New NY Scholarship "Specifically for Illegal Immigrants" (NY Times)

<p>

I totally agree with you on that! But what makes your children more American than the children of immigrants? Neither group of children has done anything to earn the benefits that they are receiving from society. I don’t see why they should be treated differently. </p>

<p>Victims of human trafficking can apply for permanent residence and stay here legally. Children of undocumented immigrants were brought here at a young age without their consent too, yet they do not get these benefits. Why?</p>

<p>

Bingo! We as a nation cannot afford to continue to support this. Only 50% of Americans pay taxes, and we simply cannot sustain this type of spending. I get so angry when I hear some absurd argument that the illegals do indeed pay taxes. Yes, they pay sales tax (as we all do), and some, albeit not many, contribute to property taxes in some form or another; however, the fact still remains that the overwhelming majority have not obtained a false social security number – they’re being paid under the table. They do not pay in to FICA, social security, or state income tax. I, along with TONS of American citizens, would love to have that extra money in my pocket; however, that’s not an option. If I chose to not pay taxes, I would be assessed penalties out the wazoo, and yet some amnesty proposals offer little more than a slap on the wrist with a maximum $2,000 fine for years and years of tax evasion. If a private corporation wishes to indulge this cycle of illegal immigration and offer scholarships, that’s their right. However, I totally disagree with Perry and other politicians on this one. We live in the great state of TX and we’re paying $55K to send our D to an OOS public. Why? Because we haven’t paid into that state’s system. Well, none of the illegals in TX have paid into the TX system and yet they’re somehow entitled to in-state tuition? Huh?</p>

<p>I totally agree with you on that! But what makes your children more American than the children of immigrants? Neither group of children has done anything to earn the benefits that they are receiving from society. I don’t see why they should be treated differently. </p>

<hr>

<p>The children in question are NOT “children of immigrants”. If they were, they’d be legal citizens. These children are illegal immigrants, just like their parents. They aren’t “children of”…as if the label doesn’t apply to them as well.</p>

<p>As for children of illegals…uh…their parents aren’t usually fairly paying into the system. </p>

<p>Every country has to draw the line somewhere to define citizenship. Many (maybe most) use birthright as one method to define citizenship. The US isn’t using some weird method by declaring citizenship by birth. </p>

<p>And…BTW…if you think this country is unwelcoming to illegal aliens, you really need to look at what other countries do to keep illegals out…and to find them once they’ve crossed the border. Do you think they are educating these illegals? Giving them free breakfast and free lunch?</p>

<p>. Even Mexico closely guards its lower border to keep those countries’ citizens out of Mexico. And what benefits do you think an illegal that manages to get into Mexico would receive? lol not a dang thing except maybe a trip to jail or a trip back to the native country.</p>

<p>“But what makes your children more American than the children of immigrants?”</p>

<p>It’s their legal status that make them more American. Abroad, I see foreign students stand in line at U.S. embassies to apply for a visa to study in the U.S. Why should illegal immigrants jump the queue and then be further rewarded.</p>

<p>Children of undocumented immigrants are not criminals - they are the victims of a crime. In what other circumstances do we ever punish the victims of a crime further? I will keep saying this until someone acknowledges it: why should victims of human trafficking crimes get US permanent residence, when children who were brought across the border by their parents without the child’s consent do not get this right? </p>

<p>

The point I was making is that the current legal standard seems rather arbitrary:

  • born to US parents, check.
  • born on US territory, check.
  • brought to the US by a stranger who subsequently exploited you, check.
  • brought to the US by a relative: sorry, you’re screwed.</p>

<p>The difference between undocumented students and the foreign students in line at the embassy is that the undocumented students are part of our communities. A piece of paper aside, they are every bit as American as you are. (Can you imagine, seriously imagine, what it would be like if someone told you today that you aren’t actually a US citizen and that’s why, unlike your classmates, you unfortunately cannot go to college or have a real career? You could, however, move to Croatia and go to college there. True, you don’t speak the language and you don’t know anyone there, but at least you’d be legal?!?)</p>

<p>It really bugs me that illegal immigration is silently condoned. Either make an effort to deport them or give them (at least their children) opportunities to become productive members of society. Instead we give them just enough resources to get by (e.g. options to survive without a bank account, from postal money orders to pre-paid visa cards in grocery stores), but not enough to be successful.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Plenty of students come to the U.S. to obtain a college education with no intent to remain in the U.S. to work legally. That’s not the point of college education and it’s not a litmus test for college admissions.</p>

<p>Also, as long as the students are residents of the state, I’m not sure whether the state necessarily has an interest in whether the parents arrived here with the proper federal paperwork. Immigration quotas are set on a federal level and, frankly, if Congress passed a law granting amnesty or opening up the borders, the states would have no say and could not block people who entered. Some states, particularly border states, will feel the impact more than others and understandably want to draw lines in the sand that are every bit as restrictive (or possibly more restrictive) than the federal line-drawing – but it’s not as if the federal line-drawing as to who is here lawfully and who is not is necessarily a sensible cutting-off point for all 50 states. For some states, giving all of its residents something better to shoot for may have overall positive impacts in terms of expanding the tax base, reducing crime, stimulating the economy, etc.</p>

<p>Anyway, as someone who did absolutely nothing to earn my U.S. citizenship apart from drop out of my mom’s belly in a most opportune geographic location, I’m finding it hard to muster a sense of self-righteousness and injustice about other people trying to help kids get the same opportunities that I had and did nothing to earn. The more people who can experience the crazy luck that I’ve enjoyed, the better.</p>

<p>D’yer Maker,</p>

<p>You are right that international students come to USA often with no intention to stay after graduation, however they are not using tax payer money (for undergraduate studies) to do that. </p>

<p>Also, you are obviously not a resident of a border state like Arizona. Otherwise you would not find it that hard to muster the sense of self-righteousness. </p>

<p>If you want more people to experience “crazy luck” that you have, you should offer your own resources, not other people’s (the American taxpayers). In order to finance what you want, money have to come from somewhere. In case you have not watched TV recently, our country is broke - we cannot pay for our own citizens’ needs. In this situation, asking us to pay for citizens of other countries is intellectually dishonest. You have to put YOUR money where your mouth is, then we can talk about self-righteousness.</p>

<p>D’yer Maker, I am usually in agreemt w you, but not on this one. </p>

<p>My parents & I immigrated LEGALLY to the U.S. We stood in line and jumped through considerable obstacles to come to the U.S. and ultimately become American citizens. So I don’t appreciate illegals being able to jump the queue.</p>

<p>Now I live and work abroad, and I see long lines of earnest visa applicants at the U.S. embassy also going thru similar pains to come to the U.S. LEGALLY. </p>

<p>On the issue of tax paying and who deserves in-state tuition status. As I am living abroad only temporarily, I have retained my house in the U.S. and pay property taxes. But I am not considered a resident of my state and my kids are not entitled to in-state tuition. So yes, I do get heartburn over this issue. @#$%^&*!!!</p>

<p>Now if private individuals want to fund this insanity, then fine. Just don’t let it be funded from my tax dollars from which I am already getting short shrift.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hmmm. Just try that logic out in most other countries – say, Mexico, for example – and they will laugh at you as they fling you back across the Rio Grande. The USA and Canada are among the very few countries that have birthright citizenship. The vast majority of countries require your parents to be citizens before you are granted citizenship.</p>

<p>Where I live, there are programs at CCs, like nursing and other health fields, that are fully subscribed. So these policies could result in an illegal person taking the spot ahead of a legal. But now what happens when they graduate. The illegal one isnt going to get a job in a US hospital, etc.</p>

<p>^^^Kayf,</p>

<p>of course they will be able to … with the same bought or stolen SSN number their parents are using.</p>

<p>I think birthright citizenship is silly - though I was surprised that my German friends did not realize my son wouldn’t be eligible for German citizenship just from having been born there. We left when he was six months old. (There are some very limited ways you can be declared German even without German parents interestingly enough.) We have lots of illegal immigrants in NY, but I still have a hard time getting worked up about their children. I’m happy to put in a requirement for community or military service for them to earn citizenship if it makes everyone feel better. But I don’t really see that my kids are more American just because their grandfather got off the boat at Ellis Island instead of crossing the Rio Grande.</p>

<p>Placido240,</p>

<p>some people, including myself, would argue that the way this “birthplace right” is practiced right now is not the way it was intended in fourteenth amendment. Instead, the argument is that the birthplace right should only apply to children of people who are either US citizens or permanent residents.</p>

<p>Mathmom,</p>

<p>Getting off the boat in Ellis Island was contingent on the new immigrants not becoming “public charge”, i.e. no federal funded aid (I realize in those times there were less programs than before). In fact, those who tried to get public assistance were deported. </p>

<p>At some point, you have to understand that you are not the one who put these children into this situation. Their parents did and they are the ones responsible to take care of their children.</p>

<p>lerkin: At the risk of making this thread even more contentious, can I ask you to describe the constitutional justification for your alternative reading of the 14th amendment? Here is a relevant excerpt from section 1 of the amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …” You may wish that the birthplace right only applied to children of US citizens or permanent residents, but that’s not a “should.” If the framers of the Constitution had wanted to make parents’ citizenship or residency status relevant, surely they would have done so explicitly in the text. What am I missing?</p>

<p>@absweetmarie actually there are a lot of arguments regarding interpretation of the 14th amendment. I’ve gotta head out right now, but later I’ll try to come back and address it</p>

<p>Absweetmarie,</p>

<p>From what I understand, the intent was to give citizenship to children of freed slaves.</p>

<p>To me, the operative words in that amendment are “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”. If you go back in history, the writers of the amendment clarified (I cannot recall the name of that person right now) that it does not apply to children born who are foreigners. In other words, children of illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, while the children of the freed slaves were.</p>

<p>Okay, well, I needed a refresher on my Constitutional history, because I should have known that the people who wrote the 14th amendment (ratified in the 1860s) were not “the framers of the Constitution” (ouch! one semester in AP Gov’t for you, absweetmarie!). Whatever the intent was and notwithstanding the fact that those who wrote the 14th amendment did not foresee the rise of illegal immigration, what section 1 of the amendment seems to say is that citizenship is conferred upon people who are born here. Now I suppose the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” could provide some wiggle room … I leave that to the real constitutional scholars. (And I now know something about the historical arguments about the intent.) But in practical terms, policymakers have been interpreting the amendment to confer citizenship on people born here … Or am I missing something else?</p>

<p>^^^Abswetmaries,</p>

<p>I am sure that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the rise of illegal immigration either :). I am not sure if “illegal immigration” was even a phrase in those times. You are right, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” can (and did) provide the wiggle room. Whether or not it was (is) good or correct thing to do … As evident on this thread, people disagree on this subject matter.</p>

<p>P.S. Since it became so much harder to legally immigrate to US than it used to be, how come we are applying the most liberal (no pun intended) interpretation of 14th amendment? Instead of broadening the parameters of 14th amendment, should not we use the most strict interpretation to mirror the present day immigration law?</p>

<p>*The point I was making is that the current legal standard seems rather arbitrary:

  • born to US parents, check.
  • born on US territory, check.
  • brought to the US by a stranger who subsequently exploited you, check.
  • brought to the US by a relative: sorry, you’re screwed.*</p>

<p>Arbitrary? Not all. the current standard is very logical. If you’re suggesting that it’s logical to confer citizenship to those who are brought here illegally by a relative (usually the parent) and the US adopted such a policy, do you realize the can of worms you’d be opening?</p>

<p>We currently have a steady flow of illegals coming to this country. If we changed our laws to confer citizenship to minors after their parents brought them here, we’d have a stampede.</p>