Huckabee Wants Free College for Illegal's Kids
- Thread starter defjon
- Start date
That's not the point. They aren't being thrown in jail or kicked out of the country. They would simply be ineligible for academic scholarships that should be for CITIZENS ONLY.
And by the way, let's stop calling them KIDS, shall we? We're talking about 18-year-olds, old enough to vote, considered adults by all standards except the drinking age. So stop making them look like po wittle victims.
And by the way, let's stop calling them KIDS, shall we? We're talking about 18-year-olds, old enough to vote, considered adults by all standards except the drinking age. So stop making them look like po wittle victims.
It is the point. They came here as kids, they grew up here after spending many years in our school system, they broke no laws their parents did. Somone cited that laws are being ignored to make us feel warm and fuzzy. I want to know what laws these kids broke. Either provide the law these kids broke or find another point to make your argument. I don't think you can break the law if you are FORCED to do something. I may be wrong on this but I am sure someone much smarter than me will wiegh in on this issue if indeed I am wrong.
JuanCarlos
New member
Or it could be that some of us (I know I do) think the law needs to be changed. I see no reason that these kids, assuming they are actually granted the scholarship, couldn't be granted some form of visa. Make completion of their degree a condition of their being granted citizenship. Of course, this is a whole lot more complicated since the scholarships are at the state level and immigration is at the federal...so whatever.
The point is that any of this requires outside-the-box thinking beyond "build a wall! kick them all out!!"
Heck, I'd say these kids (or rather, young adults, if it makes some happier) should count towards whatever quota we allow for immigration from their country of origin. I'd say that the standards I mentioned are probably a better criteria to filter out applicants than whatever we're applying at the border. You've got young adults that didn't make a free choice to come here illegally, but since being brought illegally have shown at least to some extent that they can contribute/assimilate into the nation. Works for me.
"Should be" according to whom? You, obviously. But not me. And obviously not Huckabee. Probably not according to a whole lot of people, so you can probably stop acting like it's a black-and-white universal truth. I'd say it's up to the voters of Arkansas to decide that, though. Although from the sound of it, it doesn't sound like it's going to happen so perhaps they agree with you.
Seems like a fair way to make the decision to me.
Choosing to remain here upon reaching adulthood is, I'm assuming, in violation of the law. His point isn't entirely without merit.
EDIT: Though I'm not so sure that telling somebody who was forced to come here and has spent nearly their whole life here that now they have to go back to whatever craphole their parents dragged them here from is exactly "reasonable." But again all of that is based on factors such as the level of assimilation of the child, how long they've been here/what age they came at, and what kind of prospects they've shown as far as competing/contributing to our workforce...all of which are the kind of factors (some of which are even subjective) that the law isn't necessarily good at taking into account. Which is another hurdle to actually changing any laws in this regard. And not that the law is required to be reasonable, anyway.
I am not for any kind of amnesty for people who have broken the law, lets get that straight. On the other hand I am not for punishing kids who had no choice in the matter. I think Juan makes some great points in what criteria should be used in deciding what to do with these kids. I think if they have stayed out of trouble, meet the academic requirements, and apply for citizenship, then yes they should be able to attend college.
Some of these kids graduate at the age of 17 so technically they still aren't adults yet.
Some of these kids graduate at the age of 17 so technically they still aren't adults yet.
JuanCarlos
New member
At the same time some don't graduate until 19 (and many well into 18), so they're breaking the law just by finishing out their high school diploma.
Yay for complex issues.
Your opinion does not the law make. They are here illegally. The laws make no distinction between whether one came here voluntarily or involuntarily. To put it another way, entering this country illegally is a strict liability crime. Your mental state is irrelevant. Your intentions are irrelevant. All that is required is your physical presence in the US.
Whether the law should be changed is a totally separate argument. The fact is that they are here in violation of the law, and probably have broken several others as far as misrepresenting their citizenship in order to get into school in the first place.
Changing the law to give these kids may be a decent thing to do. However even if it is, it is NO justification to ignore other laws on the books, especially ones that preempt state law.
This is not about attending college. Non-citizens get student visas all the time. These kids could apply and probably get student visas as well. It's about using our tax dollars to give scholarships to folks who have no legal status to be here. I don't think it matters how they arrived here, they need to apply for legal status.
Question. Why should proximity give them preference over some genius who can't just step across the border?
I refer back to fossten comments above.
Why can't those who think it's okay to use public funds just use their own money to setup private scholarship funds? Show us how compassionate you really are. I'm sure those students who have approved student visas would greatly appreciate your generosity.
Reminds me of those who complain about taxes being too low but never pay an excess, which you are allowed to do.
It is true that Huckabee has not received high marks from sites such as Americans For Better Immigration http://www.betterimmigration.com/. Much of his low marks have been from his support of the Arkansas college fund deal, But I feel there is a larger picture to evaluate. The message from Candidate Huckabee's web site gives a much stronger national stand on illegal immigration. http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.Article&ID=82
Of course this is from his own political site, but I hope he is moving toward a tougher stand on illegal immigration. I am still in a wait and see mode.
Of course this is from his own political site, but I hope he is moving toward a tougher stand on illegal immigration. I am still in a wait and see mode.
Last edited:
JuanCarlos
New member
Apply or be approved? Because I was given the impression that the idea here is that they would have to apply for legal status. And obviously I think that should be a requirement.
Referring those born in countries farther away, I assume. The answer? It probably shouldn't. Then again, if we're making subjective arguments on this front then why should some schmuck who was lucky enough to be born inside our borders get preference over somebody who wasn't, especially if the one who wasn't is a genius? I see plenty of complete losers and deadbeats benefit greatly from having come out of a vagina located in the right place, so what's the difference?
Sure, those born in Mexico are getting preference due to proximity. Then again, so are those born in America. It's not like kids born in Arkansas are really doing much to earn their citizenship, and for that matter neither did most of their parents.
Tangential, and not looking to get into a "general" immigration debate...just pointing out that you're trying to argue for "fairness" when in actuality the entire situation isn't fair to begin with. I don't see the point. Especially since I imagine that Huckabee's comments aren't referring to a change that would apply to Latin American illegal aliens only...it would apply to the children of illegal aliens from Suckistan as well, provided they can make their way here.
This is unlike the legal argument, where I see the point but simply disagree.
I'm pretty sure the idea of collective action problems applies here, but I'm not positive. Anyway, in this case as I said before I'd agree that this is an issue best left up to the voters of Arkansas, who seem to have decided to pass on the idea. Had they passed it, I'd have supported them. Since they didn't, I disagree...but still support them.
It's also possible to support some measure of immigration reform on one front while supporting stricter regulation/stronger enforcement on another. It's not like the whole things has to boil down to "Illegal Immigration: Love it or Hate it (choose only one)." Complex multifaceted issue and all.
Legitimate point. For example, if Huckabee (as President) or any federal official would actually start enforcing border security and strict sanctions against employer's of illegals, then I could be ready to listen to some solutions to the illegal immigration problem. But until that happens...no way!
Don Juan Carlos dijo,
It's not a subjective argument when talking about legal status. I think it's a pretty objective evaluation to determine this status. And no, being here illegally and simply applying isn't good enough. You apply, the application is evaluated, and approval is based on that evaluation. No approval, no entry or no staying, but thanks for playing.
You're serious?
Again, you're serious? You said you 'inject emotion into the issue to the disdain of many' in an earlier statement. I think it applies to your preceding comments but would contend it's disdain 'for' instead. Go read the 14th Amendment. I don't like the 'anchor baby' idea, but until the Amendment is changed we're stuck with it. So much for having to 'earn' your citizenship.
I think you do see the point. You talked earlier about those who 'are likely to contribute' and that's exactly what determines who gets approved. If anything, I was arguing against trying to apply 'fairness' to the process. You may not like the process, think it's fair, or care for the manner in which that determination is made, but it's exactly a legal argument and certainly applies to all immigration. Therefore that debate you're avoiding would be superfluous and certainly tangential.
I already explained it to you. The law doesn't take into account "choice". Its kind of like statutory rape. She can tell you she's 18, show you her ID and give you a letter from her 3rd grade teacher and if she's 16 you're toast even though you had no intent and went out of your way to try not to commit a crime.
So with that said, stop arguing that they haven't broken the law. They have broken the law. Period, end of story.
And as I also said, if they are in the public school system, its a sure thing that they have falsified their identity and fradulently obtained documents, which is a crime in itself. So thats at least two laws broken, likely more.
JuanCarlos
New member
Assuming the old Babelfish didn't steer me wrong (since leaving Arizona I've lost most of my Spanish), the answer is yes. I was born in Kansas. My family came over on a boat long back before quotas. I'm not even Latino...it's just a screen name.