dumbshit, you don’t get it! by not getting upset that there was a failure to legalize the status of people who are here illegally, you clearly do not want people to be here legally. like, for duh!
Rather than being “grossly” discriminatory, the bill is designed to allow for those illegal immigrants who, before the age of 16, crossed the border, (almost certainly with their parents or other family members due to their age) to earn their legal status by graduating high school or getting a GED and enrolling in college or the military. If the bill deleted the age criteria, then the bill would then be a mass amnesty for anyone who crossed the border as adults and then enrolled in college or the military. By including this age criteria, the bill is distinguishing (not discriminating) between those who actively choose to come to the US illegally versus those who probably could not chose for themselves due to their age.
To complain that the DREAM Act is grossly discriminatory because of the age criteria is the equivalent of complaining about the juvenile criminal system because of its age criteria.
Really? What, exactly, in your experience, is done for these kids?
Do you really think that children whose parents are criminals enter into adulthood with anywhere near the same levels of opportunities as even a poor-but-intact family unit?
Christ, the entire liberal mantra of “cycle of poverty” completely cuts against your claim.
I’m not complaining that it’s grossly discriminatory because of its age provisions. What if this child is unable to enter college for financial or intellectual reasons, and is unwilling to sacrifice his life for some stupid wars in Iraq or Afghanistan? That’s the gross part of the discrimination. They purposely plucked out the most politically “cute” group of people to help out without having the balls to help all of them out.
And on what planet is some 16 year old who “grew up in” America any more or less American than some guy who comes here as a 30 year old who has been here for the same amount of time and has assimilated to the same degree?
Ugh suckered in again.
Fine. Are you saying society shouldn’t try to help those kids? Or what the fuck is your point?
And as for your other screed. Primary socialization happens in youth, not in adulthood. lrn2 sociology.
No. This is what I’m saying. I’ll lay it out very clearly:
-
It is completely unfair to set up in this bill a requirement that the kid either enroll in college or the military (and, incidentally, completely neuters your “punishing the child” argument) - it’s especially unfair to do so given the impetus for this was political expediency (I can only assume, because the alternative, that they truly want either the brains or the bodies to immigrate to this country under the guise of “doing the right thing” is unsavory). I said upthread that I wouldn’t be angry if they passed it, but i’m not exactly crying that they didn’t - because of the way it was tailored to discriminate in the name of politics.
-
The claim in post #3 that “most people who complain about illegal immigrants don’t really want anybody to be here legally either.” is complete and utter bullshit, as a response to the OP. Sage Rat (rather inartfully) tried to explain why that was, xenophon41’s response was a thinly-veiled attack on anyone who had an issue with the result of this bill, I corrected his reading of Sage’s post, and away we went.
So now you have a problem with our current naturalization rules? You are aware we’re making Americans out of people who aren’t socialized to American society (at least as a Sociology textbook defines it)?!?!
Ultimately, as you noted in your analogy of the children of bank robbers, the US does not have a legal obligation, or arguably even a moral obligation, to help expand the opportunities and status of those who came to the US illegally as children. However, even with unemployment fairly high, there is always a need for smart, hardworking and dedicated individuals. The bill does not require these particular illegal immigrants to go to a four-year college, even a community college will do. In addition, many scholarships, particularly private ones, do not take into account an individual’s immigration status. Further, some states, such as California, allows for in-state tuition for students who graduated from California high schools and lived in California for at least a year but do not have US citizenship or a green card.
Regarding the military aspect of the act, again, the US does not owe these particular immigrants a debt, so there is no moral problem with the US requiring that the immigrants give something in return for a temporary legal status. Illegal immigrants cannot join the military, yet the military is one of the primary ways that people who cannot otherwise pay for college have access to a college degree after completing their active duty service obligation. If the individuals don’t want to risk dying in Iraq or Afghanistan, they can join the Coast Guard, or mitigate the risk substantially by joining the Air Force or Navy.
The person who came to the US illegally when they were 30 can always go back to their country of origin and do whatever it is they did for work before. The person who came to the US illegally (with their parents or relatives) when they were 10 cannot go back to their country of origin and expect to somehow survive. Depending on how many years have passed and what age they came to the US, those children may not even know or remember their native language.
So John, explain how that first sentence in post #2 is the thing that “[derailed] the entire discussion” unaided. Or better yet, offer a reasonable position on the legislation or on its chances for reintroduction in the 112th Congress.
Seriously, if you’re upset about the direction of the thread, help get us back on track with a good faith argument or canny political observation. Unlike some interlocutors in this thread, you’re capable of better stuff than pedantic objections to throw away insults.
To the extent that your entire post justifies why certain types of illegals are more deserving of our largesse than others, I’d just as soon care to not make those type of value judgments. That’s pretty much my entire point.
(I will, however, point out that your quips about community college don’t exactly help your argument: at that point, since they “only” have to go to CC, we’re note even interested in smart, highly educated workers who can help the economy even with double-digit inflation - we’re interested in those who are economically fortunate enough to prop up our education system by paying rack rate, or those who look and sound good as a political sales job)
Further perspective undocumented students would be granted a conditional status for 6 years to get a degree. Having a status could open up doors for financial aid such as the FAFSA. Which would make it fair for all children of immigrants.
According to wikipedia (FWthat’sW) S. 3992: Does not repeal the ban on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act does not force states to charge in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act does not allow illegal immigrants to gain access to Federal Pell Grants and other financial aid.
What you would care to do is irrelevant if you can’t argue why others should share your view. Both mass amnesty and mass deportation of illegal immigrants are either not politically feasible or are physically and financially impossible. So, if a middle ground is to be reached, the Democrats’ likely thinking went, then the most politically feasible and most deserving of illegal immigrants to offer legalization to, would be those who did not choose to come to the US as adults and likely cannot return to their country of origin because they have probably already assimilated in the US.
Further, offering some illegal immigrants a path to legalization is not largesse if they must offer something in return, such as getting a high school degree or equivalent and entering college or the military. That’s a bargained-for exchange. By requiring these steps, this makes it much more likely that the individuals will be productive, self-supporting members of society, if not actively giving something back to the US such as being a service member.
Political issues are all about value judgments. If problems are to be solved, or at least somewhat addressed, politicians have to make some type of value judgments. Whether they are the correct ones given any alternatives is something you must justify if you are arguing against it.
I did not make any “quips” about community college, I was only referencing it after you raised the issue that college was a significant financial hurdle. Again, since the US does not owe a debt to these particular type of illegal immigrants, the US is under no obligation to see that they have more opportunities than do other Americans who are similarly-economically situated. These illegal immigrants can still apply for scholarships, work side jobs and save up for college, or join the military (under the Act).
Except to those who are incapable of making the bargain, either because of finances (and I’m not talking (ed: just) positive financing of college, either - their family may depend on that person’s income to sustain them), intellect, or self-preservation.
What if you said “ok, you can become legal so long as you agree to work for the federal government, unpaid, for a period of 5 years?” (ignore the various Constitutional issues here. would you still insist it’s “bargained for”? Offering a hand out to people who are incapable of negotiating with you isn’t exactly bargaining for anything, in fact it’s the definition of “adhesion”.
sure. and the Democrats couldn’t justify it, apparently.
Ok, Camus. Let me ask you this:
would you have an issue with a bill that provided a path to legalization to all “illegal children” (for lack of a better term, I’m not intending to bias the hypo) regardless of whether they decided to go to college or enlist, so long as they didn’t become a government charge (i.e. no welfare, i.e. by definition are adding to the economy) and so long as they met moral/criminality standards?
if not, why? if you’re arguing that there needs to be a quid pro quo.
if yes, why do you think it’s acceptable to cart out DREAM in its (failed) state?
It’s pretty simple - anything larger in scope than the Dream Act was not even politically feasible. That the Dream Act advanced so far shows that it was feasible, but not passable. But again, the US did not create the legal or economic situation that these particular illegal immigrants find themselves in. If an individual’s family absolutely cannot survive without that individual supporting them full-time economically - or that individual does not have the intellect and/or dedication necessary for just two years of college - then that individual under the Act can always join the military. The odds of an individual service member dying in Afghanistan or particularly Iraq now are slim. The odds are closer to zero if that person is an airman or sailor. The odds of a service member dying in either of those places if they are in the Coast Guard are zero (though, to be fair, I do know of one active-duty service member in the Coast Guard who recently served in Afghanistan, though he was serving in an Army JAG billet).
Agreed. They barely even made a half-hearted attempt to sell it to the American people or defend it editorially in newspapers or tv.
Okay fine.
- The people complain about an uptick in phrogging.
- The government suggests legalizing some forms of phrogging.
- The people complain that that’s stupid and have the suggestion dismissed.
- How hypocritical of the people! They didn’t really want phrogging rates lowered now, did they?
Not backed up by stats really. Their intergenerational performance is much worse, which is why reducing their immigration is a good idea.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjQ4N2EyMTQ4NzZjZmNlOWQwN2RiNTZjMWZiZDY4YzQ=
And, so far as I’m aware, the Irish came over legally. And so far as I’m aware, no one has any complaint with Mexicans who immigrated legally. There’s less hostility towards legal immigrants these days than there was when the Irish first came over.
I have yet to hear anyone say, “Let’s end legal immigration.”
- Some people complain about an uptick in illegal aliens
- Some legislators suggest providing temporary legal status and a path toward legal citizenship for some minors technically guilty of illegal residence.
- Some people say “we told you we don’t want no illegals!” and slightly less than half of the elected legislators block a vote on the proposed legislation.
- Draw your own conclusion about the real desires of the people who see a large wetback problem in their backyard.
So basically, it’s impossible for people to just complain about illegal activity. Obviously they’re only complaining because they’re racist. There’s no possibility that they couldn’t give a rats ass about race, applaud people who immigrated legally, but yet want to preserve the rule of law?