<p>I do not hold to the belief that people who break the law, criminal or civil, should receive money from the state precisely because they have broken the law. Creating an environment that condones or rewards illegal action incentives illegal action. </p>
<p>There is the argument that the children of an illegal immigrant should not be punished for the action of a parent. This is a silly argument. The fact that someone who breaks the law has a child is not a reason to grant clemency. Apply this logic to any other law and you can see why. Suppose a man decides to trespass into a farm and is, as a result, severely fined and expelled from the said farm. Should the fact that he had children nullify the punishment? Of course not.</p>
<p>Then there is the argument that we cannot secure the borders or expel every illegal immigrant. The first point is a silly one. Try to enter China without identification. And when they ask you to leave, try to stay. Say you have kids. Say you have a family. Try to enter any other moderately industrialized country in the world without any identification and see what happens. India built a fence along the entirety of the India-Bangladesh border – longer than our border with Mexico – for 0.01% of our total annual public budget.</p>
<p>The second contention – that we cannot expel every illegal immigrant – is probably a good one, and I would accept it as a true argument, though perhaps unwillingly. I don’t think we can literally send police cars across the border for 12 million people. But denying them free college money is a step in the direction of showing the rest of the world that we respect our civil law and choose to administer the law. Unsurprisingly, giving them an incentive to stay makes them stay longer.</p>
<p>That being said, if you personally are the child of an illegal immigrant and are exceptionally brilliant, there are plenty of private scholarship funds you can apply to.</p>
<p>Also, your analogy makes no sense. I hope no one is implying that we should nullify punishment to the trespasser because they have children. What many people are saying is that the children of the trespasser shouldn’t be punished for trespassing; their parents committed the crime not them.</p>
<p>@cttc Actually no, I was born in the US to parents who immigrated here legally. By making that comment, I was referring to the fact that the girl described in the video had a 4.0 gpa, indicating that she was a bright and motivated student like myself. However, I am lucky to have been awarded federal aid to pay for my education while she can’t even receive private scholarships, as most have requirements for US citizenship. All I’m saying is that it’s a pity how this debate is barring an intelligent mind from the further education that it deserves. This does not mean that I’m “an illegal and have been denied opportunities”, as you have described me to be. I do believe that stricter immigration laws should be put into place and enforced, but by completely preventing children who have grown up American in all aspects except for the county of their citizenship from receiving an education, are we really solving anything? It seems to me like we are only propagating a cycle of poverty and in opportunity. If anything, we should at least help individuals in circumstances like Maria’s to obtain citizenship so that they can eventually qualify for in-state tuition and receive an education. Just my honest thoughts on this manner. </p>
<p>The point of my Chinese example was not to show an example of a place where illegal immigration was completely eradicated; rather, it is an example of a place actively seeking to eliminate illegal immigration, to show an example of a place trying to solve a problem rather than to acquiesce with it. For instance, “To encourage people to report foreigners living illegally in China, the police is giving a 100 yuan reward to whistleblowers whose information successfully leads to an expulsion.”</p>
<p>Furthermore, the purpose of the analogy was to counter the argument that we shouldn’t punish those with children , as opposed to those without children, because they have children.</p>
<p>“A tourist in a place for three years is a resident, no??”</p>
<p>A tourist in a place for three years is a resident AND an undocumented illegal immigrant which would qualify for in-state tuition under your new Florida law, that is the problem - you would have too many of them. (if you can understand that the legal visa for 30days or 3 months whatever would expire and a tourist would become an illegal immigrant if he stayed with an expired visa.)</p>
<p>"You do know wading too far into political territory in these discussions gets them shut down, don’t you? "</p>
<p>Don’t believe so. People wouldn’t continue because they had nothing to refute it.</p>
<p>^ You may not, but many may. You are not a typical example of them. </p>
<p>Actually, if you didn’t go to Florida with a tourist visa from overseas you may not know how much a U.S. resident status mean to these people from foreign countries. I am not in Florida but I know enough people from overseas used all means to stay even when it was totally unnecessary for them to stay. And many came just to give birth to a US citizen. </p>
<p>“Why would anyone want to stay 3 years just to get in-state tuition?”</p>
<p>Getting in-state tuition is just one of the nice benefits, the goal is to become a US citizen and stay here for life.</p>
<p>Sorry, been at The Players today, and then had to pick up the kids from the beach, you where asking why anyone would want to stay in Florida?</p>
<p>Florida’s Population (2011) - 19,057,542
Florida’s Population (2000) - 15,982,378
Population (1990) - 12,937,926
Population (1980) - 9,746,961
Population Growth Rate (1990-2000) - 23.5%</p>
<p>Seems a lot of folks like Florida :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At some point I expect this thread would be locked or moved, but any discussions around a new law, has to include political discussions. It’s once we start getting a bit snippy with each other, that they tend to shut down the thread.</p>
<p>Ah Gator, I too was at the beach today. Lovely weather. Later we strolled through the Japanese gardens where they were giving bonsai lessons. It is fine with me if Mokusatsu doesn’t like Florida.</p>
<p>Why is the U.S. their ONLY option for higher ed? My kids have also grown up in a country where we are not citizens (we are Americans residing overseas). </p>
<p>My kids choices for higher ed are:<br>
pay full tuition in our present country of foreign residence
<p>@gmtplus7 I agree with you that the US is not the only option for higher ed, but the US provides the MOST opportunities. It’s all tied to the concept of the American dream; look at how many colleges, community colleges, vocational schools, etc. there are in the US- way more than in most other affluent AND developing nations. Also in some countries, especially developing nations, higher education is a luxury only for the richest and the brightest. My parents themselves immigrated to the US because of the lack of higher education opportunities in their native country; only the smartest can gain acceptance to the limited number of spots in public universities and there weren’t many other options for furthering education in their native country available to them. In the US, however, there are 4,599 degree-granting institutions and 7,021 postsecondary title IV institutions. (<a href=“Fast Facts: Educational institutions (84)”>Fast Facts: Educational institutions (84)) The abundance of opportunity in higher education is definitely one of the reasons why the US is so appealing to immigrants, both legal and illegal.</p>
<p>^Right, and to my knowledge, none of those 4,000+ colleges denies admission to international students, including the public ones. The issue is about in-state tuition rates; you are not being shut out of anywhere in the US. If your parents don’t have the money to pay for college, you still have options, even without in-state rates. You are going to have to work illegally and pay your way through, or earn a merit scholarship, or go to a private college that provides scholarships to illegal immigrants, or do on-line education. What is your reasoning for why Americans should have to pay for the education of non-Americans, other than it would make life easier for them?</p>
<p>Why should people who don’t have children have to pay taxes that are used for education of others’ children? Maybe because it improves and contributes to the overall betterment of the community? </p>
<p>No, it is because the US Supreme Court ruled we have to pay for every child present in the US to go to grade school. Some states did not want to have to pay for the education of non-citizens.</p>
<p>This isn’t a question of do we spend money on public education or not. It’s a question of how much do we spend, at the expense of other items, such as health care, public services, and entitlements.</p>
<p>The $50,000,000 projected cost for the Florida program could have been used for other priorities. That’s one of several concerns around the program, these concerns included creating an incentive for illegal immigration (parents do pay attention to where their children can access the best schools, at the lowest cost), and perceived fairness issues. All of this has to be balanced with the decision to award in-state tuition to children of undocumented workers. </p>
<p>I think the bigger issue has to be not demonizing these hard-working, intelligent students for illegally being in America. We have to first reform the way immigrants enter this country, to reduce the number of “illegal” immigrants and make more of them “legal”. It currently takes about a decade to “legally” enter America as a citizen: no wonder so many young people come here illegally. Only through substantively expediting the process of citizenship can we fix this problem. It is not the fault of ambitious students who try to come to quality American universities: we must not make illegal immigration their only option, and then harass and discriminate against these students for taking the only option they’ve been given. </p>
<p>Okay, this is for everybody, so we need to stop calling them hardworking, intelligent students. That’s irrelevant. I don’t think anyone is demonizing them, though. And, this is not about ambitious students who didn’t want to wait in line. For the most part it about kids at whatever level of ambition or not who grew up here because their parents never even considered waiting in line. The rest of that post about options and harassment doesn’t make any sense. </p>