Harry, Carly and the DREAM Act
In a shameless attempt to shore up the Hispanic vote in Nevada, Harry Reid has announced that the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act will be included in the defense authorization bill as an amendment, pending Senate approval.
The DREAM Act, which HotAir’s Allahpundit terms a “ground-preparer for amnesty”, would grant illegals who have graduated from high school in the United States and are of good moral character, temporary residence status. Then, within a six-year period, the temporary resident must complete at least two years of higher education or serve at least two years in the military to become eligible for permanent residence.
Many opponents of amnesty oppose this bill on the premise that funding the education of minors who are here illegally would not only cost millions of taxpayer dollars, but also incentivize future illegal immigration.
But opponents of amnesty need not necessarily oppose the DREAM Act as California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina has demonstrated. In her recent debate with Barbara Boxer, Fiorina said that while she does not support blanket amnesty,
I would support the DREAM Act because I do not believe that we can punish children who through no fault of their own are here trying to live the American dream…The way to get the economy going again is to go with comprehensive immigration reform. The DREAM Act is part of that…I believe that the 21st century is the century of brainpower and innovation. We need to cultivate all the brainpower we can by making sure that people are well educated here.
While Fiorina may be making the same sort of political calculation as Harry Reid, I’m sympathetic to her argument. When we imagine that we have the option of casting out every single illegal immigrant, including the ones who have lived here since their early childhood, we delude ourselves. If we do nothing, inertia alone will create a shadow class of underperforming semi-Americans who have a hard time pursuing college educations and obtaining good jobs because they lack the necessary paperwork. Ultimately, these people become a net drain on society's resources. On the other hand, a conditional residence program like the one embodied by the DREAM Act would enable children who are currently here illegally to pursue an education and hopefully become productive members of American society.
As much as I loathe to support anything that has Harry Reid’s fingerprints on it, I just don’t see an alternative.
- Comment (48)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Harry, Carly and the DREAM Act
Charlie Dameron
Kenneth
Oh, come on.
Social Security and Medicare taxes are not applied to school funding.
And that's a fact. · Sep 14 at 9:15pm
Edited on Sep 14 at 09:16 pm
Ah, yes, but as my post above already indicated, illegal immigrants pay in to schools through local property taxes, which form the bulk of school funding. · Sep 14 at 9:24pm
Nevertheless, you tried, insidiously, to insert FICA taxes into your assertion.
And just because some illegals pay property taxes directly or indirectly through rents, does not mean they are paying their proportional fair share of school funding. Illegals tend to live in lower-valued properties, with more children.
Perhaps Texas is different, but on a national level, illegals are a net loss, not an asset.
May '10
Re: Harry, Carly and the DREAM Act
Mark Wilson
Diane, I am with you on the idea that children shouldn't be punished for their parents' illegal act....
But we also shouldn't reward the parents' illegal act by allowing it to benefit their children. This is not an easy balance to find. · Sep 14 at 6:33pm
Agreed. In fact, we actually have a law that says any monetary gains acquired illegally cannot be inherited.
I'm undecided on this, but I'm inclined to believe the DREAM Act is a mistake. Our decisions should consider the innocent children of illegals, but that doesn't mean that concern should preempt our laws and borders.
If we can, we should probably seal the border first (by empowering citizens to help). Dealing with illegal children is obviously a complicated issue (though important), and it seems we should prioritize addressing the source of the problem before addressing its consequences.
That said, those illegal children are growing up now. Their lives won't wait for us to make a decision about them.
Re: Harry, Carly and the DREAM Act
Charlie Dameron
As a resident of Texas -- where, blessedly, we aren't burdened with a state income tax -- I can attest to the fact that illegal immigrants are paying into the state's coffers roughly on a percentage par with legal state residents. They pay the same sales taxes, and (through rent or homeownership) pay the same property taxes. A 2006 report from the (GOP) state comptroller showed that illegal immigrants constitute a $434 million annual net economic plus for the State of Texas.
Indeed, most illegal immigrants also contribute to Social Security and Medicare through payroll taxes, even though they won't ever get to draw benefits. Perhaps with a few more illegal aliens, we could help resolve the entitlements' insolvency.
I'm not for illegal immigration -- although I think that free-market principles dictate that we not impose any artificial quotas on immigration. But any real debate on the matter ought to start with real facts. · Sep 14 at 9:12pm
Here, here! (And glad to have you join us, Charlie!)
Jun '10
Re: Harry, Carly and the DREAM Act
Kenneth
Patrick in Albuquerque
Kenneth
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Besides, DREAM is a compassion thing. I'm a Libertarian - we don't do compassion. · Sep 14 at 4:52pm
What's to be said about your libertarians don't do compassion comment? Is it just a throw away? · Sep 14 at 7:30pm
Edited on Sep 14 at 07:34 pm
Yep, just a throwaway. · Sep 14 at 8:06pm
Kenneth, not like you to wimp. "I'm a Libertarian - we don't do compassion" is a philosophy, not a throwaway. (Ayn Rand, anyone?) Libertarians certainly feel compassion but I think you might agree that about 90% of bad public policy is based on little more than a liberal sense of "compassion."
Edited on Sep 15, 2010 at 4:26amJul '10
Re: Harry, Carly and the DREAM Act
Paul DeRocco
What's an "artificial" quota? Aren't all quotas artificial? You certainly can't oppose quotas entirely--after all, what if it turned out that a billion people from around the world wanted to move into the United States?
And I don't see what the free market has to do with who or how many we let into the country. Immigration is not a market.
You're right about my language misstep: all quotas are artificial. And, yes, I oppose all quotas: on prices, on labor markets, on college admissions, on anything. Quotas amount to denials of reality.
Our quotas against Mexicans are just as unrealistic as the Soviet Union's price-setting mechanisms. They're based in ideology rather than observable fact. Here's the observable and relevant fact regarding immigration: there are a great many jobs in this country that many Americans are unwilling to do, but for which many Mexicans will risk their lives to take, in order to support themselves and their families. There's an opportunity gap between the US and Mexico, and shrewd and ambitious Mexican workers will naturally come here to get a leg up.
Jul '10
Re: Harry, Carly and the DREAM Act
My position on it is this: we can either deal with the influx of these migrant workers in a responsible and politically agreeable way; or, we can let the situation continue to fester, creating as we do a permanent underclass of illegal Mexican workers who have little to no stake in American society.
One thing that's not an option: "kicking out" illegal immigrants. First, it's not possible; second, it would be politically ridiculous and reputationally ruinous; third, it's completely futile. The 16 million illegal immigrants who are here are here because they have jobs. If it were even possible to deport all illegal aliens, their jobs would have to be filled by......more illegal aliens. The American labor market does not observe the joke of a wall we have erected on the southern border.
So instead, let's create more flexible legal ways for Mexicans to come here for short periods of work; and let's open more spots for citizenship for those who are determined to stay and make their mark on this great land. Otherwise, we'll still be talking about this problem thirty years from now.
May '10
Re: Harry, Carly and the DREAM Act
Charlie, there are some concerns that are not addressed by the free market, like national security, national sovereignty, cultural cohesion, unified language. I favor letting the free market work as much as possible, and I generally favor more legal immigration. But having literally no limit on immigration would mean that parts of the United States would cease to be in union with the rest.
Aug '10
Re: Harry, Carly and the DREAM Act
Charlie Dameron
Our quotas against Mexicans are just as unrealistic as the Soviet Union's price-setting mechanisms. They're based in ideology rather than observable fact. Here's the observable and relevant fact regarding immigration: there are a great many jobs in this country that many Americans are unwilling to do, but for which many Mexicans will risk their lives to take, in order to support themselves and their families. There's an opportunity gap between the US and Mexico, and shrewd and ambitious Mexican workers will naturally come here to get a leg up. ·
(Sorry for the delay; I've been away for a few days.) I think there are justifications for immigration quotas, for the simple reason that foreigners assimilate better when not surrounded by millions of other foreigners from the same place. My Greek grandparents learned English partly so they could speak to the Portuguese immigrants in their adopted town.
Also, I don't buy the idea that there is any job that Americans won't do, including bending down in the fields of the San Joaquin Valley to pick cabbages by hand. It's simply that Mexican immigrants will do it for less.