No.
Nobody wants to make anybody join the military, AFAIK.
Really? The border isn’t an arbitrary line? Is it a natural feature, or was it drawn by God Almighty?
Crossing a line in the dust is not a malum in se crime in the same sense as murder or extortion. It’s at best malum prohibitum, & historically hasn’t even been considered a misdemeanor. Yes, borders are arbitrary, they’ve always been acknowledged as arbitrary by civilization, and anyone who doesn’t understand this has no business trying to write immigration law.
If they go through simple screening for infectious disease & make an effort to be law-abiding, sure!
This is ridiculous spite. What if you hadn’t had to go through that? Wouldn’t that be better?
Yep, the US is even more xenophobic now.
I think this ‘compromise’ completely misses the point.
The problem in need of a solution is that, while it’s a reasonable thing to deport illegal immigrants back to where they came from, an illegal who was brought here as a kid by their parents is effectively ‘from’ here, rather than the place they dimly remember from childhood. The law should recognize this in some reasonable manner. Allowing them to complete their schooling here, then deporting them “home to a place he’d never been before” (you can thank me for the earwig later) is kinder than simply deporting them, but still makes no sense.
One can debate whether age 16 is the appropriate cutoff age, but AFAIAC that’s a tweak. Maybe it should be 12 or 14 instead of 16, but other than that, what valid reason is there to be against this bill; what’s the logic behind any ‘compromise’ other than Sen. Hutchison’s fear of being primaried in a year or so?
No, the point is that the law (however badly written) is STILL the law before you can work to get it changed.
Personally, if those stipulations could be met (even at 15) GED, College Diploma, I’d say let them stay.
Do they give a timeline for how long they have to complete that list?
Yeah, and when they invented 20- and 30-year mortgages, that was a real slap in the face to everyone who’d tried (successfully or often not) to buy their own home back in the days when you had to pay for it in 5 years or so.
You have to have been here for 5 years, and you have to be under 30 years old.
I think the basis of this bill is decent, but as others have mentioned, there’s a few problems specifically with regard to age. But I don’t think this bill is the right way to address the problem. It doesn’t make sense to try to normalize people who are here illegally until we address the underlying issues of why they’re here.
The real problem, as I see it, is illegal immigration, not that I don’t want them to immigrate here, but that the very nature of it being illegal causes all kinds of other problems. I think that as long as someone is able to find work, isn’t a criminal, and isn’t going to be a drain on our society in other meaningful ways (eg, social safety nets), then isn’t that necessarily a positive benefit to our society? Ideally, I’d like to see legal immigration being a lot easier to basically just focus on those fundamental issues and stop focusing on stupid things like quotas and protecting American jobs. Hell, if they come here and stay, they BECOME and American, so it stays an American job.
Anyway, as long as immigration policy stays the way it is, this sort of bill will remain a poor idea. There are many people waiting to get into this country legally, but as long as there’s any potential benefit for breaking the law, like possibly bringing your children in illegally and ultimately getting them citizenship, it is an incentive to continue to break the law. I think kids who didn’t have a meaningful choice in whether or not to come here ought to have a fair chance at becoming a citizen, provided they aren’t a criminal or whatever, but only after we’ve addressed the real issue of immigration policy first.
Um, no. What we are talking about here is that one group of people honored the social contract and followed a convoluted, expensive set of legal rules to achieve a particular goal. Another group of people ignored that set of rules and are now being given a pass on it. Your example, such as it is, isn’t even remotely similar.
So if the social contract required you to own real property worth over $250,000 to vote, and you managed to clear that threshold just before reformist democrats passed a law waiving that requirement, you’d be pissed? And what would you do then?
The point is that those people who ‘ignored’ that set of rules were kids who really weren’t in a position to make their own decision on whether to honor the rules. If you’re a kid, and your parents move somewhere and take you along, you go. Their parents were the ones who ignored the rules. Enlightened societies don’t punish children for their parents’ crimes.
What are you on about? “And what would you do then?” Really, what answer are you fishing for here?
I oppose amnesty because it rewards the law breakers and, in effect, punishes those of us who went to the trouble and expense to follow what is supposed to be the law of the land. If you want more liberal immigration policies, then liberalize the immigration laws such that it becomes easier for people to legally enter the US.
Somebody upthread mentioned that we don’t allow children to keep stolen goods just because their parents are thieves. It was a good analogy.,
What do you think these children have “stolen?”
We don’t prosecute them either.
As these people have taken nothing it is a very poor analogy.
I don’t think you know what this word means.
Then, rather than simply sneer, why don’t you put yourself out enough to explain what you think it means?
So far, I’m clearly the bad guy in this thread, but none of you have done more than tell me my arguments are no good. You’ve made no real points of your own. I’m pretty thick skinned, but there is no point in continuing to hang around for what you all are bringing to the table. If any of you come up with more than “they’re kids!” I’ll pop back in.
That is the bravest full retreat I’ve ever seen. [takes off hat] 
I think suggesting that the children have committed no crime and in most cases know no other country is pretty convincing. Also that they would like to take affirmative steps to better themselves and become a citizen is pretty strong. I’m not seeing the downside.
It’s not that giving amnesty isn’t unfair to people who did things legally. It’s that the small degree of unfairness is far outweighed by the positive benefits of awarding citizenship to productive citizens.
It is a little unfair to people who followed the rules, but the degree of unfairness is pretty small considering that the vast majority of people subject to the DREAM Act could not have immigrated legally. And what the Act would do is allow a whole bunch of people to become ordinary income tax-paying citizens despite having been brought here as children. It’s better than either the alternative of mass deportation or of keeping an underclass of otherwise law-abiding noncitizens.