.

No, because isnt this one of most peoples main beefs about it?

People seem to have two main beefs about illegals.

First, they are, by definition, breaking the law.

Secondly, they are getting their money for nothing and their chicks for free to both exagerate and give a nod to MTV.

IF these illegals arent paying their fair share INTO the system thats giving a good rate for INSTATE tuition, then other LEGAL residents ARE carrying an ADDITIONAL financial load.

IF that is true and these folks are here illegally to boot, I can certainly see why that would chap some people's ass.

So, taxes and money sure as heck are part of the debate IMO.

If the state was just deciding "hey, wanna come to our colleges and pay outa state rates like everyone else", I bet 90 percent of the heartburn would go away for most people".

[treis]

A few disjointed points:

It bothers me that people think that because they are born in the USA they are somehow entitled to a standard of living in the top 5% the world. This sense of entitlement sickens me, and it sickens me even more when I see these entitled people look down on people desperately struggling for a better life. If you can't be out some uneducated illegal immigrant that doesn't even speak English for a job then that's your fault, not the immigrants. It's inexcusable for someone with access to the American education system to even be in competition with an illegal immigrant.

It annoys me that people don't comprehend the benefit we get from illegal immigrants. I get my burgers flipped for cheap, and some immigrant gets a chance at a better life. It should be win freaking win, and it is except for those people I talked about in the paragraph above.

This punish the child for the sins of the parents pisses me off as well. Why should some teenager who knows no other country but the U.S. be booted out because he came here, through no fault of his own, at the age of 2? Why should they be set adrift and denied benefits of what is their home country.

It annoys me that people don't see the pattern of immigration. It goes uneducated immigrant --> Educated hard working children --> Average American children. The 2nd generation immigrants are typically assimilated and much more motivated in education/career (since their parents never got the chance to have either). The 3rd generation of immigrants are fully assimilated and virtually indistinguishable from 10th generation Americans.

[magellan01]

Why is that? It seems like the same argument to me. As a practical matter, the vast majority of these people could not legally immigrate, for whatever reason.

But just because there aren't enough slots, that does not mean they have the right to enter our country willy-nilly. Now I think legal immigration needs to be revamped, and a guest-worker program put in place, but until more slots are created, those people have no right—ZERO—to decide to sneak in here. A country has a right to set it's own immigration policy and enforce it. Period.

[magellan01]

From the point of view of the immigrant himself, especially a poor immigrant, "no legal means of immigration" and "not enough slots for immigration" are effectively the same thing.

That's not really true. "Not enough slots" means that "slots" do exist, that they are part of the equation. It means that one might have to wait for slots next year, or the year after. "No legal means" says that legal immigration is an impossibility. Not the same thing. "Effectively" or otherwise.

[magellan01]

When did the US drift away from this? When it got too hard?

Oh, please. Just because we don't throw the door open for everyone who wants to come here doesn't mean we aren't a welcoming country to immigrants. And you might take into account the U.S. when the statue was erected and now. There have been times in our history when it behooved us to encourage immigration. and there are times when the need to do so isn't there. It is right for us to adjust our immigration policy to serve the needs of the country at a particular time.

[magellan01]

Can I just say that this part, at least, is an extremely bad idea? The net result of it is going to be fewer illegal immigrants seeking health care. Not just for physical injuries, but also for communicable diseases. Jose has a persistent hacking cough, but he doesn't dare go to a hospital because he doesn't want to be sent back to Bolivia. And next thing you know, you've got an outbreak of tubercleosis. And that puts everyone's health at risk, regardless of what color their passport is.

Which is why we need to lock down the borders completely. We can then allow in 10 a year or 10 million, with each of them being properly screened.

[Miller]

Which is why we need to lock down the borders completely. We can then allow in 10 a year or 10 million, with each of them being properly screened.

Well, I don't really agree with that concept, but regardless, it doesn't address the problem I pointed out. It's not going to be possible to completely 100% prevent illegal immigration. No matter what barriers we throw up, some number of people are going to figure out a way around them. And once they're here, some of them are going to become sick, and we need to deal with that intelligently.

[Miller]

But my argument, "Why is it so impossible for people to choose not to obey the law?" My dad did, even when it meant he couldn't stay here. It used to infuriate him when people came here illegally, in large measure because he played by the rules, and had to leave here and return to a life of very little opportunity... but he did it, because he didn't want to live in this country as a criminal. Why is that such a ridiculous viewpoint?

You might also want to consider that your dad was willing to go through the process of immigrating here legally in - what, 1960, or thereabouts? The process has likely changed greatly since then. Were he trying to come here today, he might not have the same options for legal entry, which may influence his opinion on illegal entry.

[magellan01]

Well, I don't really agree with that concept, but regardless, it doesn't address the problem I pointed out. It's not going to be possible to completely 100% prevent illegal immigration. No matter what barriers we throw up, some number of people are going to figure out a way around them. And once they're here, some of them are going to become sick, and we need to deal with that intelligently.

What is your opinion on the steps we should take to know who is coming in. Are you happy with what is happening now? When the great waves of immigrants came in through Ellis Island, each of them was checked for health issues. Those who might have been a danger were sent back. Now, we have a border where people are regularly crossing it. How do we ensure that we keep those with communicable diseases out? It seems you're fine with letting them in and letting them—no, hoping—they take advantage of our healthcare system. Is that right?

[magellan01]

You might also want to consider that your dad was willing to go through the process of immigrating here legally in - what, 1960, or thereabouts? The process has likely changed greatly since then. Were he trying to come here today, he might not have the same options for legal entry, which may influence his opinion on illegal entry.

Of course, you are correct that that is a possibility. But you must grant that there are people who do chose to NOT break the law and sneak in here illegally. That animal does exist, and it appears that Bricker the Elder should be assumed to fall into that group. Small point, but still...

[Bricker]

You might also want to consider that your dad was willing to go through the process of immigrating here legally in - what, 1960, or thereabouts? The process has likely changed greatly since then. Were he trying to come here today, he might not have the same options for legal entry, which may influence his opinion on illegal entry.

Anything is possible.

However, my dad found a six-year-old error when he was redeeming savings bonds and fought with the bank manager for several days before winning his points -- and losing about $75, since the error had not been in his favor.

He was scrupulously honest. It's extremely difficult for me to imagine circumstances in which he would have chosen to break the law to live here.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Two of my grandparents legally immigrated from Sicily.

My neighborhood is overwhelmingly Hispanic nowadays. When my two American-born grandparents lived in this house, it was a completely white Anglo Saxon neighborhood. Things change.

However, the Hispanics that I talk to (and usually I do tend to talk to Hispanics, because that's who are around me) that are here legally are infuriated at illegal immigrants. They say that the illegals give ALL Hispanics a bad name, and cause a heightened distrust of Hispanics, whether they're here legally or not. They want the illegal immigrants to go back home, and get it right.

I'm sure that the legal immigration process is hideously complicated and expensive, and I believe that this is an area where we should focus our efforts. I don't think that we are obligated to take in every immigrant. I think that we have a right to say who we will take in, and how many of them. And I think that we have the right and even the duty to decline to provide incentives for illegal immigrants to make the journey here, and then profit while they stay here. Our first concerns should be for our own citizens and legal immigrants. While I have sympathy for the kids, I really don't think it's their fault, I think that maybe they wouldn't be in this situation if their parents had followed the law. I think it's grossly unfair for the illegal kids to get a state subsidized education.

Yes, it's grossly unfair that some people are born in countries that are poor, corrupt, and have few prospects. However, this is life. I think that these countries, instead of encouraging illegal immigration to the US, would be better served if they took all these hardworking, highly motivated people and used them to better the native country. I recognize that I would never have been born had Grandma and Grandpa stayed in Sicily, but again, that's life.

While we're throwing analogies around, I'd like to point out that I have all kinds of sympathy for homeless cats. However, I don't adopt or feed every homeless cat I come across. I know that my family can accommodate three cats at any one time, and so I have set a maximum of three permanent cats in the Bodoni household. If I allowed every stray cat that crossed my path to live in my house, I would soon become one of those people you read about in the paper, the ones with hundreds of cats in the house, with cat food and cat shit piled knee-high. I can take care of three cats, and keep them fed and clean, and the house fairly clean. People are not cats, but limits are limits. We have to recognize that we DO have to set limits in every aspect. Every new person who moves into an area will have an impact on the environment. We need some areas for housing, some for infrastructure, and some for growing/raising food. When the Statue of Liberty was erected, we thought that America could absorb many more people, and at the time, it could. However, we are starting to find that our population should be kept within limits. We can't absorb everyone else in the world, unless, of course, we wish to start annexing other nations.

[SciFiSam]

Leaving aside the morality of illegal immigration, in this case the people being punished by the lack of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants are kids. They didn't overstay a visa or decide to cross a border on their own - their parents made the decision for them. A lot of these kids have spent the majority of their lives in the US and have gone to school here and would like to go on to higher education and are finding themselves shut out of the system.

I have a lot of sympathy for these kids.

Yup. The article does seem to be focusing on the kids of illegal immigrants, and really, they're a seperate group to illegal immigrants themselves.

Question: do the children of legal immigrants pay in-state tuition fees?

Either those students were born in the United States, in which case they're citizens, and they should already be getting in-state tuition benefits, or they were brought to the US by their parents illegally, in which case they should be deported.

Oh yeah, kids who've grown up in the US should definitely be sent 'back' to a country they barely remember.

I'm not an empathetic person. And no, I didn't know that until you just told me.

You sound proud of not having any empathy. Have you sought psychiatric help? If not, you should.

Nitpick: The article suggests that the proposed extension of in-state tuition to illegal immigrants would not be limited just to those who came here as kids.

But it does focus on the kids.

[mhendo]

That's not really true. "Not enough slots" means that "slots" do exist, that they are part of the equation. It means that one might have to wait for slots next year, or the year after. "No legal means" says that legal immigration is an impossibility. Not the same thing. "Effectively" or otherwise.As i said, from the point of view of the impoverished Mexican would-be immigrant, it's a distinction without a difference.

[Ocean Annie]

I don't know if there are any. One aspect of welfare programs is that there are many many of them, and they work independently of each other.

If these are government programs, there must be data. It shouldn’t matter if different agencies run the programs.

It doesn't matter what agency is responsible for the program. If it is a government program, there will be data. Usually, someone, somewhere analyzes the data for a journal or policy paper.

(In fact, one particularly outrageous aspect of the way these things typically run is that money received from working counts as "income" and affects benefit levels and eligibility, but money received from other welfare programs does not. But I digress.)

I don’t understand the point. If government aid depends on income, how can the aid be considered income to determine eligibility?


Welfare advocates like to point to the cash payment AFDC statistics, but there are any number of other welfare programs that pay for rent, utilities, food, medical care, education and more. These are frequently operated by different agencies, and I don't know if anyone has or can get an overall sense of what's going on in total.

AFDC doesn’t exist, so those statistics aren’t relevant. Please point me in the direction of these other programs that pay people's rent and utilities. I am just asking you or anyone to show me the money.

I should make clear that with all that, no one is going to become rich by (legally) living off government handouts. But you can live fairly decently, and if you are used to that lifestyle the marginal benefit of working for a living is often not enough to overcome the natural laziness that afflicts us all.

You are projecting a personally held belief onto the entire population. I am not lazy. Are you lazy?

In addition, many of the hardworking immigrants are not working so hard out a principled work ethic. They have no other choice. But the kids will. And when they contemplate killing themselves like their parents did to live the hardscrabble life that their parents do versus taking the offer of free whatever that the nice lady or brochure described, the latter choice will be very tempting.

You are saying that undocumented immigrants are lazy in spite of the fact they work hard, and their children grow up to be lazy although they observed hard working parents. Are undocumented workers deeply flawed genetically or what? This seems to be what you are suggesting.

Of course, I guess they could make the choice to go for the top and decide to set their goals early on on being CEOs of corporations. But I don't see that happening. Remember, this is primarily the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum that we are talking about, and one that has some amount of language barrier as well (although the children of illegals generally tend to speak English, from what I can tell).

Why can’t children in lower socioeconomic situations aspire to be a CEO? Is the U.S. suddenly a cast system? ESL is taught in schools, so what other reasons prevent these children from achieving?

[Ocean Annie]

I forgot to respond to this earlier.

As someone who is currently in the process of legally becoming a US resident, my experience with the whole process gives me precisely the opposite viewpoint. I completely understand why a poor person without much English, without much money, with little formal education, would do all he or she could to avoid the process.



Thank you for this post. People not familiar with the process should understand the cost and hoops involved. The new citizenship test should be a national embarrassment.

I don't think people need to worry too much about immigrants. I doubt people will want to continue immigrating to the U.S.

[Carol the Impaler]

Because they will not be able to use that college education to get into the middle class as they are not allowed to legally work.


Legally? No. But as a practical matter, yes. I know of at least two cases of educated middle class workers who were actually undocumented. An employer is not required (except in certain cases) to verify documents, it is a matter of "good faith". It's not like it's unheard of to present a fake social security card, and let's face it, if you're educated and middle class, there's even less suspicion. Further, I have never heard of an ICE raid on an accounting firm or the like. It's very very likely an undocumented college-educated immigrant could and would work.

[Carol the Impaler]

It's great if they go to college. Question is taking money from other people for that purpose.

Different people have different perspectives on taking money away from people who worked for it to give to other people. For me, it needs to be a very compelling reason, and giving it to guys who weren't supposed to be here to begin with is not compelling enough, even if it will genuinely help them. YMMV.

How are you giving them money if they go to school in their state of residency at in-state rates?

[magellan01]

How are you giving them money if they go to school in their state of residency at in-state rates?

If a school is funded by taxes from a state's residents, then anyone who attends that school at a discounted rate is being subsidized by the taxpayers.

[Carol the Impaler]

That's not really true. "Not enough slots" means that "slots" do exist, that they are part of the equation. It means that one might have to wait for slots next year, or the year after. "No legal means" says that legal immigration is an impossibility. Not the same thing. "Effectively" or otherwise.

There are plenty of people who will never qualify to even wait in line. There are no slots for them, period. For them, legal immigration is an impossibility.

For example, my Mexican friend who had a sister and brother who were Resident Aliens in the US. He is an unskilled worker (although he has a Mexican college education - ironically). He does not qualify for family-based immigration. There are NO categories for siblings of Resident Aliens. He does not qualify for an employment based visa. It is impossible for him to come to the US legally. (As a side note and a practical matter, it is unlikely he'd even qualify for a tourist visa, so he couldn't even overstay like all those Irish before the Celtic Tiger!)

In order to legally immigrate, there are several types of criteria an individual must meet to even be considered. Some will never ever meet that criteria.

Here, let me just list them from the State Department's website (http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1306.html#3):

Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens (IR): These types of immigrant visas are based on a close family relationship with a U.S. citizen, including spouses, children, and parents. Additionally, a U.S. citizen can sponsor a child adopted or to be adopted from abroad, if that child meets the definition of orphan as provided for in immigration law. Family members of United States citizens (not Legal Permanent Residents) can file Immediate Relative Petitions.

For immigration purposes, Immediate Relative classifications include:

Spouse of a U.S. Citizen
Unmarried Child Under 21 Years of Age of a U.S. Citizen
Orphan adopted abroad by a U.S. Citizen
Orphan to be adopted in the United States by a U.S. citizen
Parent of a U.S. Citizen who is at least 21 years old

Limited Family-Based Immigrants

These types of immigrant classifications involve specific, more distant, family relationships with a U.S. citizen and some specified relationships with a Lawful Permanent Resident. Under immigration law, there are fiscal year numerical limitations on family preference immigrants as explained below.

Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, and their children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried sons and daughters (over age 20) of lawful permanent residents. (114,200) At least seventy-seven percent of all visas available for this category will go to the spouses and children; the remainder will be allocated to unmarried sons and daughters.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, and their spouses and children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of United States citizens, and their spouses and children, provided the U.S. citizens are at least 21 years of age.
NOTE: Grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and cousins cannot sponsor a relative for immigration

Some people think all you have to do is apply and wait, and that's simply not the case. If you aren't related in an approved way to a Resident Alien or citizen, there is no slot. If you don't have skills needed for a employement-based visa, there is no slot.

[Carol the Impaler]

If a school is funded by taxes from a state's residents, then anyone who attends that school at a discounted rate is being subsidized by the taxpayers.

No university I am aware of is entirely funded by taxes. Out-of-state students pay a higher rate, yes, but they too are subsidized by the state. I would find it surprising if out-of-state tuition rates alone cover the entire cost of educating an out-of-state student.

[Lynn Bodoni]

The difference between the in-state and out-of-state college tuition is made up by the state. Which taxes the citizens in the state, to get that money. For that matter, I believe that even out-of-state tuition is somewhat subsidized by the state, though I'm not sure. My Google-fu is failing me, all I can come up with are blogs, not real data.

[Carol the Impaler]

Are you sure (question asked in earnest). Certainly some of the endowments (like Texas at Austin's oil endowments - at least when I was there) are used? What about private gifts? Investment income? Federal money? Grants? Contracts? Money made from tv rights fees? Is it possible to clearly demarcate where the shortage between tuition and costs come from and clearly show the shortage is only made up by state taxes?

[Driver8]

That's not really true. "Not enough slots" means that "slots" do exist, that they are part of the equation. It means that one might have to wait for slots next year, or the year after. "No legal means" says that legal immigration is an impossibility. Not the same thing. "Effectively" or otherwise.In practice they are the same thing though. It is not a case of having to "wait for slots next year" for most people. Those slots will never materialize in their lifetime. For all practical purposes for a huge number of people there simply are no legal mechanisms for immigrating to the United States.

I agree with you that any country has the right to dictate immigration policy. I also understand that it is not possible for the United States to accept everyone who wants to come here. As a result people are going to be turned away, and the United States government is correct in doing so.

On the other hand, I would have a hard time coming up with a compelling ethical argument if I was trying to convince an impoverished third world citizen that sneaking across the border was wrong. It isn't like I would find myself describing a meritocracy. It is purely a stroke of luck that someone is born on the more prosperous side. Legally, it is clear who has the "right" to be there. Ethically, I am not so sure. It isn't like this citizen is asking for entitlements, etc. They could, and in many cases do, just want to work for a living. I cannot see that as "theft" of an American job, unless we also believe that Americans have a "right" to a job. I do not believe such a "right" exists.

[magellan01]

No university I am aware of is entirely funded by taxes. Out-of-state students pay a higher rate, yes, but they too are subsidized by the state. I would find it surprising if out-of-state tuition rates alone cover the entire cost of educating an out-of-state student.

I t doesn't matter if they're entirely funded by taxes. They are to some degree, and those taxes subsidize any student who is not paying the full tuition (and does not have a scholarship). I might be true that even full-tuition students are subsidized to a degree, but the illegal getting in-state tuition is subsidized more. While he shouldn't be subsidized at all, because he shouldn't be here.

[magellan01]

In practice they are the same thing though. It is not a case of having to "wait for slots next year" for most people. Those slots will never materialize in their lifetime. For all practical purposes for a huge number of people there simply are no legal mechanisms for immigrating to the United States.

Again, just because there is no legal avenue doesn't mean people have a right to take an illegal road. And, also as mentioned, people chose to take an illegal action or not. Some do, some don't. I don't know what I would do if in there shoes. But if I did sneak in, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if I got deported if caught. And I certainly wouldn't feel entitled to anything. I'd feel I was there by the good graces of luck. If caught, I would hope for empathy, sympathy, but I wouldn't feel I was entitled to anything.

I agree with you that any country has the right to dictate immigration policy. I also understand that it is not possible for the United States to accept everyone who wants to come here. As a result people are going to be turned away, and the United States government is correct in doing so.

On the other hand, I would have a hard time coming up with a compelling ethical argument if I was trying to convince an impoverished third world citizen that sneaking across the border was wrong. It isn't like I would find myself describing a meritocracy. It is purely a stroke of luck that someone is born on the more prosperous side. Legally, it is clear who has the "right" to be there. Ethically, I am not so sure. It isn't like this citizen is asking for entitlements, etc. They could, and in many cases do, just want to work for a living. I cannot see that as "theft" of an American job, unless we also believe that Americans have a "right" to a job. I do not believe such a "right" exists.

Yes, it is simply a stroke of luck. The same way Lebron James was gifted with being 6.9'', 260 pounds and great talent. That's the way of the world. I wish I was given his great gifts. But I wasn't. That gives me no right or excuse to sneak into his house and steal the stuff his luck got him.

I don't think that any American has a right to a job. I believe that that job belongs to whomever could do it best. At the same time, I don't think he should expect to compete with people who are here illegally. One of the ills those leaders lax on illegals has delivered upon us is wages being driven down. It used to be that a gardener could make a really good living. Not so much any more. Also, and I think this is not a small thing although it is often overlooked, a lot of menial labor jobs, like cutting lawns, cleaning yards, painting garages, etc, used to be done by high school and college kids. They'd get these jobs that paid more than flipping burgers and really got an introduction to hard work, while making pocket money. The fact that neighborhood kids are cutting lawns, etc. is not a good thing for the country.

[Carol the Impaler]

Again, just because there is no legal avenue doesn't mean people have a right to take an illegal road. And, also as mentioned, people chose to take an illegal action or not. Some do, some don't. I don't know what I would do if in there shoes. But if I did sneak in, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if I got deported if caught. And I certainly wouldn't feel entitled to anything. I'd feel I was there by the good graces of luck. If caught, I would hope for empathy, sympathy, but I wouldn't feel I was entitled to anything.

I have never met anyone who was here illegally, or who was contemplating coming here illegally who felt entitled to anything. Hell, I've never met a Mexican, period, including those who would never dream of leaving Mexico, who had a sense of entitlement about anything at all.

And to your feelings about in-state tuition, I know it is not possible to change your mind on the "shouldn't be here in the first place" thing, but the reality is that there are millions of undocumented young people here. Deporting them all is simply not going to happen. Some states, like my own, think it is better to encourage talented young people to get a higher education, both to stem the brain-drain and to lessen the growth of an underclass. They see it as a way for people who are unlikely to get deported to contribute as much as possible to the state. I think that is a fair assement of the economic and political realities of the day. You may think they shouldn't be here, but that doesn't do anything to address the fact that they are here and are highly unlikely to go anywhere. What do you want to do about reality???

[Driver8]

Yes, it is simply a stroke of luck. The same way Lebron James was gifted with being 6.9'', 260 pounds and great talent. That's the way of the world. I wish I was given his great gifts. But I wasn't. That gives me no right or excuse to sneak into his house and steal the stuff his luck got him.

I don't think that any American has a right to a job. I believe that that job belongs to whomever could do it best. At the same time, I don't think he should expect to compete with people who are here illegally. One of the ills those leaders lax on illegals has delivered upon us is wages being driven down. It used to be that a gardener could make a really good living. Not so much any more. Also, and I think this is not a small thing although it is often overlooked, a lot of menial labor jobs, like cutting lawns, cleaning yards, painting garages, etc, used to be done by high school and college kids. They'd get these jobs that paid more than flipping burgers and really got an introduction to hard work, while making pocket money. The fact that neighborhood kids are cutting lawns, etc. is not a good thing for the country.There's luck due to natural causes, talent or hard work, and then there is being the benefactor in arbitrarily defined rules. I sometimes wonder where the law and order types would stand if suddenly, and legally, the laws changed so that they were not the benefactors. Lets say, for example, that the laws and constitution were changed such that there was a lottery at age 18: win and you get to stay. Lose, and it is the warlords of the Sudan for you. This is no less fair than the current system. But what if you lost? Would you willingly go, understanding that if you stayed it would be illegal, and it wouldn't be fair to people who won the lottery that they had to compete for their jobs, with you, the lottery loser?

The analogy with breaking into a house disturbs me because of the underlying implied connotations: the house owner paid for the house and its contents, it is their property. The analogy seems to be that the foreigner is stealing something that intrinsically belongs to the American. Almost as if the foreigner is ... sub-human, undeserving of the opportunities that belong to the American: God given opportunities for the chosen people, if you like. I don't think that is what you were saying, but it is a difficult connotation to shake from that particular analogy.

As I said earlier, the United States has every right to enforce its borders. But the vitriol often directed toward illegal aliens does not sit well with me. And sometimes it seems like nothing more then "Well, I got mine!"

[Carol Stream]

Should the children of bank robbers be able to benefit from their parents' ill-gotten gain?

[magellan01]

I have never met anyone who was here illegally, or who was contemplating coming here illegally who felt entitled to anything. Hell, I've never met a Mexican, period, including those who would never dream of leaving Mexico, who had a sense of entitlement about anything at all.

And to your feelings about in-state tuition, I know it is not possible to change your mind on the "shouldn't be here in the first place" thing, but the reality is that there are millions of undocumented young people here. Deporting them all is simply not going to happen. Some states, like my own, think it is better to encourage talented young people to get a higher education, both to stem the brain-drain and to lessen the growth of an underclass. They see it as a way for people who are unlikely to get deported to contribute as much as possible to the state. I think that is a fair assement of the economic and political realities of the day. You may think they shouldn't be here, but that doesn't do anything to address the fact that they are here and are highly unlikely to go anywhere. What do you want to do about reality???

I agree that deporting all illegals is not going to ever happen. That doesn't mean we can encourage them to leave on their ow. Yo that end, we should deprive them of benefits they enjoy while they're here. Also, and more important, I would turn off the magnet of jobs. I would come down hard on the management of companies that employ them. I'd make penalties severe, with jail time for those who willingly flout our laws. I'd simply make it not worth it. And that includes increasing the numbers of law enforcement personnel charged with finding companies hiring illegals. Those workers found wold, of course, be deported.

Steps like that would changed the flow of the tide. At the same time, I think it is incumbent upon us to close our borders and know who his coming in.

Our immigration policy is antiquated, so we have to make it easier for people to immigrate legally. But we should be able to open or close the valve as we see fit, based on circumstances. At the same time I would start a guest worker program. Something like what I understand Canada's to be. I think we should allow people to come here for seasonal work—as needed—for eight months at a time or so. During this time, the workers could come and go as they pleased. But when they're work permit expires, they can't come back until a new one is issued the following year.

[SciFiSam]

Can anyone answer this question for me?

Question: do the children of legal immigrants pay in-state tuition fees?

[magellan01]

There's luck due to natural causes, talent or hard work, and then there is being the benefactor in arbitrarily defined rules. I sometimes wonder where the law and order types would stand if suddenly, and legally, the laws changed so that they were not the benefactors. Lets say, for example, that the laws and constitution were changed such that there was a lottery at age 18: win and you get to stay. Lose, and it is the warlords of the Sudan for you. This is no less fair than the current system. But what if you lost? Would you willingly go, understanding that if you stayed it would be illegal, and it wouldn't be fair to people who won the lottery that they had to compete for their jobs, with you, the lottery loser?

The analogy with breaking into a house disturbs me because of the underlying implied connotations: the house owner paid for the house and its contents, it is their property. The analogy seems to be that the foreigner is stealing something that intrinsically belongs to the American. Almost as if the foreigner is ... sub-human, undeserving of the opportunities that belong to the American: God given opportunities for the chosen people, if you like. I don't think that is what you were saying, but it is a difficult connotation to shake from that particular analogy.

As I said earlier, the United States has every right to enforce its borders. But the vitriol often directed toward illegal aliens does not sit well with me. And sometimes it seems like nothing more then "Well, I got mine!"

First, I've had a good deal of interaction with illegals and legals from Mexico and points south. I have found them to be friendly, polite, and very hard working. So, I have nothing against these people personally. I'm much, much more angry with our elected officials who do not do what they were sworn to. The degree that a pourous border is a threat to the U.S. (and in today's world it's absurd to argue it's not), they are shirking their duty by not having the border sealed and knowing who is coming in.
The problem is that either laws have to be obeyed or not; that borders have to be recognized or not. We can't let everyone in. A line has to be drawn somewhere. And lets say we draw the line after allowing all illegals to stay here and even add another 12,000,000. What do you do then? Do you then magically expect people to respect our border? And what if they don't? No, we need to do two things: 1) modify our antiquated immigration policy and—at the same time—2) stop the flow of illegals. Unless you have a better plan.

While I enjoy analogies, yours regarding the Sudan is grossly arbitrary. Why I would be picked up and placed in a country I had never set foot in is, of course, absurd. That would be you or I playing God. The hand of man should be as noninterventionist as possible. We were all dealt a certain hand. We in the U.S. are incredibly lucky. Especially Brad Pitt. Most of the world is lucky to have been born in the times they have. Some thing are just "that's the way it is".

[magellan01]

Should the children of bank robbers be able to benefit from their parents' ill-gotten gain?

Well put.

[SciFiSam]

Well put.

It's not the same at all, though. I'm surprised at seeing this post from you, considering your previous post.

[magellan01]

It's not the same at all, though. I'm surprised at seeing this post from you, considering your previous post.

We disagree on the "at all" part. But I don't see what surprises you. I am solidly anti-illegal immigration.

Question: do the children of legal immigrants pay in-state tuition fees?

My guess is that if they're legal immigrants, they are simply regarded as residents of the state in which they live. So, they'd qualify for in-state tuition in that state, and only that state.

[sailor]

My argument is that we, as a country, have reached, in my opinion, the number of people we can accommodate. The fact that there are still impoverished people somewhere in the world that we can’t take in doesn’t make me, or any of us, a bad person.This argument fails miserably when you take into account that Many countries in the world, including Europe and Asia have *much* higher population density that America. So, some Americans saying "we do not want to share our space" is not an argument, although it is indicative of selfishness. Not to mention that it is an argument immigrants have no reason or obligation to abide by.

[SciFiSam]

We disagree on the "at all" part. But I don't see what surprises you. I am solidly anti-illegal immigration.

Well, you seem sympathetic to them while at the same time being against what they've done. That seems at odds with equating illegal immigrants to bank robbers.

Question: do the children of legal immigrants pay in-state tuition fees?

My guess is that if they're legal immigrants, they are simply regarded as residents of the state in which they live. So, they'd qualify for in-state tuition in that state, and only that state.

That's fair enough. If the same were applied to the children of illegal immigrants, then the OP would have less to complain about. I can understand her being annoyed about first-generation illegal immigrants getting more than first generation legal immigrants, but surely it should be different when it comes to kids who never chose to immigrate in the first place, especially if they're not getting anything granted to anyone else in the state?

[Lynn Bodoni]

If the same were applied to the children of illegal immigrants, then the OP would have less to complain about. I can understand her being annoyed about first-generation illegal immigrants getting more than first generation legal immigrants, but surely it should be different when it comes to kids who never chose to immigrate in the first place, especially if they're not getting anything granted to anyone else in the state? No. Part of the pull for illegal immigration is getting advantages for the kids. We should not reward illegal activity. Yeah, it sucks for the kids who didn't have a choice as to whether or not they'd be part of an illegal activity. But we cannot reward illegal activity if we want to stop it. Imagine if a cop pulled someone over for speeding, and then handed that person a hundred dollar bill. Do you think that the speeder would STOP speeding, or speed even more? If people get rewarded for an activity, they are far more likely to keep doing it, and to recommend it to their friends.

[Kyla]

Question: do the children of legal immigrants pay in-state tuition fees?

I believe they do, although it might vary from state to state. If no one comes up with a definitive answer soon, I'll ask a friend of mine who was a legal immigrant (now she's a US citizen) who went to a public university in the state in which she grew up.

[magellan01]

Well, you seem sympathetic to them while at the same time being against what they've done. That seems at odds with equating illegal immigrants to bank robbers.

Analogies don't equate, they point out a relationship. The one we're talking about it works from one view, but fails from others. such is the problem with analogies, though I don't think that renders them useless. I simply think that borders need to be respected. And when that fails, protected.

That's fair enough. If the same were applied to the children of illegal immigrants, then the OP would have less to complain about. I can understand her being annoyed about first-generation illegal immigrants getting more than first generation legal immigrants, but surely it should be different when it comes to kids who never chose to immigrate in the first place, especially if they're not getting anything granted to anyone else in the state?

I agree with Lynn's reply to this.

[Ocean Annie]

Undocumented workers come here because American corporations and wealthy individuals, including lawmakers, hire them to work for substandard wages with no benefits and no legal protection. It exploits the immigrant and undermines American workers. What makes the entire situation truly sinister is that the same people hiring the undocumented workers and recruiting temporary workers in developing countries are the same people launching the public hate campaigns intended to scapegoat undocumented workers and grossly misrepresent the issue.

The media driven illegal immigrant hysteria seems like a big con when one considers the profit motive of Halliburton’s private prisons housing undocumented immigrants in the isolated Texas desert, the same corporation that hired undocumented workers during the reconstruction of New Orleans.

If Americans want to protect their labor rights and income, I believe the best solution is to demand that undocumented workers earn the same pay and have the same legal protection as American citizens —which isn’t much, anyway.

[Driver8]

While I enjoy analogies, yours regarding the Sudan is grossly arbitrary. Why I would be picked up and placed in a country I had never set foot in is, of course, absurd. That would be you or I playing God. The hand of man should be as noninterventionist as possible. We were all dealt a certain hand. We in the U.S. are incredibly lucky. Especially Brad Pitt. Most of the world is lucky to have been born in the times they have. Some thing are just "that's the way it is".Non interventionist would imply just letting things be, in other words every human being on the planet being free to settle anywhere in the world. Both the Sudan lottery, or drawing imaginary lines and devising complicated legal frameworks for determining who gets to be on each side, are interventionist. Of course the Sudan lottery is absurd. I'm not suggesting it. The point is to think about the arbitrary nature of the rules as if you were someone on the wrong side of them. It is unrealistic to expect a specific person who is suffering in desperate poverty to see the border and immigration policy as less arbitrary or absurd than the Sudan example. How would one even begin to make a case against it to this person: "Well, uh, you have to live in poverty and doom your children to a hopeless existence because you see, if you cross the border your presence there will have a negative effect on wages. Oh sure, they'll still be much higher than where you are now, but they'll be slightly lower, and that won't do. Oh well, got to run, I see Macy's is having a sale!"

The funny thing is, reading your posts, I don't even think we would do things that differently if immigration policy was up to us. I recognize that the United States can and should defend its borders. I just hate it when this is phrased as a moral issue. It is not. It is a practical issue. The United States needs to limit immigration to maintain a high standard of living. This is necessary, but there is nothing fair or just about it. There is no moral justification for who gets in and who doesn't.

[magellan01]

Non interventionist would imply just letting things be, in other words every human being on the planet being free to settle anywhere in the world. Both the Sudan lottery, or drawing imaginary lines and devising complicated legal frameworks for determining who gets to be on each side, are interventionist. Of course the Sudan lottery is absurd. I'm not suggesting it. The point is to think about the arbitrary nature of the rules as if you were someone on the wrong side of them. It is unrealistic to expect a specific person who is suffering in desperate poverty to see the border and immigration policy as less arbitrary or absurd than the Sudan example. How would one even begin to make a case against it to this person: "Well, uh, you have to live in poverty and doom your children to a hopeless existence because you see, if you cross the border your presence there will have a negative effect on wages. Oh sure, they'll still be much higher than where you are now, but they'll be slightly lower, and that won't do. Oh well, got to run, I see Macy's is having a sale!"

The funny thing is, reading your posts, I don't even think we would do things that differently if immigration policy was up to us. I recognize that the United States can and should defend its borders. I just hate it when this is phrased as a moral issue. It is not. It is a practical issue. The United States needs to limit immigration to maintain a high standard of living. This is necessary, but there is nothing fair or just about it. There is no moral justification for who gets in and who doesn't.

You're absolutely correct: it's a matter practicality. You and I agree. We can't take everyone in. Hell, we can't even take a small fraction of the world's poor in without changing the U.S. for ill. So, our borders must be protected. Period. That will suck for some people. Not to seem callous, but that's life. Many people born in the U.S. are dealt a shitty hand in other ways: born to a 16-year-old crack mother in Newark or Baltimore, or Harlem; born in the poorest parts of Appalachia with no education or healthcare; born with some birth defect that deprives one of any kind of normal life. We can't solve all the world's ills. But the good thing about statehood is that it allows people to improve life in their corner of the world. We've (our forefathers) have done that. We benefit. Yes, we're lucky. I think the obligation we have is not fucking up what they created for us. I'm all for helping other nations, particularly one as corrupt and screwed up as Mexico—that we live right next to! But our first responsibility is to our own citizenry. Pining about the unfairness of who is born where and how and to whom is, in my opinion, ponderation for ponderation's sake. And like you said, this is a practical issue.

If you detect any ire in my posts it's actually for the Dems who are willing to turn a blind eye to their duty in the hopes of future votes, the Reps who do the same thing because they want a steady stream of cheap labor they can exploit, and the open borders crowd that are just in their own little utopian world of Kumbaya.

[magellan01]

If Americans want to protect their labor rights and income, I believe the best solution is to demand that undocumented workers earn the same pay and have the same legal protection as American citizens —which isn’t much, anyway.

Great plan—if your goal is to encourage more illegal immigration. Maybe we should give people who don't pay their taxes new cars, too.

[DanBlather]

Is there something special about people from Mexico that means we should allow anyone of them who wants to live here illegally do it? Isn't that a little racist to my Chinese friends who want to work here? Or people from India, Africa, Jamaica, etc? We need to decide as a society what our immigration policy is and then enforce it like all laws. If you think the right policy is to throw open the borders and let anyone in, then debate your point and convince voters. The situation we have now is nuts.

[DanBlather]

As I said earlier, the United States has every right to enforce its borders. But the vitriol often directed toward illegal aliens does not sit well with me. And sometimes it seems like nothing more then "Well, I got mine!"I have little vitriol towards illegal aliens. I reserve my vitriol for those who think it's good policy to let people who enter the country illegally stay here. I'd be happy to trade 1 for 1 Mexican immigrants for illegal immigration advocates. Ironically, Mexico deports illegal immigrants so we'd probably just get them right back.

[mhendo]

Is there something special about people from Mexico that means we should allow anyone of them who wants to live here illegally do it? Isn't that a little racist to my Chinese friends who want to work here? Or people from India, Africa, Jamaica, etc? We need to decide as a society what our immigration policy is and then enforce it like all laws. If you think the right policy is to throw open the borders and let anyone in, then debate your point and convince voters. The situation we have now is nuts.I can't speak for others in the thread, but my attitude to illegal immigrants remains the same whether they are Mexicans who walk across the border, Chinese who stow away in container ships, Jamaicans who arrive by boat, or whatever. It just happens that geography results in more poor Mexicans being able to physically arrive in the US than people from those other places.

[DanBlather]

I can't speak for others in the thread, but my attitude to illegal immigrants remains the same whether they are Mexicans who walk across the border, Chinese who stow away in container ships, Jamaicans who arrive by boat, or whatever. It just happens that geography results in more poor Mexicans being able to physically arrive in the US than people from those other places.Cool, so my Chinese friend with a PhD in Computer Science can overstay his visa and stay here. Can he apply for a job at Microsoft or Google, or does he just get to pick fruit?

[Ocean Annie]

Great plan—if your goal is to encourage more illegal immigration. Maybe we should give people who don't pay their taxes new cars, too.

It takes away the incentive to hire undocumented workers, protects American workers, and holds the people who hire them accountable. It should be a crime to hire illegal immigrants and even more criminal to exploit them.

[mhendo]

Cool, so my Chinese friend with a PhD in Computer Science can overstay his visa and stay here. Can he apply for a job at Microsoft or Google, or does he just get to pick fruit?I never said he could stay here. I said that my attitude to him staying here is not affected by the fact that he's Chinese rather than Mexican.

To be quite honest, i don't care very much if Google or Microsoft want to employ him. But he has to make the same sort of calculations that i would make in similar circumstances: is it worth the risk of getting caught?

For the Mexican farm worker, the risk is worth it because the worst punishment he can suffer for getting caught is to be sent back where he came. And he can then simply try to re-enter the US again and go back to what he was doing.

For someone with a PhD in computer science, getting caught will result in deportation, and will probably also result in never again being allowed to come to the US to seek work. That's probably a bigger deal for a professional with post-secondary education than it is for an uneducated agricultural worker.

I jump through all the hoops in my attempt to become a US resident, not because i have a particular love for bureaucracy, or a special affection for US immigration procedures. I do it because i want to live with my wife and have a career here, and staying illegally would put all that in jeopardy. If your Chinese friend decides that he's willing to risk permanent deportation for the chance to work here, i'm not going to lose any more sleep over that than i do over a farm worker.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I can't speak for others in the thread, but my attitude to illegal immigrants remains the same whether they are Mexicans who walk across the border, Chinese who stow away in container ships, Jamaicans who arrive by boat, or whatever. It just happens that geography results in more poor Mexicans being able to physically arrive in the US than people from those other places. Exactly. Plus, the Mexican government used to encourage its people to get into the US. I don't know if that government has changed its ideas or not. I know that they SAY that they have, but the Mexican gummint used to disseminate information on how to get across the border more safely. After all, those remittance payments won't be made unless the II has made it to the US and landed a job. And make no mistake about it, remittances are a HUGE factor in the Mexican budget. The Mexican government knows that the IIs will send money home. It also knows that by encouraging illegal immigration, the rabble rousers, the ones who would want to shut down corruption and oldboyism, are the ones who are most likely to take a chance to earn a living in the US.

I think that we are going to have this problem until the businesses who hire IIs are fined, and quite possibly have some jail time for those who hire IIs.

[Cheesesteak]

Should the children of bank robbers be able to benefit from their parents' ill-gotten gain?When you're arresting someone for stealing a loaf of bread for his family do you:

1) let the kids finish their sandwiches
2) take the sandwiches away as "ill gotten gain"
3) break out the stomach pump

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

That's a false analogy, Jimmy Joe. (And I don't own a house.) A house has a definite, pre-defined limit on the number of people it can support. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, houses are usually built with a certain size of family in mind. The same is not true for countries.A country can support an infinite number of people? Please explain.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

The US only has about 80 people per square mile. We could easily handle a billion or more people in this country. Our most densely populated state is New Jersey, and it isn't even as densely populated as South Korea. I can't think of what resources we'd be short of if we quadrupled our population, except maybe water, but that is more of a regional issue.So you'd have no problem starting with your region, I presume, to start packin' 'em in?

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

No, they're going to be built with the taxes that nearly ALL working people are paying, whether they are here legally or not.OK, I'll bite... where are the new jobs going to come from?

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

My argument is that we, as a country, have reached, in my opinion, the number of people we can accommodate.

And your basis for this conclusion is...

Read vewwy, vewwy carefully. The answer is cleverly hidden between the words "in" and "the".

[Bridget Burke]

So you'd have no problem starting with your region, I presume, to start packin' 'em in?

What's your region? Mine's visible on this page. Houston's got lots of immigrants from all over. Most are legal; not all of the "others" are Mexicans. (Other areas (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-rodriguez8apr08,0,7661039.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail)have even more interesting ethnic mixes.)

Things are slowing down but we've got jobs. But not for you. Please stay away.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

This isn't a "but I want to walk on the grass!" type law break. In many cases it's a "I'm too poor to afford food in my home country so I'll take my chances here" type law break.Agreed. That being said...

Cuckoorex, in a different thread, used the phrase "the Little Timmy argument". It went something like "Little Timmy was a good kid. A saint, in fact. But, due to the unfortunate circumstances of his birth, he had no choice but to support himself by unlawful means. And... then... <sniff> tha man beat him down! Poor little Timmy! Won't someone think of the children!"

Your argument seems to be of the Little Timmy variety. Yes, his home country sucks. Even so, this country can't and shouldn't be the solution for every person in the world who's country sucks. By my (admittedly unscientific) estimate, there are a billion or three people in the world today who's standard of living is far, far below the average of the U.S. Can they all come here?

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

American forebearers were genocidal smallpox infested maniacs. (edited)

I that claim is obviously unable to be substantiated. Or in other words...

Cite?

[treis]

Should the children of bank robbers be able to benefit from their parents' ill-gotten gain?

No, but we don't punish the kids either.

[Cheesesteak]

By my (admittedly unscientific) estimate, there are a billion or three people in the world today who's standard of living is far, far below the average of the U.S. Can they all come here?No, but maybe we can afford to take on more than 5,000 per year.

This is where the law and order side falls apart. The level of restriction in legal immigration is so high as to be completely divorced from the reality of the desire of immigrants to live/work here and the desire of businesses to hire them. When the law is not realistic, people will not follow it.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

It bothers me that people think that because they are born in the USA they are somehow entitled to a standard of living in the top 5% the world.I know you're not talking about me, because I, personally, am not entitled to anything. I see it as a blessing, and a random fate, that I've been born a citizen of the USA. The fact that my standard of living is so high is a simple fact, not an entitlement. I fully expect that if I just sit back on my ass and do (A) nothing to support myself and (B) do nothing to support my country then yes, my standard of living will fall. It isn't an entitlement, it's a privilege.



If you can't be out some uneducated illegal immigrant that doesn't even speak English for a job then that's your fault, not the immigrants.Huh? I suspect that if I agreed to do unskilled manual labor at $1/hr less than my competition I'd get the job. It isn't that I can't, it's that I choose not to.



It's inexcusable for someone with access to the American education system to even be in competition with an illegal immigrant.OK, you're veering into teh crazy here. Because I happened to be born here and he happened to be born there, I'm not allowed to compete with him? That really makes no sense.



It annoys me that people don't comprehend the benefit we get from illegal immigrants. I get my burgers flipped for cheap, and some immigrant gets a chance at a better life. It should be win freaking win, and it is except for those people I talked about in the paragraph above.And it annoys the rest of us that you boil this entire argument down to your cheap burgers and their better life. News FLASH Einstein -- it's far more complicated than that.



This punish the child for the sins of the parents pisses me off as well. Why should some teenager who knows no other country but the U.S. be booted out because he came here, through no fault of his own, at the age of 2? Why should they be set adrift and denied benefits of what is their home country.'scuse me? Their "home country" is where, again? "Won't somebody think of the children!!!"



The 3rd generation of immigrants are fully assimilated and virtually indistinguishable from 10th generation Americans.OK, this sealed it. You really, really don't know what you're talking about. Adios.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

It doesn't matter what agency is responsible for the program. If it is a government program, there will be data. Usually, someone, somewhere analyzes the data for a journal or policy paper.Agreed.

What I said is that different programs are run by different agencies. Each agency has data for it's own program, but no one is responsible for gathering data about the cumulative affect of the various independently-run programs.

I don’t understand the point. If government aid depends on income, how can the aid be considered income to determine eligibility?Again, I'm talking about different programs.

Here's a simple example.

Two guys walk in to the offices of Social Program A. Guy #1 is making $10,000 by working part time and $20,000 through a combination of various other programs. Guy #2 is making $25,000, all from the sweat of his brow. The caseworker, in assessing eligibility and subsidy levels for Program A treats Guy #1 as having "income" of $10,000, and he is considered "poorer" and a higher priority for assistance, and Guy #2 is treated as having income of $25,000 and with lower priority and entitlement levels, though in reality Guy #1 has more money (or the equivalent) coming in than Guy #2.

Please point me in the direction of these other programs that pay people's rent and utilities. I am just asking you or anyone to show me the money.Rent is paid by HUD/Section 8. Utilities are paid by HEAP.

You can look all this stuff up, if you're interested.

You are projecting a personally held belief onto the entire population. I am not lazy. Are you lazy?Yes. Almost all people are lazy. You seem to be a rare exception.

You are saying that undocumented immigrants are lazy in spite of the fact they work hard, and their children grow up to be lazy although they observed hard working parents. Are undocumented workers deeply flawed genetically or what? This seems to be what you are suggesting.You ignored what I wrote.

Lazy people (IOW virtually all people) will work hard if they have to. They won't work hard to the extent that they have easier options.

Why can’t children in lower socioeconomic situations aspire to be a CEO? Is the U.S. suddenly a cast system?They can. But it's not likely that they will see this as a realistic option.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Not to mention that it is an argument immigrants have no reason or obligation to abide by.When it is our law, they have no reason or obligation to abide by it? By American law, only X number of immigrants are allowed into the country per year. And you say that if an immigrant doesn't agree with that law, they have no obligation to abide by it? That's astounding. Really. Am I allowed to ignore laws that I disagree with? Are you?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

What makes the entire situation truly sinister is that the same people hiring the undocumented workers and recruiting temporary workers in developing countries are the same people launching the public hate campaigns intended to scapegoat undocumented workers and grossly misrepresent the issue.I believe this is factually incorrect. I think you're just thinking of business groups and Republicans as one indistinguishable group.

This issue actually breaks across ordinary fault lines, with Republicans and labor unions generally anti-illegal and Democrats and business groups pro. That's one reason nothing gets done about it.

If Americans want to protect their labor rights and income, I believe the best solution is to demand that undocumented workers earn the same pay and have the same legal protection as American citizensThere is some truth to this. On the one hand it would ostensibly encourage more illegal immigration. OTOH, if you combined this with rigorous penalties for hiring illegals, no corporation would want to hire them. Nothing to gain.

The problem is that the corporations are not always able to tell who is or is not illegal, what with the proliferation of phony IDs these days. If that problem could be surmounted, it would be a lot easier. Although a lot of illegals are employed by small companies that would fall under the radar.

[treis]

I know you're not talking about me, because I, personally, am not entitled to anything. I see it as a blessing, and a random fate, that I've been born a citizen of the USA. The fact that my standard of living is so high is a simple fact, not an entitlement. I fully expect that if I just sit back on my ass and do (A) nothing to support myself and (B) do nothing to support my country then yes, my standard of living will fall. It isn't an entitlement, it's a privilege.

Maybe you don't fall into the "they took our jobs!" crowd. If not, then that paragraph doesn't apply.



Huh? I suspect that if I agreed to do unskilled manual labor at $1/hr less than my competition I'd get the job. It isn't that I can't, it's that I choose not to.

Uh, yeah that's the point. A person born and raised in America should be shooting at a much more skilled position than an illegal immigrant.



OK, you're veering into teh crazy here. Because I happened to be born here and he happened to be born there, I'm not allowed to compete with him? That really makes no sense.

No, you're veering into the crappy reading comprehension here. I don't compete with illegal immigrants for my job because I took advantage of the American education system and I have a million times more skills than an illegal immigrant.


And it annoys the rest of us that you boil this entire argument down to your cheap burgers and their better life. News FLASH Einstein -- it's far more complicated than that.

No, it's really not.


'scuse me? Their "home country" is where, again? "Won't somebody think of the children!!!"

Their home country is the one they grew up in, and the only one they know.



OK, this sealed it. You really, really don't know what you're talking about. Adios.

Uh, I'm pretty sure I do. That story is the story of my family, and millions of others like it. I play the role of the 3rd generation, and you can't tell me apart from a 10th generation American.

[lalenin]

Originally Posted by treis View Post
The 3rd generation of immigrants are fully assimilated and virtually indistinguishable from 10th generation Americans.

OK, this sealed it. You really, really don't know what you're talking about. Adios.

What do you mean by this last? Are you saying the immigrants are easily distinguished from non-immigrants, even many generations removed? How exactly is that done? Is there a 'look', a 'walk', a 'style', what?

[Eva Luna]

Can anyone answer this question for me?

The answer depends somewhat on the state in question, but generally it depends on their own immigration status. If the students are US citizens or permanent residents, they are treated just like any other US citizens or permanent residents. Currently, as far as I know, most states do not award in-state tuition rates to students who are not permanent residents or US citizens, even if they are residing legally in the US (see my previous example about people who are merely waiting for their green cards to be approved, becuse of processing and quota-related backlogs).

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

There's no doubt that in the past 3rd generation immigrants have been vitually indistinguishable from 10th generation. Whether this will continue to be true for the current wave of Hispanic immigrants is an open question.

The basis for this uncertainty is that the current level of support for the Spanish language is unparralleled by anything in the history of the US.

[Eva Luna]

OK, I'll bite... where are the new jobs going to come from?

Ummm, the same place they come from when they are created by US citizens and permanent residents - tax payments and demand created by increased population. (http://immigration.server263.com/images/File/factcheck/StateandLocalStudySurvey04-17-08.pdf) You know both of those items tend to multiply throughout the eoconomy, right?

I have to go now - I'm leaving town on vacation tomorrow, and I have to finish up a bunch of work visas on the meantime. So if I don't respond to everything, it's not because I'm wilfully ignoring anyone.

[lalenin]

There's no doubt that in the past 3rd generation immigrants have been vitually indistinguishable from 10th generation. Whether this will continue to be true for the current wave of Hispanic immigrants is an open question.

The basis for this uncertainty is that the current level of support for the Spanish language is unparralleled by anything in the history of the US.

I don't think is uncertain at all. I have met many people in Miami with Spanish last names, who are the children of immigrants from Cuba and who don't speak a word of English. Their parents do, but they have moved on.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

What do you mean by this last? Are you saying the immigrants are easily distinguished from non-immigrants, even many generations removed? How exactly is that done? Is there a 'look', a 'walk', a 'style', what?Examples...

Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn. African-Americans. Chinese-Americans. Italian-Americans. Greek-Americans (Astoria, Queens). There are communities where some (some) members tend to marry others of their ethnic background, even for several generations, even here in America, and they do retain specific cultural 'markers' (e.g. foods, religions, political opinions, manner of dress), even for several generations, even here in America.

But you knew that, right?

[lalenin]

Examples...

Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn. African-Americans. Chinese-Americans. Italian-Americans. Greek-Americans (Astoria, Queens). There are communities where some (some) members tend to marry others of their ethnic background, even for several generations, even here in America, and they do retain specific cultural 'markers' (e.g. foods, religions, political opinions, manner of dress), even for several generations, even here in America.

But you knew that, right?

Not really, I don't know much about cultural groups in the US.

So what you're saying is not that you can tell immigrants just by looking at them, but that 'some' immigrants retain cultural markers, and that makes them easy to spot, correct? So what kind of cultural markers do African-Americans retain that allows you to spot their 'immigrant' status?

Or Italian-Americans? Do they wear specific clothing that makes them stand out?

Or Greek-Americans?

[DanBlather]

I never said he could stay here. I said that my attitude to him staying here is not affected by the fact that he's Chinese rather than Mexican.

To be quite honest, i don't care very much if Google or Microsoft want to employ him. But he has to make the same sort of calculations that i would make in similar circumstances: is it worth the risk of getting caught?

For the Mexican farm worker, the risk is worth it because the worst punishment he can suffer for getting caught is to be sent back where he came. And he can then simply try to re-enter the US again and go back to what he was doing.

For someone with a PhD in computer science, getting caught will result in deportation, and will probably also result in never again being allowed to come to the US to seek work. That's probably a bigger deal for a professional with post-secondary education than it is for an uneducated agricultural worker.

I jump through all the hoops in my attempt to become a US resident, not because i have a particular love for bureaucracy, or a special affection for US immigration procedures. I do it because i want to live with my wife and have a career here, and staying illegally would put all that in jeopardy. If your Chinese friend decides that he's willing to risk permanent deportation for the chance to work here, i'm not going to lose any more sleep over that than i do over a farm worker.So what is your point? That people who break the law do so based on the probability of getting caught and the consequences? Well, duh. But what is the policy that you propose? Unfettered immigration, allowing priority for skilled labors, being more/less draconian, increasing quotas (if so, for what groups: there are about 15x more Chinese and Indians than Mexicans)?

[Dag Otto]

More significant than the above is the impact on the next generation. I am convinced that a big part of why the illegals are so hard-working and willing to live such humble lifestyles is precisely because they are illegal and can't do any better, and it still beats their home countries. But their kids are going to be US citizens, and they are not going to live in fear of the INS, and they are going to be eligible for all sorts of government handouts. So they are not going to be motivated to work long hours for minimum wages when they can apply for government programs that will support them a lot better with a lot less effort.

So the real price we pay is yet to come.

(bolding added)

I'm coming into this thread late, so forgive me if this has been addressed already.

In this scenario, how are the kids of aliens going to be any different than the kids of long time residents? Every citizen can utilize those programs. I'm pretty certain that no one would expect a caste system when the children of minimum (or sub-minimum) wage workers are expected or limited to performing the same work and pay as their parents.

[billfish678]

I don't think is uncertain at all. I have met many people in Miami with Spanish last names, who are the children of immigrants from Cuba and who don't speak a word of English. Their parents do, but they have moved on.

I think his point was this.

In previous waves of immigration, if you didnt speak english, tough shit for you.

There was quite an incintive to learn at least rudimentary english.

Today? Shit, you can probably get a degree from some liberal university without ever learning english (somewhat of an exageration).

Which I despise. Come here, learn English damnit.

Instead we catter to Spanish speakers. But what about the Russians?. Lithuanians?. Zulus? Aliens from Morbo?

If there were only 2 or 3 languages in the world it would be one thing. But geezus on a pogo stick. Are the natives here supposed to learn and cater to dozens if not hundreds of OTHER languages.

YOU wanted to come HERE. YOU learn the language of HERE.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

In this scenario, how are the kids of aliens going to be any different than the kids of long time residents? Every citizen can utilize those programs.That's all true.

I don't see what your point is with this.

[Bricker]

I think his point was this.

In previous waves of immigration, if you didnt speak english, tough shit for you.

There was quite an incintive to learn at least rudimentary english.

Today? Shit, you can probably get a degree from some liberal university without ever learning english (somewhat of an exageration).

Which I despise. Come here, learn English damnit.

Instead we catter to Spanish speakers. But what about the Russians?. Lithuanians?. Zulus? Aliens from Morbo?

Quoted and color-emphasized for irony.

[Eva Luna]

Instead we catter to Spanish speakers. But what about the Russians?. Lithuanians?. Zulus? Aliens from Morbo?



My dad lives in Queens. Bank ATMs near his house are in Russian as well as English. For that matter, the NYC subway system card vending machines have touch screens in Russian, and IIRC Chinese, as well as Spanish and English. Yes, it would be nice if everyone living in the U.S. were fluent and literate in English, but hell, not even all the native-born U.S. citizens are fluent and literate in English, so I think we should start with them before worrying about, say, people who immigrated here as adults with imperfect literacy in their own native languages.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

There's no doubt that in the past 3rd generation immigrants have been vitually indistinguishable from 10th generation. Whether this will continue to be true for the current wave of Hispanic immigrants is an open question.

The basis for this uncertainty is that the current level of support for the Spanish language is unparralleled by anything in the history of the US.

Generationally speaking, Hispanic immigrants are learning English faster than were earlier waves of immigrants.

The pattern used to be:

Immigant: Monolingual not-English
Immigant's child: Biligual
Immigant's Child's Child: Monoligual English

Now it often goes like this:

Immigant: Monoligual Spanish
Immigant's child: Passively Biligual (Speak and understands English, but only understands Spanish!)

(The reason that the Spanish-speaking population in Spanish Harlem is relatively constant is not because the people aren't learning English. It's because the people who learn English move out, and then are replaced by new immigrants.)

Don't be fooled by the fact that many people with a Hispanic English dialect do not actually speak Spanish.

Also don't forget that in some German-Speaking towns in the US before WWI, people didn't learn English for generations.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

YOU wanted to come HERE. YOU learn the language of HERE.

They do.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Yes, it would be nice if everyone living in the U.S. were fluent and literate in English, but hell, not even all the native-born U.S. citizens are fluent and literate in English, so I think we should start with them before worrying about, say, people who immigrated here as adults with imperfect literacy in their own native languages.The real issue is not a moral one about what people should or shouldn't do, but about what the long-term impact of this immigration will be. There is a possibility that the US will eventually be divided into two parts divided by language, as some other countries are. (I've read that there are already parts of Miami where unilingual English speakers are at a severe disadvantage because most business is conducted in Spanish.)

And my point here was and is that you can't project into the future based on past waves of immigration, since no past wave of immigration had such a small incentive to learn English as the current one.

That doesn't mean that they'll never learn English. And, as I've noted before, it does seem to me that the children of illegal immigrants tend to speak English. But you never know, and again, past experience is not a guide.

Generationally speaking, Hispanic immigrants are learning English faster than were earlier waves of immigrants.I find this hard to believe. What could explain that?

Do you have any data in support of this?

Also don't forget that in some German-Speaking towns in the US before WWI, people didn't learn English for generations.I think you may be referring to Mennonite religious sects, which keep to themselves in any event. (The same might go for some Hasidic Jews.) If so, it's not really a valid comparison.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Are you saying the immigrants are easily distinguished from non-immigrants, even many generations removed? How exactly is that done? Is there a 'look', a 'walk', a 'style', what?

So what you're saying is not that you can tell immigrants just by looking at them, but that 'some' immigrants retain cultural markers, and that makes them easy to spot, correct?

Who, exactly, are you talking about?

Are you using the word "immigrant" to mean only a person who was born in another country, is/was a citizen/national of that country, and has permanently moved to (as opposed to visiting) the U.S.?

Or do you consider their descendants, "many generations removed", also to be "immigrants"?

[Eva Luna]

I find this hard to believe. What could explain that?

Do you have any data in support of this?




Here you go. (http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=82)

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Here you go. (http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=82)Your source does not address the question we are discussing.

The source says that children of immigrants speak English better than their parents. No one ever questioned that.

Jamaika's claim, that I challenged, was that (the children of) current Hispanic immigrants are learning English faster than those of earlier waves of immigrants. The linked study does not discuss this.

[mhendo]

So what is your point? That people who break the law do so based on the probability of getting caught and the consequences? Well, duh. But what is the policy that you propose? Unfettered immigration, allowing priority for skilled labors, being more/less draconian, increasing quotas (if so, for what groups: there are about 15x more Chinese and Indians than Mexicans)?To be quite honest, i have no simple solution for the issue of illegal immigration.

On the one hand, i've never been much of a nationalist. If someone from India or China or Mexico gets a job, i don't generally consider than an inferior solution to an American or an Australian getting a job. On the other hand, i recognize that national governments are elected to represent the interests of their citizens, and that the American government has some responsibility to consider jobs for Americans a higher priority than jobs for Indians or Chinese or Mexicans.

I also realize that it would be pretty much impossible for America to take every single person who wants to come here and at the same time maintain the standard of living that we have.

My main point in this thread, i guess, has been largely to counter the doomsayers who see the current levels of illegal immigration as threatening America's very existence, and to point out the hypocrisy of an immigration policy that caters to xenophobia while not enacting policies and punishments that might actually check the demand for illegal immigrant workers here in the United States.

In the short run, it seems to me that there are two avenues that might work. One is more draconian, the other more of a concession to current reality.

The first would be to institute, and then actually enforce, much harsher punishments against those who employ illegal immigrants, rather than just giving them a slap on the wrist, as has so often been the case in the past. If you raid a factory and there are a bunch of illegals working there, don't just deport them and leave it at that; arrest the factory owner and manager, and if they can't show that they made a good-faith effort to establish that their workers were here legally, then give them a prison sentence. Same with people who rent houses to illegal immigrants. (As Miller pointed out earlier, we probably don't want to extend a policy like this to medical care, both for the safety of the illegals themselves, and for reasons of public health.)

A somewhat different approach would be to implement some sort of amnesty program for those already here, in conjunction with laws requiring that illegal workers must be employed under the same wages and conditions as Americans, including payroll tax, social security payments, etc., etc. And then punish any employer who doesn't comply. As someone pointed out, this has the potential to bring more illegals, attracted by even better pay and conditions. But it also has the potential to dry up the available work, as American employers realize that they can't cut corners (in terms of money, benefits, workplace safety, etc.) to hire illegals.

There are probably dozens of problems with both of those scenarios, and i don't claim to have all the answers. I just know that many people who currently whine about the situation don't really seem that interested in fixing it, only in complaining about it.

I live in a reasonably conservative county (by California standards, anyway), right on the border with Mexico. Immigration is an issue here, the Minutemen are active in the area, and plenty of conservatives sound off about it. There are dozens of places within a 20-minute drive of my house where you see day laborers hanging out waiting for work each morning. I'll bet most of them are illegals. And you also see them picked up for work by Americans driving pick-ups and SUVs and cars. I often wonder how many of the people in La Jolla and Del Mar and Encinitas, and Pacific Beach, whose houses and gardens and kitchens benefit from that labor, sit down in front of the news at night and complain about the number of illegal immigrants in the country?

[Dag Otto]

That's all true.

I don't see what your point is with this.

'Those illegals sure work hard. That can't be good for the country' :rolleyes:

Your position is that the kids of illegal aliens, lacking fear from the INS, are going to be signing up for the government dole rather than work long hours for minimum wages.

How is that any different than kids of US citizens, also lacking fear from the INS, signing up for the dole rather than work long hours for minimum wages?

I would suggest that the tendancy for anyone to go on goverment assistance is a function of economic class, not the legal status of one's parents. Nothing wrong with holding the position that you are against the lower class because they go on welfare, but why not just say that rather than try to single out children of illegal aliens as subset of that group. It's not as if the children are restricted to minimum wage work (hence my mention of a caste) although they may lack opportunities due to their economic class.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

How is that any different than kids of US citizens, also lacking fear from the INS, signing up for the dole rather than work long hours for minimum wages?It's not any different. Who claimed or implied it was any different?

What we are discussing here is the impact of illegal immigration. In that context my point is relevant, and yours is not.

[lalenin]

Who, exactly, are you talking about?

Are you using the word "immigrant" to mean only a person who was born in another country, is/was a citizen/national of that country, and has permanently moved to (as opposed to visiting) the U.S.?

Or do you consider their descendants, "many generations removed", also to be "immigrants"?

Don't look at me, I'm trying to figure out what Fotheringay-Phipps is talking about, maybe he can explain it to us both.


Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps
There's no doubt that in the past 3rd generation immigrants have been vitually indistinguishable from 10th generation. Whether this will continue to be true for the current wave of Hispanic immigrants is an open question.

The basis for this uncertainty is that the current level of support for the Spanish language is unparralleled by anything in the history of the US.

[Carol the Impaler]

Quoted and color-emphasized for irony.

Oh my god, Bricker. I know we're dramatically opposed in everything (you may not have ever noticed that. Or me, for that matter). And, hell, you're a devout married Catholic, but you wanna do it right here, right now, on my desk?????

This is likely a one-time offer and then I have to go back to despising your kind.

:cool:

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Don't look at me, I'm trying to figure out what Fotheringay-Phipps is talking about, maybe he can explain it to us both.I'm not sure what your uncertainty is, but I used third generation immigrant to mean the US born grandchild of immigrants.

You can quibble with the technical accuracy but I was reponding to others who used the word this way - see Treis' post #85.

[Carol the Impaler]

I think his point was this.

In previous waves of immigration, if you didnt speak english, tough shit for you.

Not true. My Swedish and German great-grandparents did not speak English. They didn't have to. They lived and farmed in Swedish and German enclaves/communities in South Dakota. Ironically, quite close to each other. If they spoke English, it was rudimentary and only done when they had to go into English speaking towns.

There was quite an incintive to learn at least rudimentary english.

Not neccessarily. Lots of first generation immigrants from whatever country did the same thing. They might have been in distinct areas of larger cities, or on farms like my ancestors. That generation could have easily never learned English and been just fine, out there on the Plains with no one around except people who spoke Swedish.

Today? Shit, you can probably get a degree from some liberal university without ever learning english (somewhat of an exageration).

Somewhat?

Which I despise. Come here, learn English damnit.

They are. Faster and with greater fluency than the immigration wave of the late 19th century that brought my kin here.

Instead we catter to Spanish speakers. But what about the Russians?. Lithuanians?. Zulus? Aliens from Morbo?

There are areas of Houston where all the major commerce (major banks, for example) have all their signage in Asian languages. I betcha it's true in lots of places, in lots of languages, in retail and government. You see a lot of Spanish because there's more Spanish speakers.

If there were only 2 or 3 languages in the world it would be one thing. But geezus on a pogo stick. Are the natives here supposed to learn and cater to dozens if not hundreds of OTHER languages.

YOU wanted to come HERE. YOU learn the language of HERE.

Folks are catered to because it's often in everyone's best interest. In terms of public safety and commerce. There are also studies shown that kids do better intellectually if they can think in more than one language, that there are benefits to brain development to have that ability. My niece and nephew learn Spanish in their very rich suburban public school because there are benefits to learning a second language, not because they live in the barrio.

They learn Spanish because it's a common second language here. It's quite likely they'll have an opportunity to use it outside of the classroom, or to watch Univision, or to hear Spanish language radio when they're driving around with their parents. (And that's not catering, that's commerce, my friend. Ka-ching!! When this wave's kids are turning off Norteno because who wants to listen to their parents music, watch their parent's shows, it'll be gone.)

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Don't look at me, I'm trying to figure out what Fotheringay-Phipps is talking about, maybe he can explain it to us both.No, you posted twice on the exact same subject. But now you claim you didn't actually understand what it was you were questioning?

I hope you'll understand why I won't be replying to you any more.

[Carol the Impaler]

Here's (http://www.news.wisc.edu/15801) an interesting summation at the end of an article regarding a study on German monolingualism in Wisconsin:

Salmons says their study suggests that conventional wisdom may actually have it backwards — while early immigrants didn't necessarily need English to succeed and responded slowly, modern immigrants recognize it as a ticket to success and are learning English in extremely high percentages.

[lalenin]

No, you posted twice on the exact same subject. But now you claim you didn't actually understand what it was you were questioning?

I hope you'll understand why I won't be replying to you any more.

Oh no Jimmy Joe Meager! And I so look forward to your posts! I suppose I'll just have to learn to live without your insight and wit.

[lalenin]

I'm not sure what your uncertainty is, but I used third generation immigrant to mean the US born grandchild of immigrants.

You can quibble with the technical accuracy but I was reponding to others who used the word this way - see Treis' post #85.

Ok, let's try again. You said:

There's no doubt that in the past 3rd generation immigrants have been vitually indistinguishable from 10th generation. Whether this will continue to be true for the current wave of Hispanic immigrants is an open question.

The basis for this uncertainty is that the current level of support for the Spanish language is unparralleled by anything in the history of the US.

You have been shown by a number of posters that the current wave of Hispanic immigrants is no different in terms of language assimilation than any other group of immigrants. Are you still uncertain? What will it take to remove the uncertainty? An English-only law?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

You have been shown by a number of posters that the current wave of Hispanic immigrants is no different in terms of language assimilation than any other group of immigrants.No one has shown this. Can you direct me to what you are referring to?

[Cisco]

The racists on this board really come out when they can hide their hate behind the borders and the English language.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

The dimwits on this board lob charges of "racist" when they don't have anything of value to contribute.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

The racists on this board really come out when they can hide their hate behind the borders and the English language.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[lalenin]

No one has shown this. Can you direct me to what you are referring to?

From the link provided by Eva Luna:

"Nearly all Hispanic adults born in the United States of immigrant parents report they are fluent in English."

"The surveys show that fewer than one-in-four (23%) Latino immigrants reports being able to speak English very well. However, fully 88% of their U.S.-born adult children report that they speak English very well. Among later generations of Hispanic adults, the figure rises to 94%. Reading ability in English shows a similar trend."

"For most immigrants, English is not the primary language they use in either setting. But for their grown children, it is."

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

From the link provided by Eva Luna:I adressed this link in the very next post. Did you miss it?

[LonesomePolecat]

whatever it is they go through and continue to put up with is still a lot harder than what legal immigrants do, implying that somehow illegal aliens have it easier because they didn't have to jump through the same legal hoops as legal aliens is no less moronic just because not everyone risks their lives crossing the border. Its not like people have a fucking choice of migrating here legally and chose to do it the hard way for the fucking hell of it. They don't have any fucking right to migrate here in the first place, you fucking moron!!!

[lalenin]

I adressed this link in the very next post. Did you miss it?

I guess I did. But here's a new, better link for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202575.html?wpisrc=newsletter

From the article:

"Immigrants of the past quarter-century have been assimilating in the United States at a notably faster rate than did previous generations, according to a study released today."

Hope that helps.

By the way, I'd like to point out that the two countries I count as mine, Cuba and Canada, are among the top scorers. I guess I'm almost an american.

[lalenin]

They don't have any fucking right to migrate here in the first place, you fucking moron!!!

Glad to see you take such a calm, reasoned approach to the discussion. It says volumes about you.

[Saintly Loser]

As someone who is currently in the process of legally becoming a US resident, my experience with the whole process gives me precisely the opposite viewpoint. I completely understand why a poor person without much English, without much money, with little formal education, would do all he or she could to avoid the process.

I am, in many ways, probably one of the most unproblematic immigration cases that the US immigration people have to deal with.

i'm married to a US citizen, so am not subject to quotas
we had been married and living together for over 4 years before i even put in my residency application, making it unlikely that my marriage is one of mere convenience
i'm from a country that is not among those considered problematic by US authorities
my first language is English
i'm have a college and postgraduate education
my wife has a solid, professional job that pays, by itself, around the US median household income
And even for me, the immigration process is a byzantine, labyrinthine succession of forms and tests and evidence and photocopies and pictures and statements. And it's fucking expensive.

I feel your pain. I'm in the same boat, except reversed. My wife is a non-US citizen, her first language is English, she's got a college and post-graduate education (from a US university), I have a good job paying a bit more than the US median, etc.

Yes, it's byzantine, labyrinthine, expensive, process.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I guess I did. But here's a new, better link for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202575.html?wpisrc=newsletter

From the article:

"Immigrants of the past quarter-century have been assimilating in the United States at a notably faster rate than did previous generations, according to a study released today."

Hope that helps.It does not. I'm surprised that you would post it.

The article nowhere claims that current immigrants are learning language faster than prior ones. English ability is but one of many factors that make up the "assimilation index", and the article does not separate out the impact of this factor. The article suggest economic expansion as the prime reason for the increased rate of assimilation, which suggests that the major movement was in the economic components of the scale.

(It also lumps in immigrants from different countries, but suggests that Mexicans in particular are less assimilated than others.)

[DanBlather]

To be quite honest, i have no simple solution for the issue of illegal immigration.

On the one hand, i've never been much of a nationalist. If someone from India or China or Mexico gets a job, i don't generally consider than an inferior solution to an American or an Australian getting a job. On the other hand, i recognize that national governments are elected to represent the interests of their citizens, and that the American government has some responsibility to consider jobs for Americans a higher priority than jobs for Indians or Chinese or Mexicans.

I also realize that it would be pretty much impossible for America to take every single person who wants to come here and at the same time maintain the standard of living that we have.

My main point in this thread, i guess, has been largely to counter the doomsayers who see the current levels of illegal immigration as threatening America's very existence, and to point out the hypocrisy of an immigration policy that caters to xenophobia while not enacting policies and punishments that might actually check the demand for illegal immigrant workers here in the United States...Thanks for a thoughtful reply to my snarky post. I agree with your suggestions of more penaltys for those hiring illegal workers tied with amnesty for those already here.

[Cisco]

The dimwits on this board lob charges of "racist" when they don't have anything of value to contribute.
There's no other reason not to want a class of people who prop up our economy, put more money into our system than they take out, add to our cultural and ethnic divrsity and value, and keep us from negative population growth.

And, ASSHOLES, considering A) English is not our official language, and B) hispanics will outnumber us in a few decades, here's a suggestion to YOU: get with the times and ¡Aprendes español!

[DigitalC]

They don't have any fucking right to migrate here in the first place, you fucking moron!!!

I see absolutely nothing in the quoted text that contradicts your moronic post. Also, fuck you.

[lalenin]

It does not. I'm surprised that you would post it.

The article nowhere claims that current immigrants are learning language faster than prior ones. English ability is but one of many factors that make up the "assimilation index", and the article does not separate out the impact of this factor. The article suggest economic expansion as the prime reason for the increased rate of assimilation, which suggests that the major movement was in the economic components of the scale.

(It also lumps in immigrants from different countries, but suggests that Mexicans in particular are less assimilated than others.)

You can quibble all you want. The data says immigrants to the US today are assimilating at a faster rate than ever before and language is a component of assimilation. You don't like the findings? Take it up with the authors.

So what if Mexicans are less assimilated than others? In any list someone has to come last, today is Mexicans, maybe 100 years ago it was Poles or Russians. The end result is the same, the day after tomorrow the son of the immigrant who mows you lawn today will probably be the doctor who treats your son for an ear infection.

[Kyla]

Examples...

Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn. African-Americans. Chinese-Americans. Italian-Americans. Greek-Americans (Astoria, Queens). There are communities where some (some) members tend to marry others of their ethnic background, even for several generations, even here in America, and they do retain specific cultural 'markers' (e.g. foods, religions, political opinions, manner of dress), even for several generations, even here in America.

But you knew that, right?

What, exactly, is your point here? As a third-generation American, I am awfully curious.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

The data says immigrants to the US today are assimilating at a faster rate than ever before and language is a component of assimilation.But they don't claim that they are assimilating faster than ever in all components. You don't like the findings? Take it up with the authors.I have no beef with the authors, who are not making claims that are unsupported by their data. You are.

So what if Mexicans are less assimilated than others?Because we happen to be discussing Spanish-speaking people. Mexicans speak Spanish.

[Kyla]

BTW, I helped my counterpart (basically, my teaching partner when I was in Peace Corps) apply to the Green Card lottery. The lottery itself is pretty easy to fill out, but there is a lot of misinformation surrounding it. For one, she was convinced you have to pay to enter it because a lot of "immigration agencies" (ie, scam artists) advertise that they can help would-be migrants apply for a fee. I ended up emailing Eva Luna for advice and she explained that it's free.

Then, you need to supply a digital photograph of yourself, passport sized. Getting this can be pretty tough, depending on where you are. There was no place in our village to get this done; she had to travel to another town to have her picture taken. She borrowed my flash drive so she could bring it back to our village.

The lottery form has to be done on the web. There are lots of parts of the world where internet access is...nonexistent. And even if it's there, if you can't speak English, it can be difficult/impossible to figure out how to google "green card lottery", make sure you're looking at the real, State Department entry form and not some scammer, and follow the directions properly.

My counterpart has a college degree, knows some English, and is pretty good with computers and it still turned into a fairly complex process, even with my assistance.

I don't really know how the process could be made to be any easier, though. Like I said, the form itself is simple enough to fill out. Just that some of the barriers to get to the form can be unsurmountable for some people.

[lalenin]

But they don't claim that they are assimilating faster than ever in all components.I have no beef with the authors, who are not making claims that are unsupported by their data. You are.

Because we happen to be discussing Spanish-speaking people. Mexicans speak Spanish.

No, you are tap dancing around the findings discussed in the article. Assimilation includes language, like it or not. Mexicans speak Spanish, so do Cubans and Dominicans, they are not ranked at the bottom.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

No, you are tap dancing around the findings discussed in the article. Assimilation includes language, like it or not.It seems obvious to me that if you have an aggregate score comprised of multiple components, you can't prove anything about any one particular component by citing the aggregate score.

You seem to be denying this, and consider pointing it out to be "tap dancing". So be it. I have nothing further to add.

Mexicans speak Spanish, so do Cubans and Dominicans, they are not ranked at the bottom.That's true. I imagine that the Cubans have a big edge in that they have been here a relatively long time, and the core of the community was upper/middle class refugees from Castro. You'll notice that they scored particularly high in economic versus the other factors. I don't know about Dominicans. I seized on Mexicans because the author of the article himself commented on Mexicans scoring low.

In any event that was a parenthetical remark. My main point was, as above, that you can't assume an aggregate score is reflected in every component. You seem to disagree with this, and we've reached an impasse on this point.

[Cheesesteak]

What, exactly, is your point here? As a third-generation American, I am awfully curious.I think the point is that these immigrants have some nerve retaining a link, however tenuous, to their heritage. They even tend to marry within their ethnic background, which is something that "non-immigrants" would never do.

[lalenin]

That's true. I imagine that the Cubans have a big edge in that they have been here a relatively long time, and the core of the community was upper/middle class refugees from Castro. You'll notice that they scored particularly high in economic versus the other factors. I don't know about Dominicans. I seized on Mexicans because the author of the article himself commented on Mexicans scoring low.

In any event that was a parenthetical remark. My main point was, as above, that you can't assume an aggregate score is reflected in every component. You seem to disagree with this, and we've reached an impasse on this point.

Sorry but no. The bulk of Cuban immigration to the US is post-Castro. Mainly since 1980, you can google that if you like.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

What, exactly, is your point here? As a third-generation American, I am awfully curious.That it is possible for a group, or for certain members within a group, to immigrate to the U.S. and, once they're here, to retain traits, traditions, etc. of their homeland so strongly as to be clearly and obviously distinguishable as being a member of that culture, even their descendants for several generations.

Go to Chinatown in New York City. Look around. What do you see? (Hint: Chinese) Although there are recent immigrants, there are also families who have lived and reproduced there for several generations. And the descendants are still clearly and obviously Chinese (of Chinese descent).

Go to Astoria, Queens. Same thing with the Greeks.

Park Slope. Orthodox Jews.

Brighton Beach and Russians (a more recent occurence, but I suspect will yield similar results).

My point is that when immigrants come to the US, in a couple of generations they often are still distinguishable from Joe Six-Pack Middle American. They don't just dissapear into the woodwork. They don't automatically turn into whites of northern european descent with 2.3 kids and a mini-van -- or even a semblance thereof.


And please... I know at least some of you have the mental capacity to understand that talking about racial issues isn't necessarily racist. Pointing out that the people who live in Chinatown are most likely Chinese isn't racist, it's a fact. And a racial fact at that.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Been fun y'all. Going off grid for the next couple of days. Bye.

Cisco - you're a blathering idiot.

[Cisco]

That it is possible for a group, or for certain members within a group, to immigrate to the U.S. and, once they're here, to retain traits, traditions, etc. of their homeland so strongly as to be clearly and obviously distinguishable as being a member of that culture, even their descendants for several generations.

Go to Chinatown in New York City. Look around. What do you see? (Hint: Chinese) Although there are recent immigrants, there are also families who have lived and reproduced there for several generations. And the descendants are still clearly and obviously Chinese (of Chinese descent).

Go to Astoria, Queens. Same thing with the Greeks.

Park Slope. Orthodox Jews.

Brighton Beach and Russians (a more recent occurence, but I suspect will yield similar results).

My point is that when immigrants come to the US, in a couple of generations they often are still distinguishable from Joe Six-Pack Middle American. They don't just dissapear into the woodwork. They don't automatically turn into whites of northern european descent with 2.3 kids and a mini-van -- or even a semblance thereof.


And please... I know at least some of you have the mental capacity to understand that talking about racial issues isn't necessarily racist. Pointing out that the people who live in Chinatown are most likely Chinese isn't racist, it's a fact. And a racial fact at that.
So what's your POINT? Are you saying you're afraid that Mexicans are going to come here and retain their heritage? I got news for you: when it comes to the American southwest, this used to BE Mexico, and when we took it from them, we made all Mexicans living here US citizens. This was quite literally their land before it was ours. It would actually make more sense for Spanish to be the dominant language here.

And by the way, Mexicans are beneficial to us, but here is a picture (http://www3.telus.net/Houben/images/PilgrimCouple.jpg) of some REALLY scary illegal immigrants.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Sorry but no. The bulk of Cuban immigration to the US is post-Castro. Mainly since 1980, you can google that if you like.ISTM from looking at some numbers that the rate of immigration was higher from 1959-1974 than it has been since - see the table here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_American). (Note too the article's comment that "From 1960 to 1979, hundreds of thousands of Cubans left Cuba and began a new life in the United States, often forming the backbone of the anti-Castro movement. Most Cuban Americans that arrived in the United States came from Cuba's educated upper and middle classes.")

Beyond this, my comment was about "the core of the community", not about absolute numbers. The Castro refugees established fairly successful communities in Florida and elsewhere, and when later waves of immigration arrived, they could enter a Cuban expatriate community that was rather well-off as immigrant communities go. (The article comments that "Some of the "Marielitos" became prosperous through their own efforts, with government assistance and assistance from earlier immigrants, relatives and charitable organizations.")

[Bricker]

Oh my god, Bricker. I know we're dramatically opposed in everything (you may not have ever noticed that. Or me, for that matter). And, hell, you're a devout married Catholic, but you wanna do it right here, right now, on my desk?????

This is likely a one-time offer and then I have to go back to despising your kind.

:cool:

Don't think I'm not intrigued, but since the next scene would be Mrs. Bricker standing over my body and asking, "How do I reload this thing?" I must regretfully pass.

But it's nice to be appreciated. :)

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

OK, so far we have Cisco and Cheesteak who can't tell the difference between racial and racist.

Any others want to stand up and declare their idiocy?

[lalenin]

ISTM from looking at some numbers that the rate of immigration was higher from 1959-1974 than it has been since - see the table here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_American). (Note too the article's comment that "From 1960 to 1979, hundreds of thousands of Cubans left Cuba and began a new life in the United States, often forming the backbone of the anti-Castro movement. Most Cuban Americans that arrived in the United States came from Cuba's educated upper and middle classes.")

Beyond this, my comment was about "the core of the community", not about absolute numbers. The Castro refugees established fairly successful communities in Florida and elsewhere, and when later waves of immigration arrived, they could enter a Cuban expatriate community that was rather well-off as immigrant communities go. (The article comments that "Some of the "Marielitos" became prosperous through their own efforts, with government assistance and assistance from earlier immigrants, relatives and charitable organizations.")

There's a neat little table with the actual numbers in the wikipedia article:

Year of
Immigration Number
1959-64 144,732
1965-74 247,726
1975-79 29,508
1980 94,095
1981-89 77,835
1990-93 60,244
1994-2000 174,437
Total 828,577

So, from 1959-79: 421,966

From 1980-2000: 401,611

In other words from 1959-79: 21,098 per year avg
from 1980-2000: 19,362 per year avg.

Those look like nearly identical rates. So much for your contention that the assimilation of Cubans was due to "Cubans have a big edge in that they have been here a relatively long time, and the core of the community was upper/middle class refugees from Castro"

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

In other words from 1959-79: 21,098 per year avg
from 1980-2000: 19,362 per year avg.

Those look like nearly identical rates. So much for your contention that the assimilation of Cubans was due to "Cubans have a big edge in that they have been here a relatively long time, and the core of the community was upper/middle class refugees from Castro"Depends where you draw the line. The rates were abnormally low from 1975-1979, and very high in 1980. I conveniently drew the line at 1974 and you conveniently drew it at 1979.

In any event, even if the rates are the same for all years, they contrast with the other Latin American groups that are being compared, who are more heavily weighted to more recent years. So it is correct that the Cubans have been here "a relatively long time".

In addition, you ignored my second paragraph.

[Cheesesteak]

OK, so far we have Cisco and Cheesteak who can't tell the difference between racial and racist."Racial" is describing the fact that there are many folks of Chinese descent in Chinatown. "Racist" is suggesting that this fact means Chinese "immigrants" (who's family might have been here since the mid 1800's) have not fully assimilated into our culture.

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

"Racial" is describing the fact that there are many folks of Chinese descent in Chinatown. "Racist" is suggesting that this fact means Chinese "immigrants" (who's family might have been here since the mid 1800's) have not fully assimilated into our culture.Good, good, but...

I never (never never never) "suggest[ed] that this fact means Chinese "immigrants" (who's family might have been here since the mid 1800's) have not fully assimilated into our culture." That was a leap you and Cisco made. And, of course, you both were wrong. You actually can't read my mind.

Now... you've made a good start. Keep going. You'll get the hang of it. Just remember...

"Discussions of race are not always racist."

[Jimmy Joe Meager]

Signing off (for real this time).

[Cisco]

OK, so far we have Cisco and Cheesteak who can't tell the difference between racial and racist.

Any others want to stand up and declare their idiocy?
If you don't think there have been racist comments in this thread, then I cannot change your mind; it's probably just hardwired into you to think that way over the course of your lifetime. A messageboard discussion vs. that is like shooting a BB gun at an Imperial Star Destroyer. Good day.

[Hyperelastic]

Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623(a)) states: "an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident." Doesn't that pretty much rule it out, barring a change in federal law?

[Cisco]

Someone please tell me: What, EXACTLY, do you have against educating a class of people who contribute billions upon billions (http://www.lulac.org/advocacy/issues/immigration/truth.html) more to our system than they take out, and fill niches Americans don't want to fill? Why are you so intent on holding them under our thumb? Feeling inadequent, or threatened somehow?

[Algher]

Someone please tell me: What, EXACTLY, do you have against educating a class of people who contribute billions upon billions (http://www.lulac.org/advocacy/issues/immigration/truth.html) more to our system than they take out, and fill niches Americans don't want to fill? Why are you so intent on holding them under our thumb? Feeling inadequent, or threatened somehow?

How many fallacies, ad hominenems, etc. can you put into one post? Why don't you just toss in a penis comment and a KKK comparison while you are at it?

My statement is simple - providing a taxpayer subsidized college education to people can not legally use that education in the workforce is a waste of taxpayer money.

[Cisco]

Why don't you just toss in a penis comment and a KKK comparison while you are at it?They'd probably be apt.
My statement is simple - providing a taxpayer subsidized college education to people can not legally use that education in the workforce is a waste of taxpayer money.Do you care why Americans get educated? My wife went to a state university and majored in Political Science. She's a chef. By your standard, that's a waste of taxpayer money.

[Algher]

They'd probably be apt.
Do you care why Americans get educated? My wife went to a state university and majored in Political Science. She's a chef. By your standard, that's a waste of taxpayer money.

Bullshit. I did not say that you racist homophobe who kicks puppies.

I don't care WHY Americans get educated, when it is their money. However, if I am going to subsidize the education of others I would like to know how I might benefit from it. Giving a college education to someone who can not legally use it is a waste of taxpayer money. If they want to pay the out-of-state rates instead that is fine. There is no reason for the state, however, to give up cash to educate that person. That person will NOT be a more educated member of the electorate - they can not vote. That person will not be able to start their own company legally, to work their way up the corporate ladder legally, or to join the ranks of teachers to help others.

The state subsidizes education to have a better workforce and more educated electorate. Neither of these is served by giving away education to those who can not use. Guess what - in state rates are not available to foreign students or students from other states either.

Oh yeah - stop beating your wife asshole.

[Grumman]

Someone please tell me: What, EXACTLY, do you have against educating a class of people who contribute billions upon billions (http://www.lulac.org/advocacy/issues/immigration/truth.html) more to our system than they take out, and fill niches Americans don't want to fill? Why are you so intent on holding them under our thumb? Feeling inadequent, or threatened somehow?
Considering that roughly half enter the country without inspection, possibly while also funding smugglers, isn't that enough of a reason to provide disincentives for breaking the law? The less illegal entry you have, the easier it is to keep criminals, contraband or diseases out of the country.

[Algher]

Considering that roughly half enter the country without inspection, possibly while also funding smugglers, isn't that enough of a reason to provide disincentives for breaking the law? The less illegal entry you have, the easier it is to keep criminals, contraband or diseases out of the country.

Oh no, Cisco wants everyone to have 25 illegals in their living room like he has! He wants completely open borders and freed PhDs for anyone who walks up to the door!

At least, that is what I infer from his post using my Ciscometer.

[Cisco]

Bullshit. I did not say that you racist homophobe who kicks puppies.

I don't care WHY Americans get educated, when it is their money. However, if I am going to subsidize the education of others I would like to know how I might benefit from it. Giving a college education to someone who can not legally use it is a waste of taxpayer money. If they want to pay the out-of-state rates instead that is fine. There is no reason for the state, however, to give up cash to educate that person. That person will NOT be a more educated member of the electorate - they can not vote. That person will not be able to start their own company legally, to work their way up the corporate ladder legally, or to join the ranks of teachers to help others.

The state subsidizes education to have a better workforce and more educated electorate. Neither of these is served by giving away education to those who can not use. Guess what - in state rates are not available to foreign students or students from other states either.

Oh yeah - stop beating your wife asshole.

The state subsidized the education of my wife you halfwit. The one she's not "using", never "used", and never will "use" in your workforce sense of the term. And WHY, do you suppose, could these immigrants not "use" their education? We need them here, trust me we need them - only the anti-reality crowd is pretending like we don't - they wouldn't come here if we didn't need them.

And yes, for the record I DO want open borders, but I don't want 25 anybody in my living room and I don't even know what a freed PhD is.

[Eva Luna]

I don't care WHY Americans get educated, when it is their money. However, if I am going to subsidize the education of others I would like to know how I might benefit from it. Giving a college education to someone who can not legally use it is a waste of taxpayer money. If they want to pay the out-of-state rates instead that is fine. There is no reason for the state, however, to give up cash to educate that person. That person will NOT be a more educated member of the electorate - they can not vote. That person will not be able to start their own company legally, to work their way up the corporate ladder legally, or to join the ranks of teachers to help others.

The state subsidizes education to have a better workforce and more educated electorate. Neither of these is served by giving away education to those who can not use. Guess what - in state rates are not available to foreign students or students from other states either.


Regardless over whether an immigration reform ever passes that will allow these kids to legalize, some of them will eventually legalize in other ways - they will be the beneficiaries of immediate relative petitions filed by their eventual U.S. citizen spouses, for example.

The purpose of restricting in-state tuition to residents of a particular state is that it is paid for by state tax revenues, which residents of that state pay out of their salaries and via sales and property tax, etc., regardless of their immigration status.

[Ocean Annie]

What I said is that different programs are run by different agencies. Each agency has data for it's own program, but no one is responsible for gathering data about the cumulative affect of the various independently-run programs.

Again, I'm talking about different programs.

Here's a simple example.

Two guys walk in to the offices of Social Program A. Guy #1 is making $10,000 by working part time and $20,000 through a combination of various other programs. Guy #2 is making $25,000, all from the sweat of his brow. The caseworker, in assessing eligibility and subsidy levels for Program A treats Guy #1 as having "income" of $10,000, and he is considered "poorer" and a higher priority for assistance, and Guy #2 is treated as having income of $25,000 and with lower priority and entitlement levels, though in reality Guy #1 has more money (or the equivalent) coming in than Guy #2.

No, this isn't true. Social Workers coordinate services for eligible applicants.



Rent is paid by HUD/Section 8. Utilities are paid by HEAP.

You can look all this stuff up, if you're interested.

But have you read welfare policy? You claim children of illegal immigrants are inclined to live on welfare but don't offer information to support the assertion.

HUD's website states that section eight has more eligible applicants than available housing. The applicants fortunate enough to get housing receive subsidized rent, not a free place to live.

Welfare is an easy target for media pundits and shock jocks who earn a living propagating stereotypes and myths that prey on working class insecurities. It is amazingly effective at creating a false reality.

The fact is welfare is a work program with time limits on benefits. After welfare reform in the 90s, the program was renamed Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) and federal funding was provided in block grants to states. Each state determines eligibility and time limits within federal guidelines. Most states have a two year life time limit for benefits. Once the two years are used consecutively or intermittently, the family is no longer eligible. Some states offer a onetime lump cash payment to families in crisis if the family agrees to forfeit future eligibility.

Welfare serves the desperately poor, people with income less than half the federal poverty line. This is destitute poor. To receive benefits, stringent work requirements must be met. No need to worry about single mothers living fat on the system. They work full time to qualify for benefits. This site (http://www.nccp.org/tools/policy) offers a state by state comparison.

Being poor in America is a hard existence.

[magellan01]

So what's your POINT? Are you saying you're afraid that Mexicans are going to come here and retain their heritage? I got news for you: when it comes to the American southwest, this used to BE Mexico, and when we took it from them, we made all Mexicans living here US citizens. This was quite literally their land before it was ours. It would actually make more sense for Spanish to be the dominant language here.

Big fucking deal, they were in the Southwest first. In every country in the world their were populations that preceded those that inhabit it now. And populations before them. This argument is empty.

And by the way, Mexicans are beneficial to us, but here is a picture (http://www3.telus.net/Houben/images/PilgrimCouple.jpg) of some REALLY scary illegal immigrants.

We'll, you owe those people a debt of gratitude for what they created. If we didn't have them as forbearers this country would be like...well, Mexico. Which you are free to move to, of course.

[magellan01]

Someone please tell me: What, EXACTLY, do you have against educating a class of people who contribute billions upon billions (http://www.lulac.org/advocacy/issues/immigration/truth.html) more to our system than they take out, and fill niches Americans don't want to fill? Why are you so intent on holding them under our thumb? Feeling inadequent, or threatened somehow?

1. They take jobs Americans don't want t the depressed wages the illegals will salivate over. Remove that factor and wages will go up. Americans might be unwilling to do a certain job for $X, but may be thrilled with doing it for $2X. And as the U.S. unemployment rate rises, the company might not even have to pay 2X. We need to remove the depression on raises and make these jobs pay what they're actually worth, as decided by the market. If we still need people to fill jobs, we can then either increase legal immigration or institute a guest worker program. Or both.
2. I don't want them under my thumb. I want them back in their own countries.
3. If you think that is a legitimate cite, you're an imbecile.

[Cisco]

Big fucking deal, they were in the Southwest first. In every country in the world their were populations that preceded those that inhabit it now. And populations before them. This argument is empty.An argument is not empty just because you say it is. You don't even give reasons to support your opinion, just your word. Who the hell are you?
We'll, you owe those people a debt of gratitude for what they created. If we didn't have them as forbearers this country would be like...well, Mexico. Which you are free to move to, of course.
And we don't owe Mexicans a debt of gratitude? They BUILT the southwest. Literally. Anglos didn't know anything about living or working in this environment. They didn't know about irrigation. They didn't know about farming this soil or mining in these hills. They learned all that from the Mexicans.
1. They take jobs Americans don't want t the depressed wages the illegals will salivate over. Remove that factor and wages will go up. Americans might be unwilling to do a certain job for $X, but may be thrilled with doing it for $2X. And as the U.S. unemployment rate rises, the company might not even have to pay 2X. We need to remove the depression on raises and make these jobs pay what they're actually worth, as decided by the market. If we still need people to fill jobs, we can then either increase legal immigration or institute a guest worker program. Or both.The market did decide what those jobs were worth, and Americans don't want them.I want them back in their own countries.Why? Why do you want to deny them opportunities that you did NOTHING to earn (assuming you were born here like I was)?
3. If you think that is a legitimate cite, you're an imbecile.Again, who the hell are you and why should I trust your word? Give me a reason to doubt it. There are hundreds more that agree with it, I assure you.

[Ocean Annie]

I believe this is factually incorrect. I think you're just thinking of business groups and Republicans as one indistinguishable group.

This issue actually breaks across ordinary fault lines, with Republicans and labor unions generally anti-illegal and Democrats and business groups pro. That's one reason nothing gets done about it.

No, I am referring to corporations like Halliburton et al. that hire illegal immigrants and Microsoft Corporation et al. that actively recruit guest workers from developing countries. These are the same corporations funding the conservative think tanks orchestrating immigration hysteria, in fact, one of the regular contributing pundits on Lou Dobbs is from the Heritage Foundation.

The problem is that the corporations are not always able to tell who is or is not illegal, what with the proliferation of phony IDs these days. If that problem could be surmounted, it would be a lot easier.

Who would know? name, accent, will work for two dollars a day...

[Jayn_Newell]

The purpose of restricting in-state tuition to residents of a particular state is that it is paid for by state tax revenues, which residents of that state pay out of their salaries and via sales and property tax, etc., regardless of their immigration status.I recall reading that some illegals do pay income tax and file returns in the hope that doing so might help them become legal residents in the future. So I'm not sure how much the tax argument really applies when arguing against illegals.

As a legal resident, I understand why people would want to bypass the legal channels into the country--it's expensive (and fees went up a couple years ago, in some cases pretty drastically), can be difficult to navigate, takes time and the circumstances under which a person can become a legal resident are pretty narrowly defined. The US immigration system really needs an overhaul.

That said, I still do not condone the people that take the illegal route. I have every bit of sympathy for them--their circumstances aren't their fault. However, the US and every other nation has the right to define their own immigration policies, and by breaking them illegals make it harder for those people who try to enter legally. To continue an analogy from earlier in the thread, there's a big difference between offering someone my spare bedroom to sleep in, and someone breaking into my apartment and staying there because it's more comfortable than their own bed.
The market did decide what those jobs were worth, and Americans don't want them.Do Americans really not want them, or can they not get them because of illegals being willing to work for less and making bilingualism a more desirable skill among employees? I remember reading a complaint once from a teenager (possibly on this board) saying that s/he couldn't find an after school job because the presence of Mexican immigrants made Spanish an almost necessary requirement for all the local jobs s/he could apply for.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

No, this isn't true. Social Workers coordinate services for eligible applicants.This assertion is false.

The rest of your comment was not substantive.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

No, I am referring to corporations like Halliburton et al. that hire illegal immigrants and Microsoft Corporation et al. that actively recruit guest workers from developing countries. These are the same corporations funding the conservative think tanks orchestrating immigration hysteria,Do you have a source for these claims?

[lalenin]

My point is that when immigrants come to the US, in a couple of generations they often are still distinguishable from Joe Six-Pack Middle American. They don't just dissapear into the woodwork. They don't automatically turn into whites of northern european descent with 2.3 kids and a mini-van -- or even a semblance thereof.

I see, so then, in your opinion the average american is white and of northern european descent. Interesting perspective.

[liberty3701]

I don't want to get into this argument because the whole "This is America! Speak American" bullshit makes me want to vomit. I've said it before (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10403903&postcount=33) and I'll say it again: Understanding English is not something that magically happens the second you step foot in the US. It's damn hard to learn a second language, especially as an adult. But does it really matter to people that want immigrants kept out of the country that today's immigrants are learning English faster than the (white) immigrants of yesteryear? Of course not. They are only interested in keeping the US as white as possible. And those people who you over hear speaking Spanish -- there is such a thing as bilingualism. I know it's hard for most Americans to understand, but it's possible to be fluent in more than one language at a time. I know, it's totally crazy!

So, there were calls for cites about how fast the newest immigrants are learning English. I don't have good public cites beyond http://mr-verb.blogspot.com/2008/10/immigrants-learning-english.html.

If you have access to a university library, you can read the American Speech article they reference in that link. If you don't have access and really want to read the paper, PM me and I'll email you the PDF. Here's the abstract from it:
One myth about language and immigration in North America is that
nineteenth-century immigrants typically became bilingual almost immediately af-
ter arriving, yet little systematic data has been presented for this view. We present
quantitative and qualitative evidence about Germans in Wisconsin, where, into the
twentieth century, many immigrants and their descendants remained monolingual,
decades after immigration had ceased. Even those who claimed to speak English
often had limited command. Quantitative data from the 1910 Census, augmented
by qualitative evidence from newspapers, court records, literary texts, and other
sources, suggest that Germans of various socioeconomic backgrounds often lacked
English language skills. German continued to be the primary language in numer-
ous Wisconsin communities, and some second- and third-generation descendants
of immigrants were still monolingual as adults. Understanding this history can help
inform contemporary debates about language and immigration and help dismantle
the myth that successful immigrant groups of yesterday owed their prosperity to an
immediate, voluntary shift to English.
And they conclude with:
In short, even in the most intense immigration settings, immigrants today are
learning English and abandoning their native tongues very quickly, contrary
to popular misconceptions. We have presented a range of evidence here
indicating that widespread claims about language learning among “good
old immigrants of yesteryear” prove equally false. Their ongoing monolin-
gualism does not appear to have constituted any threat to American society
or values. These conclusions, surely, should inform debates about language
and immigration in the United States and beyond.

If you want to know more about language shift among immigrants in the US, then I recommend the work of Joshua A. Fishman (http://www.joshuaafishman.com/). Or, you know, look at the Census. According to the 2007 Community Survey, in the US as a whole, among people who speak a language other than English as a home language, 91.4% speak English "very well." That statistic goes up to 94.2% for Spanish speakers.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

So, there were calls for cites about how fast the newest immigrants are learning English. I don't have good public cites beyond http://mr-verb.blogspot.com/2008/10/immigrants-learning-english.html.Someone else already linked to that study.

It's not a valid study because the comparison group was cherry-picked.

[liberty3701]

Someone else already linked to that study.

It's not a valid study because the comparison group was cherry-picked.So, you've read the scholarly, peer-reviewed paper and actually know something about how linguistic studies are done to make such a dismissal? Interesting.

[Eva Luna]

I recall reading that some illegals do pay income tax and file returns in the hope that doing so might help them become legal residents in the future. So I'm not sure how much the tax argument really applies when arguing against illegals.

Many U.S. citizens and legal residents only pay taxes because they fear jail and fines. Others don't pay them at all, or avoid paying the full amount that they owe. Should we deny all those people government services?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

So, you've read the scholarly, peer-reviewed paper and actually know something about how linguistic studies are done to make such a dismissal? Interesting.I meant it's not a valid study for our purposes. I don't know how sweeping the claims of the study authors was.

If these authors claimed that they can prove that today's immigrants are learning language faster than previous waves of immigrants by comparing a broad spectrum of today's immigrants against a cherry-picked sample of isolated rural communities from a previous generation, then their study is invalid.

But it's quite possible that the claims made by the authors is far less sweeping than that.

If you're familiar with scholarly peer-reviewed papers, as you seem to imply, you undoubtedly know that such papers often make very limited claims and are full of qualifiers and calls for further study etc. Then the media gets hold of them and publishes the more sensational parts with misleading headlines.

In sum, for purposes of this discussion, that study shows nothing.

[Carol the Impaler]

Someone else already linked to that study.

It's not a valid study because the comparison group was cherry-picked.

It was cited, numb nuts, to refute the post from billfish678's belief that in the past, if you didn't learn English immediately then you suffered. Do you expect that a study will... ahem... study everybody who immigrated in the 19th century to be valid?

Although it's good to know you have problems with cherry-picked information. I'll remember that for the future.

[Carol the Impaler]

I meant it's not a valid study for our purposes. I don't know how sweeping the claims of the study authors was.

If these authors claimed that they can prove that today's immigrants are learning language faster than previous waves of immigrants by comparing a broad spectrum of today's immigrants against a cherry-picked sample of isolated rural communities from a previous generation, then their study is invalid.

But it's quite possible that the claims made by the authors is far less sweeping than that.

If you're familiar with scholarly peer-reviewed papers, as you seem to imply, you undoubtedly know that such papers often make very limited claims and are full of qualifiers and calls for further study etc. Then the media gets hold of them and publishes the more sensational parts with misleading headlines.

In sum, for purposes of this discussion, that study shows nothing.

So, you haven't read it, then.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Do you expect that a study will... ahem... study everybody who immigrated in the 19th century to be valid?No, but it needs to study a representative cross-section.

Do you deny this as a general principle?

[Carol the Impaler]

For this study, numb nuts, it is a representative cross-section.

[Ocean Annie]

This assertion is false.

The rest of your comment was not substantive.

How do you think people access services, they just head on down to the local food stamp office, then the local HUD office for some free rent, and on over to the gummint bank for some cash? These services are coordinated through the Department of Social Services. Even if the office for a service is located in a building other than the Department of Social Services, it’s still the through the same agency.

The point of the post was to dispel the myth that people don’t work and live on welfare. Have you looked at the average food stamp allotment given to a family of three in various states? In Alabama it is $277.00 a month. With the exception of disability, there are no government handouts that permit a person or family to live without working. These the facts.

Below is a quote from the Virginia Department of Social Services. (http://www.dss.virginia.gov/benefit/foodstamp.html) Bold is mine.
Proof of identity (driver's license or picture I.D.), residence, income, resource and shelter expenses are required. An interview is also required. If you apply at your local department of social services, the interview may take place at a later date.

Applications for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or General Relief, are considered an application for food stamps, unless you request otherwise.
If all members have applied for or get Supplemental Security Income (SSI), you may also apply for food stamps at the local Social Security office.
<snip>

Work Requirements
If you are age 18 to 50 and able to work, you may be subject to a work requirement in order to receive food stamps. This requirement would limit the number of months for which you could receive food stamps to three months in a 36 month period. After you receive food stamps for three months, you may be able to receive three additional months if you complete certain work related requirements. You may be exempt from this work requirement if you are currently working or participating in an approved work program; responsible for the care of a child; pregnant; medically certified as unable to work; meet one of several work registration exemption reasons; or live in an exempt locality.

[Ocean Annie]

Do you have a source for these claims?

I'll let you follow your own advice from post #146.

You can look all this stuff up, if you're interested

[BwanaBob]

But just because somebody's life would improve if they could immigrate to the United States doesn't neccesarily mean that the United States should accomodate them. I'm not saying that people who come to the country illegally are acting irrationally, or even are bad people, but the US has the right to control its borders and decide who has the right to enter and live here.

Exactly; it is not a human right to live in the United States.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

For this study, numb nuts, it is a representative cross-section.No, it's not.How do you think people access services, they just head on down to the local food stamp office, then the local HUD office for some free rent, and on over to the gummint bank for some cash?That's pretty much it, minus the caricature aspect.These services are coordinated through the Department of Social Services. Even if the office for a service is located in a building other than the Department of Social Services, it’s still the through the same agency.That's not correct. (In fact the government sometimes gives some of them to private non-profit agencies.)

The point of the post was to dispel the myth that people don’t work and live on welfare. Have you looked at the average food stamp allotment given to a family of three in various states? In Alabama it is $277.00 a month. With the exception of disability, there are no government handouts that permit a person or family to live without working.Yet again: there are any number of social programs. You can't point to the dollar amount of just one of them and pretend that this is the level of support a person "on welfare" gets. (In addition to the aforementioned rent, utilities & medical care, food itself is also frequently subsidized by the WIC program.)

Bold is mineYou might have also bolded some of the exceptions.

[BwanaBob]

This argument fails miserably when you take into account that Many countries in the world, including Europe and Asia have *much* higher population density that America. So, some Americans saying "we do not want to share our space" is not an argument, although it is indicative of selfishness. Not to mention that it is an argument immigrants have no reason or obligation to abide by.

But we decided as a nation we don't want to live the way Europeans do. Why must we live the way they do? I say again, there is no human right to live in the United States. Or Australia (try sneaking into there and see what happens).

[BwanaBob]

Quoted and color-emphasized for irony.

At least he writes better English than the illegals who haven't bothered to learn any.

[BwanaBob]

Glad to see you take such a calm, reasoned approach to the discussion. It says volumes about you.

He was loud but accurate.

[Carol the Impaler]

No, it's not..


As a professor of German who has extensively studied European immigrant languages in the Midwest, Salmons discovered there was little direct research available about whether this "learn English or bust" ethic really existed.

To research the topic, Salmons and recent UW-Madison German Ph.D. graduate Miranda Wilkerson delved into census data, newspapers, books, court records and other materials to help document the linguistic experience of German immigrants in Wisconsin from 1839 to the 1930s. Their paper appears in the current issue of the journal American Speech.

Focusing on German immigrants was a logical choice, Salmons says, since they represented the biggest immigration wave to Wisconsin in the mid-1800s, "and they really fit this classic view of the 'good old immigrants' of the 19th century."

The question was whether our venerated ancestors all learned English, dammit!, when they got here. This study set out to see if that was true. It is not.

[Ocean Annie]

No, it's not.That's pretty much it, minus the caricature aspect.That's not correct. (In fact the government sometimes gives some of them to private non-profit agencies.)


What exactly is offered through private organizations and charity? Child Care? pre K?

Well, you are not willing to engage in honest discourse. You offer no evidence to support your claims and expect everyone else to do the heavy lifting. Believe a false reality propagated by the wingnuts on cable TV and blogs. It is clear this entire exchange has been fucking pointless.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

The question was whether our venerated ancestors all learned English, dammit!, when they got here. This study set out to see if that was true. It is not.The study proved that if you lived in an isolated rural community, where almost everyone spoke the same foreign language as you did, you did not necessarily learn English. That is not typical of the situation of immigrants at that time or later. (It might have been typical of immigrants to Wisconsis at that time, but that's not our discussion.)

What exactly is offered through private organizations and charity? Child Care? pre K?HUD vouchers, for example. (The one in my hometown is, as it happens.)

You offer no evidence to support your claims and expect everyone else to do the heavy lifting.Actually, the fact is that I base my position here on pretty much first hand knowledge. I know very well literally dozen and dozens of people who are or have been supported by these programs over the years, (& a few who have worked for social agencies administering them) and I am extremely well acquainted with the practical details of how these things work.

The type of things you say are impressive to people who only know of these matters casually, based on what they've read in articles or in propaganda put out by advocates of one side or another. But for me, it's like telling me that in America you drive on the left side of the street.

Not the type of knowledge that lends itself to cites, even if I had the interest. But fortunately, this understanding makes it easy to refute the misleading claims put out by people like yourself, as I've done here.

It is clear this entire exchange has been fucking pointless.That's probably true.