The Plumb Line: Immigration (Part 3)
By: Caitlin Doemner, Guest Contributor
---------------------------
(For Part 2, click here)
Public Education: Right or Privilege?
[Update: As of December 12, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Arizona’s appeal regarding its immigration law]
While doing my research on the new Alabama law, I discovered that as a result of a case called “Plyler v. Doe” in 1982, every child in the United States is entitled to public education from Kindergarten through 12th grade, regardless of legal status.
It seems that in 1981, Texas said the state would not provide funding for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States, thereby authorizing local schools to deny enrollment to such children.
Based on the Supreme Court’s statements, it seems that Texas’ two main arguments were as follows:
(1) Education is not a fundamental right, and therefore the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply.
Court’s response: Although education is not a fundamental right, it is not like the deprivation of “some other governmental benefit”; education serves “a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage.” These children should not have a lifetime of hardship imposed upon them because they are “not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status.”
(2) Educating illegal immigrants does not serve the best interest of the State or its citizens, and therefore the State should not be responsible for funding.
Court’s response: Denying education to “undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration.” Evidence does not support the argument that excluding undocumented children improves the quality of education in the state, nor should these children be singled out because they are less likely to “remain within the State's boundaries and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State.”
Times must have changed, because twenty years later, Texas was the first state to allow undocumented residents to qualify for in-state tuition prices (saving them over $11,000 per semester in 2011). It was his signature on this 2001 bill that seriously hurt Governor Rick Perry’s chances at the Republican nomination this year (remember his “heartless” comment in the September 22 debate?).
Interestingly, federal law (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623) states:
"an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State... for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit."
Thus, Texas’ law, as well as California’s DREAM Act, and other such measures now enacted in 13 states, seems to violate federal immigration policy. The California Supreme Court upheld the legitimacy of its DREAM Act, stating that since non-residents can meet the law’s requirements, the tuition discount is not based on residency and therefore does not conflict with the federal prohibition. In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the verdict, thereby upholding the California Court’s ruling and leaving the DREAM Act intact.
Federal DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Acts have been repeatedly presented to and voted down by Congress. The legislation was reintroduced in May 2011 and would enact two major changes to the law:
1.The DREAM Act would permit certain immigrant students who have grown up in the U.S. to apply for temporary legal status and to eventually obtain permanent legal status and become eligible for U.S. citizenship if they go to college or serve in the U.S. military; and
2. The DREAM Act would eliminate a federal provision that penalizes states that provide in-state tuition without regard to immigration status.
Arguments against a Federal DREAM Act
The DREAM Act is not popular. Last September, a Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll indicated that the majority of Americans do NOT support providing public benefits to illegal immigrants. Only 18% supported the giving federal or state grants for college, which the DREAM Act would enable aliens to apply for and receive. Adding illegal immigrants to the pool of applicants for financial aid would reduce the help available to low-income U.S. citizens. It also penalizes foreign students applying to U.S. colleges for abiding by the law.
The Federal DREAM Act rewards illegal immigrants, first by providing a way to become U.S. citizens if they just stick around long enough, and second, by allowing them to receive in-state tuition rates, which were intended to provide a benefit to state taxpayers whose tax dollars support state colleges. Although the amnesty is retroactive (only applying to past, not future, immigrants), it sets a precedent that incentivizes future immigrants to move here illegally. The law absolves immigrant parents of their responsibility to do right by their children and violates our commitment to the rule of law.
Even if you are okay with the basic idea of the law, there are plenty of flaws in the bill as presented (in 2010): (1) it is not exclusively for children since applicants must be less than 30 years old, (2) applicants are safe from being removed or deported regardless of inaccurate information or criminal status, (3) applicants are allowed one felony or three misdemeanors, (4) completing a degree is not a qualification for amnesty, and (5) DREAM Act aliens will receive all the rights that legal immigrants receive, including the right to sponsor family members for immigration.
Arguments for a Federal DREAM Act
Regarding these undocumented students, there are three basic options: deport them, ignore them, or pass the DREAM Act. Deporting them would cost billions of dollars and return them to a homeland they don’t remember. Ignoring them accepts the system’s failure and consigns them to the unproductive margins of society. Passing the DREAM Act incentivizes these kids to work hard and earn the privilege of citizenship.
As stated by the Supreme Court, it is ethically irresponsible to punish children for their parents’ actions. Granting children primary and secondary education but denying them legal and financial access to college condemns them to second-rate careers, regardless of their academic potential. “The 1997 report ‘New Americans’ by the National Research Council found that immigrants -- both legal and undocumented -- with a college education save the government money, while those with just a high school diploma consume more in services than they contribute in taxes.”
According to the White House blog, the DREAM Act will (1) assist the military in its recruitment efforts, (2) bolster our competitiveness in the global economy by creating more college graduates, (3) increase government revenues by billions of dollars, and (4) allow immigration officials to dedicate their resources towards detaining and deporting criminals who pose a threat to our country.
When discussing the matter of providing public benefits to illegal immigrants, particularly education, there are many arguments for and against.
Which ones sway you?
When do we start talking about this?
From The Sacramento Bee:
The number of criminal aliens incarcerated in California rose to 102,795 in 2009, a 17 percent increase since 2003, federal auditors reported Thursday.
This isn't cheap. Nationwide, the Government Accountability Office reports, it costs well over $1.1 billion a year for states to imprison criminal aliens -- those who committed a crime after entering the United States illegally. California, moreover, is more expensive than other states. GAO auditors estimated California spends $34,000 to incarcerate a criminal alien for one year; in Texas, it's only $12,000.
The audit, requested by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, will provide ammunition for states' perennial effort to secure more federal reimbursement dollars.
More than one in four of the illegal immigrants imprisoned in California are behind bars for drug offenses. Many are also repeat offenders. GAO auditors say that, based on a survey, criminal alien inmates have been arrested an average of seven different times.
When do we begin to have a serious discourse about the illegal immigrant situation? It seems that every couple of years the topic comes to the forefront, some racially-charged rhetoric is exchanged, and then something else comes up in the news and everyone goes back to pretending like we don't have a serious problem on our hands (and have for 20 years).
People left Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. because our country was the better option. It was a better option because of things like rule of law, economic prosperity, and religious freedom. Without the first in that list, the other two don't matter (or exist). Are some Americans xenophobic and/or racist? Yes. Does that justify looking the other way as illegal aliens flood across our borders? Absolutely not.
I realize the economy is #1 on most Americans' minds. But dealing with illegal immigration needs to be part of any potential economic turn-around. And make no mistake about it: Progressive Democrats want all of the illegal aliens in this country to be naturalized ASAP. Immigrants are twice as likely to vote Democrat. They are promised free things in exchange for their vote.
At least liberals are consistent in how they woo voters (legal or otherwise).
You gotta give them that. 
I know what you'll say: But R.J., what about all the corporations and CEO's who want cheap labor and encourage these illegals to come here for the work? First, the assumption that the people who run major corporations are all conservative Republicans is a misguided one. For example, the much-dreaded "Wall Street" gave more money to Barack Obama than John McCain in 2008. I went to high school in one of the wealthiest school districts in America. My friends' parents were split politically in this affluent area. If anything, there were more liberals than conservatives.
And secondly, I don't care if the ghost of Ronald Reagan is hiring illegals illegally, it's wrong and should be punished.
My position on the illegal immigration issue is simple: enforce the law, secure the border, deport criminals, and help those who come here legally to realize the American dream without bankrupting the government and creating generational dependency on welfare entitlements. Love the people, hate the criminal behavior and lawlessness.
I want to hear from you guys (and gals). Where am I wrong? What am I missing?
George Will Weighs in on AZ Law
Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but I think George Will of the Washington Post does an excellent job of defending the state of Arizona's new immigration law.
Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).
Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanic. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers -- the vast majority -- routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.
Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.
George Will is known for his candor and level-head. He is not Michael Savage or Glenn Beck. Read the full column he wrote today here, and please continue to join in the on-going discussion we will be having in the next week or so about this controversial piece of legislation.
Another take on the AZ law
Someone in the "Comments" section of my last post already linked to the Jonah Goldberg column he wrote about the new immigration law in Arizona, so I figured I'd throw it up here for everyone to read. I am, for now, in near complete agreement with Jonah's take.
An excerpt:
It seems that whenever government expands either its powers or its enforcement efforts, you should be worried that it could go too far. But such worries have to be balanced against necessity.
I agree that there's something ugly about the police, even local police, asking citizens for their "papers" (there's nothing particularly ugly about asking illegal immigrants for their papers, though). There's also something ugly about American citizens being physically searched at airports. There's something ugly about IRS agents prying into nearly all of your personal financial transactions or, thanks to the passage of ObamaCare, serving as health insurance enforcers.
In other words, there are many government functions that are unappealing to one extent or another. That is not in itself an argument against them. The Patriot Act was ugly -- and necessary.
Consider California's decision to "lead by example" on global warming. Environmentalists argued that Washington was negligent in fighting climate change at the federal level. Hence California had no choice but to tackle a national problem at the state level. California implemented standards that are considerably more strict than those required (for now) by Washington.
Arizona's law is more humble than that. While California pushed a stricter standard than the one Washington was enforcing, Arizona seeks to enforce the federal law that Washington isn't enforcing.
The constitutional and legal issues make the parallel less than perfect, but the principle remains the same. Indeed, I'd wager that the costs of illegal immigration -- economic, social and environmental -- on Arizona dwarf the costs on California from global warming, at least so far.
Read the entire article here. Thanks to those who have responded to my column, and please continue to do so...irrespective of your political leanings, this site welcomes all opinions. (It just won't agree with them all.)
Obama to Arizona: “Play Fair”
By: R.J. Moeller
The governor of Arizona, a Republican woman named Janice Brewer, signed a bill into law last week that will allow law enforcement agents in her state to arrest people for breaking the law.
That’s what I call “edgy” policy-making, no?
In the minds of our progressive-liberal friends on the Left, the crime of entering the United States of America illegally pales in comparison to the seemingly unforgivable transgression of pointing out that entering the United States of America illegally is, well – illegal.
Unfortunately for all of us, one of the loudest critics of we illegal immigration “whistle-blowers” happens to be the Commander-in-Chief and 44th president of those same United States of America.
Barack Obama, a man sworn to defend the Constitution, to uphold the integrity of our republic, to defend our borders, shows more public disdain and disapproval when one of the nation’s 50 executive leaders legislatively declares that circumventing the law is no longer a tolerable option, than he does about Iranian and North Korean nuclear “activities.”
The actions by the Arizona legislature threaten “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans,” Obama said.
Really? How so? With all due and proper respect for a Community Organizer of President Obama’s stature, what in the world could be more unfair than to allow more than 11 million people to get away with breaking America’s laws? How fair do you think it is to the millions waiting (and desperate) to get into the U.S. legally?
“Surely we can all agree that when 11 million people in our country are living here illegally, outside the system, that’s unacceptable,” Obama said. “The American people demand and deserve a solution.”
But only if that solution doesn’t involve any of those pesky American people, clinging to their “guns and religion”, deciding for themselves how best to deal with the “unacceptable” problem, right? Those yahoos can’t be trusted with a spork to eat their mashed potatoes at KFC, let alone with decisions pertaining to the legal, cultural and economic fate of their beloved nation.
What happened to the Man of Hope who, according to he and his wife Michelle, wasn’t going to allow us to “sit on the sidelines” anymore? How can the politician interested in getting people on the local and community levels involved in the political process now be upset that a state (full of people living in local communities) is handling the immigration matter in-house?
Is President Obama tearing down the actions of concerned citizens with “a lot of talking”?
Here’s the message I’ve been receiving from Washington D.C. for the last four years regarding illegal immigration: The decisions of individual citizens, municipalities, counties, and states can’t be trusted (or possibly be fair), but the same people who brought you FEMA, Fannie and Freddie, the public education system that is ranked 35th in Math and 29th in Science in the world, and the “Cash for Clunkers” program last summer will set crooked paths straight, right every wrong, and wipe every tear from every illegal immigrants eye…eventually. (Just stop trying to fix things on your own, you tax-paying, law-abiding, meddling twits.)
“Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,” Obama said. “That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”
Absolutely true, Mr. President: the legislative and executive branches of our federal government have thoroughly failed the American taxpayer by their dereliction of duty to deal with the out-of-control border situation and immigration dilemma.
But my question is this: Why does it always have to be Big Brother that corrects every important problem in every area of the country? Why should a state like AZ trust you, President Obama, to be any more serious about addressing the unsustainable situation we’re currently facing than previous leaders?
Why is the default position always, no matter what, that the federal government needs to come in and “fix” things? Especially in light of the fact that it has been Big Brother’s unwavering unwillingness to act that has led to an exodus of upwards of 20 million undocumented, law-breaking people to our shores.
The conservative king himself, Ronald Reagan, mistakenly thought that the illegal immigration problem could be fixed with amnesty at the federal level in 1986 when only about 1 million people were involved. President Reagan was led to believe that if he gave out a few “Get out of having to return to the country you swam through shark-infested waters to get to America from” Cards back then, it would motivate legislators at the federal and state levels to “get serious” about border enforcement so we would be safer and more secure by now.
Errrrr. Wrong.
When you incentivize illegal behavior, then reward it by refusing to punish the wrong-doers, who in their right mind thinks that the illegal behavior will not continue (and, as we’ve witnessed the past twenty years, exponentially expand)? If I lived in a hell-hole of a country, with a corrupt government and abysmal economy, and I knew that I could come to the United States, get work, avoid any sort of legal repercussions for my illegality, and have politicians fighting over who could get me on the welfare’s dole quicker (so they could stay in office), I would absolutely make the same choice to do whatever it takes to get here.
But what makes the United States of America a country worth risking your life to come to isn’t just a stronger economy or free health care from your increasingly-bloated Uncle Sam. Those things are only even possible because of something we used to like to call, “the rule of law.” Nations don’t become prosperous and then decide to look into “that whole 'protecting ourselves and our property rights' thing.”
We are worth escaping to for the very things that allowing millions of foreigners to enter our borders illegally undermine and deteriorate.
The “we’re all immigrants” mantra that well-meaning people regurgitate in hopes that no one will actually ask them to think about their position on the immigration problem leaves out the fairly important word “legal” between “all” and “immigrants.”
And now, in light of the failures of Reagan’s 1986 Amnesty, and a crystal-clear track-record of the federal government being unable and unwilling to tackle the immigration issue in a way that doesn’t include Amnesty, and with anywhere between 11-20 million illegals already among us, we’re supposed to believe that the answer is to give the federal government another college-professor try?
Your position on the immigration problem is what is really wrong, President Obama, not just the methods you want to employ in solving it.
When congress attempted to force amnesty down the American people’s throats back in 2006, the nation responded in force by flooding Capitol Hill with calls, letters, emails, faxes, and, if Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) ever got them, a few of my favorite carrier pigeons.
America’s message to the philosopher-kings in Washington: Get real, clowns. We’re not racists, but we’re not suckers either. You padding your voter-base with 20 million new, appreciative, potential ballot-casters at the expense of the country’s economic, legal and health care system are the kind of “change” societal destruction can conceive in.
If all it takes for me to be granted citizenship (and be eligible for welfare entitlements) is that I promise my eventual vote to a politician, I won’t have to hire Lewis and Clark to explore uncharted territories to find me a willing accomplice in congress.
By wrapping the immigration issue (and themselves) in moral terms, by presenting the issue as a “Lovers of immigrants vs. Haters of immigrants,” the White House and racially-charged groups like La Raza (backed by a progressive-Left, sympathetic media) clearly have their sights set on a new and the-opposite-of-improved version of the 2006 amnesty bill. To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
The insinuation of President Obama’s negative reaction to the new law in Arizona is that our law enforcement agents are too racist to handle the responsibility of arresting perpetrators of illegal behavior (in any and all forms).
The only other conclusion, if that one does not strike your fancy, is that the administration and leadership in congress are radical Leftist ideologues who believe so deeply in growing the size and control of the federal government that facts, figures, history and the prevailing sentiments of the American people are nothing more than obstacles in the way of a utopian vision we’ll thank them for when it’s finished.
I love that we live in a nation people want to come to. The immigrants that I have had the distinct pleasure of working with in various odd jobs growing up have always been the hardest working employees. Many of them are here to send funds back to relatives who need money in their native lands. But none of that changes the fact that we need REAL change in our approach to our borders and immigration policy at the federal and state levels.
Send more troops and guards to our borders. Grant more work visas. Make English the official language of the country. Encourage all states to have their law enforcement agents check for the same identification I have to show at the nearly-extinct Blockbuster Video by my house. Incentivize lawful actions by your citizenry and those hoping to come and work and/or live here.
Fair = judging someone by the content of their character.
Fair = punishing all law-breakers the same.
Fair = upholding the Constitution you ensured voters in January of 2009 you would “protect and defend.”
Arizona acted out of necessity. Is the law perfect? By no means. Few laws are.
But here is what we know: the border is out of control, businesses fear little reprisal for hiring illegals, the federal government has done its best to convince us all to join a local Tea Party, and the nation is in a fiscal mess. In that environment, for a state like Arizona to make a decision on how best they will address the concerns they have in-state seems entirely reasonable to me.
We here at AVITW will monitor the AZ law, and if there are aspects of it that we don't care for, or if there are abuses perpetrated under the cover of it, we'll be unafraid to highlight them for you, the reader.
Our intent is not to tell you what to think, but simply to remind you to think, and think hard, about what kind of city, state, and country you want to live in (and hope to leave for your children).
Questions Democrats Don’t Want Asked
From the Associated Press:
Senate Democrats have blocked a GOP attempt to require next year's census forms to ask people whether they are a U.S. citizen.
Interesting. Seems fairly reasonable to ask if the person responding to the survey is a citizen of this country, but why get bogged down in messy details like how many citizens we actually have when you are busy ramming disastrous legislation like Cap-and-Trade and Public Option health care reform through?
Democrats see potential voters in illegal aliens. That is what this is all about. Anything that might be perceived as actually holding people who come here illegally accountable for their own actions is off the table in the mind of the modern liberal Democrat.
But Joe Wilson lied…
President Obama and the media have been livid the past week over the fact that conservatives, like Rep. Joe Wilson, do not believe the president when he says that illegal immigrants will not be covered by his health care option.
But that was last week...things "change" in the land of Barack the Rhetorical:
President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.
But remember, Joe Wilson was way out of line for suggesting that the president wasn't being totally honest when he said last Wednsday night that no illegals would be covered. Little did we know he simply meant to make all of them legal and then give them health care paid for with our money.
If you don't understand why this is ridiculous, and more importantly, why this is dangerous for our country and economy...then you are probably one of those few people who still think President Obama is doing a good job.
Read Chuck Krauthammer to get your head on right.
RJ's Social Network
Read RJ’s Columns/Blogs
What is “Mere Conservatism”?
Video of RJ
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
Books You Need to Read
Wall Street Journal
Blogroll
- Acton Power Blog
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Black and Red
- Conservative Daily Blog
- Dad's blog
- Dennis Prager (The Master)
- Desiring God (John Piper)
- Doug Giles (Clash Radio)
- Education News
- Hugh Hewitt
- Jihad Watch
- Mere Orthodoxy
- Michael Medved
- Milton Friedman
- Mom's blog
- My LOST blog
- Only Good Movies
- Patriots Corner
- Remnant Culture
- Shot In The Dark
- Stiletto Blog
- Subscribe via RSS
- The Straight Hype
- Twitter Me
Columnists You Need to Read
- Ann Coulter
- Charles Krauthammer
- Christopher Hitchens
- George Will
- Jonah Goldberg
- Karl Rove
- Mark Steyn
- Marvin Olasky
- Thomas Sowell
- Tony Blankley
- Walter E. Williams
Music/Entertainment
News/Politics
- Drudge Report
- Fact Check
- Fox News
- Hot Air
- Jerusalem Post
- National Review
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Washington Times
- Weekly Standard