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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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???
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!”
Should the children of bank robbers be able to benefit from their parents’ ill-gotten gain?
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.
Can anyone answer this question for me?
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”.
Well put.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?