From the Roanoke Times:
The failure of the DREAM Act will rob America of the contribution of high-achieving immigrants who grew up in this land of opportunity.
The lame-duck session of the 111th Congress was anything but lame, passing significant legislation to end, at last, the military’s senseless and discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, and seeing ratification of an important nuclear arms treaty.
Despite unpredicted last-minute successes, though, President Obama couldn’t help lamenting the one that got away: the DREAM Act, which passed in the House but died in the Senate on a procedural vote.
In the absence of reasonable immigration reform, the DREAM Act at least offered a piecemeal fix for dealing fairly with some of the children of illegal immigrants in a way that would serve the interests of the country.
Those children, brought to the U.S. as minors through no choice of their own, would have had a path to citizenship opened to them, provided they had stayed out of trouble, had lived continuously in this country for at least five years, had graduated from an American high school and were willing to serve two years in the military or attend at least two years of college.
In other words, if they were high achievers who had the makings of good citizens of the country of their childhood, the country that is their home and that could benefit greatly from their contributions.
They are Americans in every sense except legal status, and cannot in good conscience be blamed for the illegal action that leaves them without a country they can call their own.
Republicans and a handful of Democrats denied them this dream for fear of offending a portion of the electorate so hostile to undocumented immigrants that reasonable immigration reforms cannot even be debated.
No one exemplifies this craven political cowardice more than Sen. John McCain, once a sponsor of the DREAM Act, who voted against it — according to one friend, because he felt betrayed by Hispanic-American voters who deserted him for Obama in the 2008 presidential race.
If so, McCain validated their choice with an appalling show of ego-driven temper — particularly intemperate since he had done the abandoning. In tacking hard right in pursuit of his party’s nomination, he came out against his own immigration reform bill as well as the DREAM Act during the primary.
Obama called its failure “maybe my biggest disappointment,” and promised to pursue broader immigration reform in the next Congress.
With a Republican majority in the House and a stronger GOP presence in the Senate, both eager to deny him a second term, Obama’s optimism sounds wishful. But he has shown that hope for good governance is not always in vain.
Thanks to Big Dog for bringing this editorial to our attention.
This piece pretty much sums up the feelings of the administration of this blog. What a waste of American resources, just to get politically ‘even.’ Kids who have overcome all odds–the odds of living in poverty, of overcoming language barriers, of coming from a home often plagued by illiteracy–have somehow managed to be successful in school. Any one of those draw backs reduce the chances of a kid being successful academically. These children of illegal immigrants, , who by some miraculous fate have managed to do what many American as apple pie kids fail to do–graduate at the top of their class have once again been kicked in the teeth.
These kids are surivors however. The very fact that there is a Dream Act says they are a cut above. The real loser in all this will be America. Every day one of these kids isn’t attending an American college or serving in our military is a day where we have squandered an investment already bought and paid for by the American taxpayers.
“the military’s senseless and discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy”
Not about the Dream Act, but I couldn’t let this pass….it wasn’t the MILITARy”S policy. It was the CIVILIAN imposed policy. The military has no policies not approved by civilian oversight.
As for the Dream Act, just had a thought…..isn’t this discriminatory against illegal immigrant children, that through no fault of their own, might not be academically gifted to go to college, or be able to join the military? If a bill must be passed, why not help ALL OF THE CHILDREN?
And make it for the children. I can’t imagine such a bill taking more than a few pages to write. Leave out the unverifiable time limits, the increase of eligibility to 35, etc and just write a bill legalizing the status of the children illegal immigrants. THAT’S what they wanted to happen. Write THAT bill and lets debate it. Then, of course, if that’s passed, we can’t separate the families so, we’ll have to legalize the status of their parents…..
Time limits can be verified through school records.
This is for children who do the right thing. If they don’t do the right thing, then they aren’t included. Not everyone gets to go to college.
It isn’t just about a status adjustment. It is about allowing them to enter a 4 year college. They are prevented from doing so currently at the federal level and in most states.
The bill has been written and the bill has been debated. That is just an excuse not to pass it. Nothing else needs to be said about it.
Good point MH – this is for children and their parents who have done the wrong thing for the right reasons. Anyone that comes to this country and doesn’t make their child learn to read and write English asap did not come here for their children. IMHO.
Thanks for posting this editorial. Very well put. And I like what I see here so far. I’m new to the neighborhood, but found it through Eric Byler. I look forward to reading more.
Welcome, Irenicum. We are glad you are here. Eric is an old friend, for sure. We thank him for steering you in our direction.
And I pass the thanks about the editorial along to Big Dog who sicced me on it.
Agree totally with Irenicum…very well thought out piece and MH’s commentary on it very well said. Happy New Year!
Juturna, I would say the children are totally innocent. They had to do what their parents wanted them to do. The parents…that’s another story. But I don’t espouse the sins of the father mentality. These are basically kids without a country. I want to cash in on our resources.
All children are innocent. I’ve seen too much of what ‘parents’ to do kids. It’s unbelievable.
Moon, just a pondering as I read your commentary on the piece. The description of the children raised in poverty and issues with home life, reminds me of growing up in the South, and the struggles some of my African American classmates had. Different year, different culture, different ethnic group, but same issues.
On a side note, tucked into the Defense Bill was also looking at closing the Dept of Defense Schools on military bases throughout the South, especially VA, NC, SC, GA, AL and MS. The whole purpose they were established on bases back then was because the Services were integrated, the surrounding communities not so. I know from talking with one of the folks over at PWCS Administration that the closing of Quantico and Belvoir is not going to be as large an impact as say the schools at Camp Lejeune in NC.
Maybe looking back to the days and lessons of the Civil Rights Era is the way the folks in Congress should take this approach. Granted, the DREAM Act focused on college and I addressed elementary through high school, but I can recall the issues at colleges in the South was the same.
I had no idea that the Dept of Defense Schools were created because of segregation. That is a real eye opener. Thanks for sharing that, Raymond.
Maybe that is the way to look at it.
The Dream Act is something I feel very strongly about. No one is asking anyone to pay for anything…just allow enrollment. It makes me sad to think of all those students I have seen marching in their ROTC units…to know some of them will not be allowed to join the service…through no fault of their own.
There is a meaness in this kind of denial that I cannot deal with.
Think of the hundreds of thousands of criminals we didn’t give an engraved invitation to because of chain migration! If the Dream Act allowed citizenship for those kids, and not everyone in their extended, far-flung families as well, it wouldn’t have been a problem. But because the ultimate goal is to completely flood our welfare rolls with millions of chain-migrated family members, you get “mean meanies”.
Sorry for interrupting your little liberal echo-chamber, here!
The DREAM Act as written was mostly about chiopping away further at our government’s ability to deport anyone. It would lead to a cottage industry of Spanish-language “schools” and “students”.
Horse crap.
@Cargosquid
I’m with you CS on the ” military’s senseless and discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy”. Folks still think we make up these things on our own, totally forgetting that the military is controlled by civilians and that those braod reaching policies were designed by civilians.
As to the DREAM act–I have mixed feelings about the whole thing–much like watching your favorite in-law drive over the cliff in your new car. If allowing one of these kids to displace someone who is here legally or who is a citizen is to be the case, then I am absolutely against it. If allowing these kids to displace a “legal” person in the queue for student loans/assistance, then I am against it. I have very similar feelings about children born here who are children of illegal immigrants. I am reasonably certain this was not the intention of the 14th Amendment. We don’t offer citizenship to children of diplomats, why do we offer it to children of illegal immigrants. And anyone who wishes to answer this, please don’t give me the “sins of the father” argument–the parents are here illegally–that is the key–the child should have no higher status than the parent.
There is no easy answer for these stateless people, if there was then it would have been “fixed” a long time ago.
I guess I fall in the ‘liberal’ echo here…. The follow up should be the schools should include english as a readiness criteria. That can’t be done at the local level.
I will say just to add to the liberal label, being from the Northeast, I’ve heard some conversations around here that I would swear were not in english. Caint nobody learn ’em to talk good english…………..” Also, to be fair is my personal favorite – “A-ight”. If I were a teacher I don’t know what I’d do.
My parents are from New England, I grew up and the South, and went 3/4s around the world with the Army.
I speak four languages and speak English the goodest 🙂
Outside of finance and achievement I don’t think any law bars an illegal immigrant from enrolling and attending a private college/university.
So, they might not be able to go to Mason (public/government) but Stratford University as a private school can accept them. Right?
So, if that’s the case…. Why does the govt have to take an action one way or the other?
The educational free market seems to be working it out for us.
“So, if that’s the case…. Why does the govt have to take an action one way or the other?”
They don’t, and they won’t.
Why do the Democrats keep using their elected office to play games with this issue? Because they want to manipulate the Latino voters of America, want to get them in their pocket the way they have gotten 90% of the African-American vote through concerted efforts to paint the GOP as “racist”. If they can succeed at this, it helps them in elections at the cost of further polarizing America.
Too bad we have demonized immigration reform to the point that
we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.
To be clear, my primary interest isn’t the “plight” of immigrants,
but what is in the long term best interest of our country. We can and
must be selective, but it isn’t in our national best interest to slam the door
in the face of well qualified people.
With Sarah Palin at the helm, Democrats will continue to be the party of welcome. And not just from minorities either. Minorities are that minorities. Obama won because of the white vote.
As a Democrat I don’t view the Republican party as racist. I do see that a segment of the Republican Party has attempted to corner morals, define them then attempt to slam them down our throats. Just like the allegations that Michelle Obama is shoving nutrition down our throats (I like that)
I liken them to the segment of the Democratic party that is so far left that they are simply benevolent autocrats slamming socialism down our throats.
Most here are neither.
Totally agree with Big Dog. Totally.
And after that…I think if any of the nay-sayers ever knew any of these students to whom door is permanently closed, you might take a different look at things. There is nothing like looking someone in the face, hearing their perfect, often accent-free voices, to make a believer out of you. Remember, no one is asking for money or anything else. Just entrance permission.
Marin, government rules are what is barring them from attending now. And in fairness, immigration and all its loopholes IS the business of our government.
I go back to the fact that to not allow good students entrance into college is squandering our natural resources. The same thing can be said of allowing military service.
And beyond squandering, it is just plain mean. Forget the chain gangs. They are here anyway. Being related is such BS. Has it worked for Twinad? She was just here. Ask her.
That is just some crap someone told you all to say. In reality, it doesn’t happen. Not these days so let’s scratch that from the list of reasons to justify being hateful.
@Moon-howler
“Marin, government rules are what is barring them from attending now. And in fairness, immigration and all its loopholes IS the business of our government.”
Govt rules bar attendance in private schools as well? Are you sure about that? That doesn’t seem to make sense as I think that goes beyond the scope of government.
I think that the federales can say no federal dollars for an illegal but they can’t tell Harvard to not admit an illegal if Harvard wanted to do it and waive tuitition.
@Marin, no I never said that they were barred from private schools. I said that the the government was the reason they can’t enroll in 4 years colleges, or at least that is what I intended to say.
I am not sure what the rules say about private schools. The point is, how many people of legal Americans can afford private college? Not too many.
I hate to be picky, but could you please use the term illegal as an adjective? Thanks!
Then I don’t think I see an issue here or atleast one that requires govt intervention. Harvard with it’s endowment could for example take a stand and enroll any illegal alien they wanted without cost to the illegal alien and provide them a 4 year private education.
The govt would be without recourse to stop them.
Or, nothing stops people from collectively donating to some fund to provide monies to illegal alien students to attend private schools and obtain schooling.
I guess if the issue here is education ——– what’s the problem? A path exists. Why complicate things with a law riddled with loopholes and carveouts? Why rush to pass bad laws?
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the 2010 DREAM Act. I think what they are present barred from doing is applying for federal/state loans/grants, etc. Am not so certain that they can’t go to a four year school now. Of course it may have to be a private school but I am not certain about that either.
2010
The 111th Congress continued to consider the DREAM Act bill throughout 2010. S.3992, a new version of the DREAM Act, includes numerous changes to address concerns raised about the bill. Among other things, S. 3992:
1.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.
1.Lowers the age cap for eligibility for the DREAM Act to 29 on the date of enactment. Additionally, in order to be eligible, individuals still must have come to the U.S. as a child (15 or under), graduated from a U.S. High School (or received a GED from a U.S. institution) and be a long-term resident (at least 5 years). An earlier version of the DREAM Act (S. 1545 in the 108th Congress), authored by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and cosponsored by Senator John McCain, did not include any age cap. This bill was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee on a 16-3 vote.
2.Does not grant legal immigrant status to anyone for at least 2 years. Previous versions of the DREAM Act would have immediately granted legal immigrant status to individuals who met the bill’s requirements. Under S. 3992, an individual could obtain “conditional nonimmigrant” status if he proves that he meets the age (currently 29 or under and arrived in the U.S. at 15 or under) and residency requirements (5 years or more) and:
1.Has graduated from an American high school or obtained a GED;
2.Has been a person of “good moral character,” as determined by the Department of Homeland Security, from the date the individual initially entered the U.S. (previous versions of the DREAM Act only required an individual to be a person of good moral character from the date of the bill’s enactment);
3.Submits biometric information;
4.Undergoes security and law-enforcement background checks;
5.Undergoes a medical examination; and
6.Registers for the Selective Service.
3.Further limits eligibility for conditional nonimmigrant status by specifically excluding anyone who:
1.Has committed one felony or three misdemeanors;
2.Is likely to become a public charge;
3.Has engaged in voter fraud or unlawful voting;
4.Has committed marriage fraud;
5.Has abused a student visa;
6.Has engaged in persecution; or
7.Poses a public health risk.
4.Gives a conditional non-immigrant the chance to earn legal immigrant status only after 2 years and only if he meets the DREAM Act’s college or military service requirements, and other requirements, e.g., pays back taxes and demonstrates the ability to read, write, and speak English and demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, principles, and form of government of the United States.
5.Further limits “chain migration.” DREAM Act individuals would have very limited ability to sponsor family members for U.S. citizenship. They could never sponsor extended family members and they could not begin sponsoring parents or siblings for at least 12 years. Parents and siblings who entered the U.S. illegally would have to leave the country for ten years before they could gain legal status and the visa backlog for siblings is decades long.
6.Specifically excludes non-immigrants from the health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. Conditional non-immigrants also would be ineligible for Medicaid, Food Stamps and other entitlement programs.
7.Establishes a one-year application deadline. An individual would be required to apply for conditional nonimmigrant status within one year of obtaining a high school degree or GED, being admitted to college, or the bill’s date of enactment.
8.Requires anyone applying for the DREAM Act to show that he is likely to qualify in order to receive a stay of deportation while his application is pending. The DREAM Act is not a safe harbor from deportation.
9.Requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide information from an individual’s DREAM Act application to any federal, state, tribal, or local law enforcement agency, or intelligence or national security agency in any criminal investigation or prosecution or for homeland security or national security purposes.
10.Places the burden of proof on a DREAM Act applicant. An individual would be required to demonstrate eligibility for the DREAM Act by a preponderance of the evidence.
(Additionally, individuals would continue to be excluded if they have received a final order of deportation, have engaged in criminal activity (as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act), or present a national security or terrorist threat.)
The DREAM Act, along with a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2011. On September 21, 2010, the Senate filibuster of the bill was maintained in a 56-43 vote; it would have taken 60 votes to stop the filibuster and continue the progress of the bill.[33] The following day, Durbin introduced the bill once again along with Richard Lugar. Only two senators cosponsored the bill and it was defeated again.[34] Less than a month later, on November 16, President Barack Obama and top Democrats pledged to introduce the Dream Act into the House by November 29.[35] The House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act in December 2010,[36] but the Senate did not, failing to have enough votes (55 yays – 41 nays).[37]
Of course, the DREAM Act covered adults too. THAT was its purpose,, otherwise, why have it apply to those as old as 35?
If the Democrats OR Republicans want to address this issue, they can write a bill that addresses the problem of the CHILDREN. Probably in 5 pages or less….
On second thought, I think illegal immigrant students can go to state schools, but must pay out of state tuition. What’s wrong with that? After all–they are not from any state.
@George,
They are very much residents of a state if they have gone through school within that state. They have paid sales tax and someone has paid property tax for where they have lived. People have a TIN so they can pay income and state tax.
I see no reason for them to pay out of state tuition. In VA, if they have lived here more than a year, then are considered in-state.
Just had a thought…
If the people are ID’d as illegal aliens, why are they not deported? I mean, why should the student have any problems attending school? Obviously their parents are using illegal ID and getting away with being here long enough for them to attend school for over 5 years…..
Why should they be “outed” as an illegal alien? And if they are, why haven’t the proper authorities picked them up?
@Cargo
The parents can use a government issued TIN which allows them to pay taxes. They do not necessarily have to use illegal ID.
Cargo, have you ever known an illegal immigrant or the child of an illegal immigrant? I seriously would love to introduce you to one or two I have known, let you talk to the young adult, and you tell me you still want to pick them up and deport them? An English speaking student with good grades and good behavior?
Do all Tea Party People want to squander American resources?
I don’t have an issue with illegal alien (children) paying an in-state rate if they meet the criteria for in-state rates. I understand that those in-state rates are subsudized by state taxes but on the whole I think that a good portion of those taxes are paid for by working illegal aliens.
I do not support taxpayer funded loans or financial instruments to allow illegal aliens to goto a public or private school. If they can secure funding on their own, gain admission and do the coursework I have no issue with a degree being granted sans citizenship.
Hrm. There appears to be a flaw in my logic on #33.
http://www.cis.org/feere/california-instate-tuition-ruling
Meaning, an illegal alien could get more preference than a resident of Maryland wanting to goto a Virginia school. Stuff gives me a headache (again shows unintended consequence).
So, seeing that I would withdraw support of “in-state tuition” and leave it to the school to determine tuition cost. With a public school I would – by default – go with out-of-state tuition as the cost to be charged to the illegal alien student.
I dislike proving myself wrong. 😉
Why are we even arguing about this? Democrats have had a majority since 2006 and could have passed this at any time they wanted, they chose not to because it obviously wasn’t important to them. They lost the majority in congress and NOW all of the sudden it’s blow up into such a HUGE deal that we are squandering American resources?
Is anyone else’s BS detector going off?
Why would you make a Virginia resident pay out of state tuition? That student has lived here and been educated here. He or she is more entitled to VA perks than a Maryland student who has paid nothing in to the VA tax system. (in theory)
I know you have looked into the faces of kids I am talking about. You want to be the one to tell a kid who has spent 4 years at a ROTC cadet he/she can’t join the military? How about that his sister can’t go to any college but NOVA even though she has a 3.99 GPA and speaks better English than most of her classmates.
Some issues I have with the DREAM Act (which isn’t going to ever pass so I honestly don’t know why I’m even bothering):
The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This would unfairly spread the cost of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for amnesty.
The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application.
“The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or criminal record”
“Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible.”
“The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty”
“the bill does not require aliens to join the U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services.” This means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the “uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the military service requirement can be waived altogether.”
“Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration”
Yes, I will explain to them the reality of the system from the perspective of a 1st generation latino (with a 1.1 GPA)
The founding fathers were elitists. There is all sorts of hog wash going around that that wanted this and that for the common man. Half right. Actually, if that were true there would be no electoral college and the 17th amendment wouldn’t be necessary.
Having said that, regardless of the intent of the founding fathers, which irks the crap out of me also because there are no founding mothers, this country is built on an unspoken concept that it doesn’t matter who your parents are or were. If you work hard and stay out of trouble then the sky is the limit. That’s one of the reasons we have no royalty in this country. I guess that concept of working hard and doing the right thing is not applied to children of illegal immigrants?
I see a lot of spare change going around to kick kids in the teeth. Let’s see…the Dream Act failed, twice. There is strong argument going on to amend the 14th amendment in order to do away with birthright citizenship.
Sorta makes me wonder how genuine some of the right to life mantra really is. I see some of the same folks doing a lot of kicking around of kids.
I suppose the most concerning part of the DREAM Act is that it will be a tool used by anyone in this country illegally to stay for possibly YEARS no matter how old they are or what crimes they have been convicted of.
The bill FORBIDS DHS from removing ANYONE who has an application pending no matter what crimes they have been convicted of or their age.
@Hello
That simply is not true. What are you smoking? One of the requirements is being of good moral character. Better still, prove it from the actual bill, not some hog wash someone has regurgitated.
what hello said. Concise and accurate.
It’s a bill written by the crooked villians in Congress to chip away at our definition of legal citizenship.
If it were tailored so narrow as to only affect assimilated young people who were legitimately qualified for college, it might pass but would not fulfill the larger purpose of being a wedge aimed at making law enforcement more difficult.
@Rick, then someone should have the stones to amend it to do just that. I have seen no diabolical plot.
And speaking of birthright citizenship, it’s abpout time that We The People had a say in that … http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/14-states-may-target-birthright-citizenship
@Moon-howler
Ah–but paying taxes does not make one a legal immigrant/citizen–it simply means they are a tax payer. They actually are stateless in that they are here illegally even if they had no choice. If it was that easy MH, this would have been solved a long time ago.
@hello
Hello- you need to read what the act is actually about–please see my #27. I say this because I don’t find any of what you are saying in the stuff I posted.
There is strong argument going on to amend the 14th amendment in order to do away with birthright citizenship.
Again, misconstrued. The argument is to CLARIFY whether or not the children of illegal immigrants are citizens, not amend the 14th. The 14th, and subsequent SCOTUS cases, say nothing about the citizenship of illegal immigrants. There has been NO cases before ANY court. They are being treated as DEFACTO citizens.
As to confronting these students, why have their parents been allowed to stay so long that their children are culturally indistinguishable from Americans. And I also include those NOT born here. If they are using a TIN, what ID did they give the government to get that? EVERYBODY has to use ID as some time?
Because these kids (which, according to the DREAM Act, included adults) are going to have to return with their parents, we should just ignore any illegal aliens in the country? Where do we draw the line?
Do I feel sorry for these kids? Yes. That’s why I favor a hard line against illegal aliens so that they do not stay here long enough for their children to be acclimatized.
Either we follow the immigration laws, or we do not. If we want them to stay, then make a simple law that says so and get it passed. Nothing prevented Congress from doing this for the last 6 years. Bush was pro-amnesty. And there’s no reason why it couldn’t have been done during the last two.
It’ll be interesting to see how this 14th amendment ‘clarification’ goes.. For example I was born in Washington DC from a father who was of legal status and my mother was not of status. Years after my birth she was legalized.
As a full legal citizen (I think I’m still technically an anchor baby…woohoo!) I can do a few things. Go to a state school (if my grades/money could warrant it), serve in the military or hold a clearance (another problem with DREAM…non US citizens can’t hold a clearance and more MOS’s are being transitioned to hold at least a SECRET).
So, while I in no way represent all latinos (or even some) if we change the rules (or clarify them) do we risk losing someone like me that works to support this great nation? If that’s the cost; we just need to make sure that we fully appreciate it.
It’s a big ugly problem but I think we might have to have a public debate on it..
@Cargosquid
I think our point is well taken. Perhaps a case needs to be brought to the SCOTUS once again–to attempt to clarify the meaning of the citizenship clause.
@Moon-howler
Moon–The founding fathers didn’t write the 14th Amendment–it came some 80 years later. The issue of “citizenship” probably didn’t cross their mind and was not an issue for many years. People came here, put down roots and were “citizens”. States regulated naturalization but this changed in 1890 when the federal government took over and established the Commissioner of Immigration in 1891. This “thing” about citizenship and what constitutes it has banged around for more than 100 years, which tells me it ain’t easy to fix.
The DREAM Act doesn’t really go far enough. We need to make it more like the Amnesty bills that Kennedy, Obama, McCain used to frame the debate in 2006/2007, Obama’s health care approach, and our everyone’s-a-victim mentality in general. So let’s attack the problem this way :
Let the kids who aren’t legal residents go to college as they see fit, and if they can’t pay (out-of-state) tuition, let the government pay for it. The less the child can afford, the more that the burden will be borne by the Federal Government.
The Fed will mandate that the proportion of students who are, technically, “illegal” is proportional to if not greater than the proportion of non-resident youth in the population at large. This will create a demand for qualified, or even marginally qualified, non-legal students and colleges will actually end up competing over them and funding their education via scholorship programs.
To compensate for the extent that this makes tuition rise for the rest of the students, we need to extract money from the portion of the population who aren’t “paying in” on tuition – even though their lives would be bettered by going to college. So, mandate that every young adult under 30 must either posess a college degree or must be currently enrolled on at least a part-time basis. Now tuition rates will drop drastically. We’ll have a better educated population and a college population that reflects rather exactly the color of America.
Each student will be given a “friends and family” plan whereby they can sponsor any 10 family members or acquaintences for citizenship provided that the person can speak some English and has not committed more than 3 major felonies in any 5-year period. Students will be able to sell these friends and family passes on the open market, to raise book money or to pay for living expenses.
After this initial phase is complete, the Obama Administration can get to work of equalizing grades, and ensuring that no student is left behind at any level. Together we can build a better America, yes we can.
If the plan is not popular on its own, then there are two approaches forward :
1. Find a sponsor, as the drug companies were during health care, and extract 20 billion dollars in advertising from them to run tv commercials for this new “college reform” movement. Perhaps the colleges themselves – threaten to demonize them if they are not willing to play ball, and agree to let them spike tuition rates if they will play ball.
2. Attach the bill to something popular and of urgency, such as the next government bailout bill whereby we pump billions of dollars towards banks hoping that some will “trickle down” towards working and middle-class people.
George, I didn’t mean to imply that paying taxes made anyone a citizen. It does make someone eligible for in-state tuition, however, if they reside in Virginia a year or more. No citizenship is required–just residency.
My point was, despite the elitist founding fathers, there is a concept that has prevailed in this country about everyone being able to be all they want to be if they work hard. (common man prevails) No American is held down because of who his/her parents are. I can’t see why these kids are any different from the Irish, the Poles, the Jews, the Germans or any other group who came here during waves of mass immigration.
For many kids the residency requirement has already been established if they graduated from a Virginia high school.
Not saying founding fathers wrote the 14th. I have never said that. I have never thought that. In fact, the dude who authored it could have been anyone. Who cares what his intent was or the intent of those who passed it. Actually, it is probably safe to assume that 3/4 of various state bodies passed the 14th.
It can’t get much clearer. It says ‘born’ and it says under the jurisdiction. Illegal immigrants are under our jurisdiction the moment they come into our country.
Under the jurisdiction is what needs to be clarified. Foreign nationals ARE NOT under our jurisdiction. While we may enforce our laws on them, if they are not part of our immigration system, their home countries must be involved.
Anyone who is in this country is under our jurisdiction. Diplomats are the only people I can think of who that might not be true for. At the time the amendment was added, there were some Indian tribal exclusions but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
At any rate, new thread on this very subject.