Somehow I do not trust his rect move to the right on immigration and welfare.

Somehow I do not trust his rect move to the right on immigration and welfare.

 

In all fairness, his plan did require that the student in question apply for US Citizenship in order to qualify.

Somehow I do not trust his rect move to the right on immigration and welfare.

 

In all fairness, his plan did require that the student in question apply for US Citizenship in order to qualify.

I would apply to be a mexican citizen if it would pay down my grad school debt!

I think his policy position is a good idea. If a child came here illegally at the age of, say, 3, and went to school, did well, and didn't commit any crimes, it makes sense to give him legal status and allow him to obtain financial aid to go to college. It's not his fault his parents came here illegally, and the country can benefit greatly from responsible, smart, and motivated students/future workers/professionals.

I think his policy position is a good idea. If a child came here illegally at the age of, say, 3, and went to school, did well, and didn't commit any crimes, it makes sense to give him legal status and allow him to obtain financial aid to go to college. It's not his fault his parents came here illegally, and the country can benefit greatly from responsible, smart, and motivated students/future workers/professionals.

I agree with that.

I think his policy position is a good idea. If a child came here illegally at the age of, say, 3, and went to school, did well, and didn't commit any crimes, it makes sense to give him legal status and allow him to obtain financial aid to go to college. It's not his fault his parents came here illegally, and the country can benefit greatly from responsible, smart, and motivated students/future workers/professionals.

Things like this ARE the reason why there is an illegal immigration problem. We cannot possibly build a wall and enforce laws that are so air tight that they are going to do something about this problem unless we are draconian. So, if we get rid of financial incentives (like subsudized housing, college, free healthcare, food in almost all cities, and etcetera) we only encourage the breaking of our laws.

No, sir. The incentive will always exist for people to come to this country as long as their standard of living is so much higher than the surrounding areas.

 

Want to fix the immigration problem? Help other countries fix their economies. Want to do that? Free trade.

What wrong with that? How is it a bad thing if the kid excels in school? Why would it be a bad thing to reward an intellectual student so he can continue his education in a higher institution so that he can contribute to society...?

 

I can't stand how people are so irrational. This country was built on immigrants. Anglos came to this land for the same reasons why immigrants are coming in now.

I can't how people are so irrational. This country was built on immigrants. Anglos came to this land for the same reasons why immigrants are coming in now.

 

That is what gets me. The same people who are anti-immigration were immigrants 80-100 years ago. Love that delicious hypocrisy.

I'd bet a large amount of money most of the people are against illegal immigration and not immigration. The amount of people getting into this country is disturbing. The amount of people getting in illegally as twice as disturbing. I'd also venture to bet a large amount the ancestors of many Anglos in the United States got into the country legally. I see no hypocrisy with that.

 

Overloading the system with poor legal immigrants can be a problem almost as big as illegal immigration.

 

I'm pro-immigrants, afterall I am here because of the system. But it doesn't mean I want to open the flood gates and not punish those who broke laws.

I'd bet a large amount of money most of the people are against illegal immigration and not immigration. The amount of people getting into this country is disturbing. The amount of people getting in illegally as twice as disturbing. I'd also venture to bet a large amount the ancestors of many Anglos in the United States got into the country legally. I see no hypocrisy with that.

For about the first 100 years of US history, there were no laws restricting entry/migration to the US. There was no such thing as "legal" or "illegal" immigration. And not until 1924 was there any restriction on immigration in general (the restrictions on immigration until then only applied to Asians, who were deemed by other laws ineligible for citizenship). There is a lot of hypocrisy in people who are descended from such beloved immigrant groups as the Irish, who enjoyed open ports & borders when they came to the US after stuff like the potato famines. They were despised by their "American" contemporaries, but they didn't have all these legal hoops to jump through to even have a chance at immigrating years from now. They were allowed to come in and they were free to work and make their way. Immigrants today should get the same freedom - no more and no less. Get rid of the welfare state and it won't be a problem.

No, sir. The incentive will always exist for people to come to this country as long as their standard of living is so much higher than the surrounding areas.

 

Want to fix the immigration problem? Help other countries fix their economies. Want to do that? Free trade.

We are speaking of artifically added incentives. For example, if the healtchare, education, roofs, and food in many cases for illegal immigrants were not paid for by the taxpayer, employers would have to pay for these things. So, in reality, our oddball immigration policy is nothing more than a thinly veiled corporate welfare policy. It keeps labor prices down below living wages but sustains this illegal labor force by making taxpayers subsudize it. If anything needs subsudies, it is usually a bad idea in its own right.

 

So, if you kill the welfare state, you are only going to be left with immigrants that really want to work their asses off.

 

 

Of course, in a war, we should also have physical defenses on our borders.

 

That is what gets me. The same people who are anti-immigration were immigrants 80-100 years ago. Love that delicious hypocrisy.

There was no welfare state paying their way.

I'd bet a large amount of money most of the people are against illegal immigration and not immigration. The amount of people getting into this country is disturbing. The amount of people getting in illegally as twice as disturbing. I'd also venture to bet a large amount the ancestors of many Anglos in the United States got into the country legally. I see no hypocrisy with that.

For about the first 100 years of US history, there were no laws restricting entry/migration to the US. There was no such thing as "legal" or "illegal" immigration. And not until 1924 was there any restriction on immigration in general (the restrictions on immigration until then only applied to Asians, who were deemed by other laws ineligible for citizenship). There is a lot of hypocrisy in people who are descended from such beloved immigrant groups as the Irish, who enjoyed open ports & borders when they came to the US after stuff like the potato famines. They were despised by their "American" contemporaries, but they didn't have all these legal hoops to jump through to even have a chance at immigrating years from now. They were allowed to come in and they were free to work and make their way. Immigrants today should get the same freedom - no more and no less. Get rid of the welfare state and it won't be a problem.

 

Right on. Well said.

I think his policy position is a good idea. If a child came here illegally at the age of, say, 3, and went to school, did well, and didn't commit any crimes, it makes sense to give him legal status and allow him to obtain financial aid to go to college. It's not his fault his parents came here illegally, and the country can benefit greatly from responsible, smart, and motivated students/future workers/professionals.

Things like this ARE the reason why there is an illegal immigration problem. We cannot possibly build a wall and enforce laws that are so air tight that they are going to do something about this problem unless we are draconian. So, if we get rid of financial incentives (like subsudized housing, college, free healthcare, food in almost all cities, and etcetera) we only encourage the breaking of our laws.

See, this is the problem. This discussion initially centered around the specific policy Huckabee enacted with respect to college education for the children of illegal immigrants and you compare it to a series of policies that are far more general and provide more immediate incentives. There are alot of things about Huckabee's policy that differentiate it from the other social welfare policies you list:

 

1) In order to get the scholarship, the student has to apply for citizenship. (Whether or not you believe that we should try to stop illegals from currently entering this country, there is still the problem of dealing with the millions who are already here. Because it's foolish to believe that we can just send them all back or hope that they go back on their own, getting those already here to become citizens is actually in the best interest for people on either side of the immigration debate.)

 

2) It's not an immediate incentive. Any economist will tell you that when people are making rational choices, incentives are heavily discounted with respect to time. (For example, most people prefer $10 now as opposed to $20 one month from now even though the expected value of that $10 in 1 month will be less than $20.) Given that, do you honestly believe a family of illegal immigrants allow the possibility of a paid college education (because the kid has to first get good enough grades to qualify) for their kid 15 years down the line to factor into their decision on whether to enter the country now? I'd say that 99% of what motivates them is the immediate prospect of acquiring a better paying job. To think that they have 15 year plans or even the resources to know about this program while in their native country is kind of absurd, and absent those two factors Huckabee's program can't facotr into their decision.

 

3) After attaining citizenship, the student becomes a tax payer. So, these are the possibilities: We become draconian about things (regarding immigration because although I'd love to see the welfare state significantly reduced it ain't happening in my lifetime, and I'm 21) and the kid retains his illegal status, gets paid some low wage job no citizen would dare take and takes from the welfare state without providing anything back. Or, we give the kid who performs well in school the same opportunity to go to college that his peers are getting. He/she goes to college, thereby increasing his/her expected earnings for the future, and they have to pay taxes on what they make after graduation because the likelihood of a highly motivated, high achieving college graudate becoming a ward of the welfare state is pretty low.

 

I understand that, in general, these policies are not very conducive to responding to the illegal immigration problem, but my question is, given the specifics of Huckabee's policy, isn't it a sensible policy from the perspective of a governor trying to do whats' best for his state since it turns hard working, smart kids whose parents made a mistake 15 years ago into taxpayers who remain in state (because the scholarship applies to state-run universities).

I think his policy position is a good idea. If a child came here illegally at the age of, say, 3, and went to school, did well, and didn't commit any crimes, it makes sense to give him legal status and allow him to obtain financial aid to go to college. It's not his fault his parents came here illegally, and the country can benefit greatly from responsible, smart, and motivated students/future workers/professionals.

Things like this ARE the reason why there is an illegal immigration problem. We cannot possibly build a wall and enforce laws that are so air tight that they are going to do something about this problem unless we are draconian. So, if we get rid of financial incentives (like subsudized housing, college, free healthcare, food in almost all cities, and etcetera) we only encourage the breaking of our laws.

See, this is the problem. This discussion initially centered around the specific policy Huckabee enacted with respect to college education for the children of illegal immigrants and you compare it to a series of policies that are far more general and provide more immediate incentives. There are alot of things about Huckabee's policy that differentiate it from the other social welfare policies you list:

 

1) In order to get the scholarship, the student has to apply for citizenship. (Whether or not you believe that we should try to stop illegals from currently entering this country, there is still the problem of dealing with the millions who are already here. Because it's foolish to believe that we can just send them all back or hope that they go back on their own, getting those already here to become citizens is actually in the best interest for people on either side of the immigration debate.)

 

2) It's not an immediate incentive. Any economist will tell you that when people are making rational choices, incentives are heavily discounted with respect to time. (For example, most people prefer $10 now as opposed to $20 one month from now even though the expected value of that $10 in 1 month will be less than $20.) Given that, do you honestly believe a family of illegal immigrants allow the possibility of a paid college education (because the kid has to first get good enough grades to qualify) for their kid 15 years down the line to factor into their decision on whether to enter the country now? I'd say that 99% of what motivates them is the immediate prospect of acquiring a better paying job. To think that they have 15 year plans or even the resources to know about this program while in their native country is kind of absurd, and absent those two factors Huckabee's program can't facotr into their decision.

 

3) After attaining citizenship, the student becomes a tax payer. So, these are the possibilities: We become draconian about things (regarding immigration because although I'd love to see the welfare state significantly reduced it ain't happening in my lifetime, and I'm 21) and the kid retains his illegal status, gets paid some low wage job no citizen would dare take and takes from the welfare state without providing anything back. Or, we give the kid who performs well in school the same opportunity to go to college that his peers are getting. He/she goes to college, thereby increasing his/her expected earnings for the future, and they have to pay taxes on what they make after graduation because the likelihood of a highly motivated, high achieving college graudate becoming a ward of the welfare state is pretty low.

 

I understand that, in general, these policies are not very conducive to responding to the illegal immigration problem, but my question is, given the specifics of Huckabee's policy, isn't it a sensible policy from the perspective of a governor trying to do whats' best for his state since it turns hard working, smart kids whose parents made a mistake 15 years ago into taxpayers who remain in state (because the scholarship applies to state-run universities).

 

That's a fair reply, but the fact is that illegal immigrants did not break a law by mistake. It is a reward to those who commit a criminal act.

Did the 2 year old whose parents brought him/her here, break a law?

I actually agreed with Huckster on his stance. The kids didn't break the law, and why would you want more uneducated (presumably), poor children of Illegal immigrants running around on the streets with no hope of college?

Did the 2 year old whose parents brought him/her here, break a law?

No, but his parents didn't pay the taxes to support the program.

True. Point taken.

 

I'm becoming more and more of the belief that we have to assimilate those that are in our country already in to society and in to citizenship.

 

First we have to strengthen our borders with more than just words and politics.

Did the 2 year old whose parents brought him/her here, break a law?

No, but his parents didn't pay the taxes to support the program.

 

Says who? They buy things (therefore pay sales taxes), they live in either rental units or own a home (therefore pay property taxes directly or indirectly), and they make an income (if not paid in cash, they pay income taxes). Please be more informed before you open your mouth.

True. Point taken.

 

I'm becoming more and more of the belief that we have to assimilate those that are in our country already in to society and in to citizenship.

 

First we have to strengthen our borders with more than just words and politics.

Largely to me it is an issue of security as well. So that means physically securing the borders as well as getting rid of financial inentives for illegals.

 

A friend of mine when I went to college was an illegal immigrant from Pakistan and had FAFSA pick up the whole tab. That is just insane when we are threatened by muslim radicals.

 

Plus, it would not hurt to stop giving student visas to countries with our potential enemies. We didn't do that during WW2. It's just a smart way to do things.

Did the 2 year old whose parents brought him/her here, break a law?

No, but his parents didn't pay the taxes to support the program.

 

Says who? They buy things (therefore pay sales taxes), they live in either rental units or own a home (therefore pay property taxes directly or indirectly), and they make an income (if not paid in cash, they pay income taxes). Please be more informed before you open your mouth.

More often than not illegals get earned income tax credit...so again, they a largely not contributing due to their illegal status.

More often than not? Please cite evidence.

Did the 2 year old whose parents brought him/her here, break a law?

No, but his parents didn't pay the taxes to support the program.

 

Says who? They buy things (therefore pay sales taxes), they live in either rental units or own a home (therefore pay property taxes directly or indirectly), and they make an income (if not paid in cash, they pay income taxes). Please be more informed before you open your mouth.

More often than not illegals get earned income tax credit...so again, they a largely not contributing due to their illegal status.

Income taxes are pretty irrelevant anyway as they do not pay for any services. They only pay off interest on the government's debt to the privately owned Federal Reserve.

The debt is not to the federal reserve, it is to the bondholders of the debt.