<p>“Do you really think that his mother chose to have a medical disability and chose to be poor?”</p>
<p>I believe the mother chose to emigrate to the US to take advantage of the array of government assistance here. Her gamble certainly paid off.</p>
<p>“He’s a US citizen. Are you contending that ALL US citizens who attend public schools ought to reimburse the state the cost of their education?”</p>
<p>No, under current laws, no. Public school is paid for, in part, by taxes.</p>
<p>Then why should this US citizen be treated differently from all other US citizens?</p>
<p>Re post #101: Are you saying you believe the Korean mother planned to have her husband abandon her 3+ years after she immigrated, after the birth of her second child?</p>
<p>“Then why should this US citizen be treated differently from all other US citizens?”</p>
<p>Is he a US citizen? The article didn’t say. I wasn’t commenting on his public schooling, I was commenting on the fact that his family had received public assistance for a very long time, and that apparently (according to the article) neither he nor his mother worked, and his father hadn’t been supporting the family.</p>
<p>“Re post #101: Are you saying you believe the Korean mother planned to have her husband abandon her 3+ years after she emigrated, after the birth of her second child?”</p>
<p>I wonder why she didn’t move back to her family in South Korea? Not North Korea…South.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This is starting to sound positively Dickensian. Clearly you’ve been reading way too much Nozick and not enough Rawls! The assistance that Lloyd received was the same free public K-12 education given to everyone, and very basic food and shelter (in the form of TANF and, I’m guessing, subsidized low income housing). I’m going to guess that you’re okay with educating him (since he IS a citizen). And as you would be okay with housing him and feeding him in foster care, I’m not sure why you have a problem with the limited largesse that his family has received from the state. That sort of very basic investment in human potential shouldn’t be all that controversial. I can see an argument about whether Lloyd’s mother should continue to receive aid now that the kids are gone, but I can’t see a good argument for leaving the care of indigent children up to private charitable impulses. That said, Lloyd’s Harvard FA and Gates scholarship are examples of exactly the sort of aid you advocate, so I would think that you should see Lloyd’s story as an example of all that is good, rather than something to criticize.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The article says he was born three years after his mother arrived in the US. So yes, he is a US citizen. We have not yet done away with birthright citizenship.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Speculation. Plus, she wouldn’t have gotten in on her own if she were not a skilled worker or something considered desirable, though she could have come as a spouse of the husband she once had.</p>
<p>In any case, neither the US nor South Korea has generous government assistance for poor families compared to other OECD countries. In the US, it is 0.85% of GDP (0.69% national); in South Korea, it is 0.5% of GDP. The OECD average is 2.2%. Immigrants are not likely to be coming to the US looking for welfare.</p>
<p>“Lloyd’s Harvard FA and Gates scholarship are examples of exactly the sort of aid you advocate,”</p>
<p>You are correct there.</p>
<p>Dickensian? No, just not a fan of big government and people being on public assistance for 18 years. As you might have guessed, I’m no liberal, and our discussion won’t change my mind, nor do I expect to change yours. California is running huge deficits ($20 billion not too long ago…) largely due to runaway spending. People are leaving California (and heading for Texas) because they are overtaxed and over-regulated. While Lloyd’s story has a happy ending for him and his family, it’s not possible to replicate this by the millions without California becoming bankrupt.</p>
<p>“We have not yet done away with birthright citizenship.”</p>
<p>…but we should…</p>
<p>I guess you knew I would say that, right?? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>Jus soli citizenship prevents a lot of problems from showing up, like a multigenerational permanent resident non-citizen underclass that tends to show up in countries without jus soli citizenship.</p>
<p>mimimom, it’s not the “state’s” job to invest in anybody? Says who? Even my extreme right-wing governor (WI) supports jobs-training programs. Of course, he is the reason our state is near the bottom in job creation, and he wants to privatize everything else…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually Harvard does have a small scholarship which provides IIRC $200 for winter clothing (in addition to the regular FA).</p>
<p>We can now go back to our regular programming.</p>
<p>There was very little government welfare in the US 100 years ago…Most immigrants would have qualified for today’s welfare quite easily. Are you really turning what this boy has accomplished into a duty of his to pay back the state of California? Do you really believe this boy’s family came to the US 21 years ago to receive welfare? Wow, just wow.</p>
<p>We can’t discuss immigration, or citizenship, without discussing government assistance. Too many people abuse birthright citizenship for the benefits offered by the US.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m not a FAN of anyone having to receive government assistance for 18 years. Clearly, it’s far from ideal. At the same time, I do think that the state should support indigent children until they reach the age of majority. I also think that the cheapest way to do this, and the one that has the best results (in terms of turning out adults who are able to support themselves) is, in most cases, to support children in the families to which they were born or by which they were adopted. This means that we have to support some adults for longer than we might like to, but that is preferable to creating even more wards of the state. It’s not ideal, but it is the better option.</p>
<p>mimi: Again, the cost is minimal compared with corporate welfare and policies that benefit the rich. Your umbrage might be better directed at those issues.</p>
<p>“mimimom, it’s not the “state’s” job to invest in anybody? Says who? Even my extreme right-wing governor (WI) supports jobs-training programs.”</p>
<p>Well, at least he’s making welfare contingent on joining those job training programs!</p>
<p>“mimi: Again, the cost is minimal compared with corporate welfare and policies that benefit the rich. Your umbrage might be better directed at those issues.”</p>
<p>Oh, I have plenty of umbrage for corporate welfare…and the military industrial complex. Check out my posts a few back. I mentioned it. The middle class is being taxed out of existence to support a government that’s way too big.</p>