California "Dream Act" approved

[cestlefun17]

Except that was not the argument. It was due to their immigrant status.
A Texas statute denying free public education to illegal aliens violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because discrimination on the basis of immigration status did not further a substantial state interest. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

You didn't read the whole opinion. To quote Plyler v. Doe:

The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply [p220] with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status. [...] Of course, undocumented status is not irrelevant to any proper legislative goal. Nor is undocumented status an absolutely immutable characteristic, since it is the product of conscious, indeed unlawful, action. But § 21.031 is directed against children, and imposes its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control. It is thus difficult to conceive of a rational justification for penalizing these children for their presence within the United States. Yet that appears to be precisely the effect of § 21.031. [p221]

The Supreme Court, in the case you cited, recognizes the difference between illegal immigrants who are adults and illegal immigrants who are children. The statute wasn't struck down purely due to "immigration status," but the fact that children have virtually no control over their immigration status.

Their immigrant status has not changed.

No, but the responsibility for their immigration status has.

Do you really think that an 18 year old is that much more capable than a 17 year old?

Obviously there are some 17 year olds who are more mature than some 18 year olds. But "age of majority" is a legal construct and is universally accepted across the United States that one becomes, for all legal purposes, an adult at this age. You have to draw the line somewhere.

I really have no sympathy for illegal immigrants. I think it is atrocious for anyone to consider themselves above the law.

[Vene]

Do you ever drive above the speed limit?

[cestlefun17]

Sometimes, but I know I could get caught at any time, and if I do I would take full responsibility for my actions. So I wouldn't be asking any different of illegal immigrants, if that's what you're getting at.

[Undecided]

What is the purpose of an immigration quota? To me, such a construct seems anti-globalization, and it's hard for me to understand how a position other than support of open immigration might be optimal.

[MaybeNever]

Jul 27, 2011 20:54:28 GMT -5 Undecided said:

What is the purpose of an immigration quota?

Xenophobia, I think, sometimes masquerading as economics.

[brill]

Jul 27, 2011 15:07:27 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

If you're illegal, you can choose to leave the country and do the hard work of coming here legally like so many people have done.

Isn't this the attitude that Republicans try to use to justify cutting government programs? Just work harder and everything will fix itself? What if they don't have the resources?

I don't find this attitude really applicable to a lot of the Mexican lower class. When 13.8% of the population is below the poverty line, their first thoughts are not going to be "Better use what little money we have to save up to go to America instead of using it for more immediate needs like education, food, clothing, and shelter." That works when you're lucky enough to have surplus income. What happens when you're a farmer whose crops have been destroyed by drought and blight overnight, and you're suddenly faced with the fact that you might not have enough to eat? What exactly is someone supposed to do in that situation-when they don't have the time, money, or resources to cope with an emergency?

Knowing the conservatives I know (i.e. my family and swim coach), they'd either say "Go to the Church, they solve everything" or "Leave it to God" or "It's none of my concern."

[DeadpanDoubter]

Undecided, MaybeNever: I was under the impression that it had to do with making sure the infrastructure can keep up.

Then I look at the Duggars and our shitty, shitty roads, and let out a sad little wheeze.

[cestlefun17]

Isn't this the attitude that Republicans try to use to justify cutting government programs? Just work harder and everything will fix itself? What if they don't have the resources?

The immigration process can certainly be reformed and streamlined a bit. But as it stands, it is the government's responsibility to enforce immigration law as it is written. It is not the concern of the United States government if you don't have the resources.

Tomorrow, I am applying for a long-stay visa to live in France. This is the second time I've done this and they do not hold your hand. You have to pay US$70 beforehand and €50 at the consulate. You have to make sure you have all the paperwork, filled out correctly, and all the requisite photocopies. If you're missing anything, you are denied. They don't care if you don't have the money. They don't care if you don't get into France. They don't care if they've ruined your travel plans. They are a governmental institution of a sovereign nation. Governments concern themselves with law, not touchy-feely emotions.

What exactly is someone supposed to do in that situation-when they don't have the time, money, or resources to cope with an emergency?

Not the United States' concern. If we gave everyone in the world who was poor United States citizenship, then Wyoming would be as crowded as New York City.

"It's none of my concern."

You can make it your personal concern if you wish. It's just not the United States government's concern.

[Art Vandelay]

Jul 27, 2011 23:13:57 GMT -5 brill said:

Isn't this the attitude that Republicans try to use to justify cutting government programs? Just work harder and everything will fix itself? What if they don't have the resources?

I don't find this attitude really applicable to a lot of the Mexican lower class. When 13.8% of the population is below the poverty line, their first thoughts are not going to be "Better use what little money we have to save up to go to America instead of using it for more immediate needs like education, food, clothing, and shelter." That works when you're lucky enough to have surplus income. What happens when you're a farmer whose crops have been destroyed by drought and blight overnight, and you're suddenly faced with the fact that you might not have enough to eat? What exactly is someone supposed to do in that situation-when they don't have the time, money, or resources to cope with an emergency?

You seem to be assuming that people have an inherent right to immigrate to the US. Well, call me crazy, but I was under the impression that the US is a sovereign country who's free to allow or deny entry to whoever it pleases (much like, you know, any other country).