<p>^We contribute to scholarship funds for undocumented students. Does that mean we are “giving assistance and shelter?” </p>
<p>To be clear, those who are outraged here - you are opposed to Harvard granting admission to ANY non US resident, correct?</p>
<p>Do you read the whole thread? Or just pose random question?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If your parents rob a bank and use the loot to buy u a car, do u think the cops should let u keep the car anyway bcs u had nothing to do with the robbery?</p>
<p>What illegal immigrant parents have stolen is priority for immigration ahead of people who are patiently undergoing the process legally. It’s like telling the kid w the illegally acquired car, u can keep the car bcs u have it already.</p>
<p>Not just that think security issue. Do you let anybody into your house? No it’s not really a real question because the answer is no. Do you keep your door unlocked? Why should you? There are human being that are homeless, need a space? The answer is also no because maybe some are ok, but some could kill you. </p>
<p>
They should send u to prison because you are possessing a car bought with stolen money.</p>
<p>
It is obvious that many here resent that ANY non American would get admitted. </p>
<p>“To be clear, those who are outraged here - you are opposed to Harvard granting admission to ANY non US resident, correct?”</p>
<p>No, I’m not against Harvard granting admission to non-US residents. I do not give a rat’s behind if Harvard admits a class of 100% aliens, as long as there are valid visas involved. I’m just pointing that a corporation employing an undocumented person or a private citizen who is merely aware that next door neighbor is an illegal are in a different category. </p>
<p>"(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or…"</p>
<p>Encourages or induces to reside? That is more than just transportation. So as a private individual I could be arrested and punished for doing anything that “induces” this alien to stick around without a valid visa.</p>
<p>That’s not what I’ve read but you seem to be purposely misreading for a reason. Harvard accepts many internationals who are non American. I think we have been discussing illegal immigration, not legal immigration.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all. My sons have repatriated to the US after living most of their lives overseas. At their present school in the US, they have had a number of friends/ roommates who are int’l: Mexican, Thai, Aussie, Japanese, Finnish, Chinese, Canadian, Indonesian, Taiwanese, Emerati. It was great for my sons to go back “home” and still have the opportunity in the US for further cultural exchange. But all their int’l friends/ roommates were in the US legally. One son had a roommate was is 2nd generation African; the parents immigrated legally to the US. From my boys’ previous int’l school, we have many non-American friends whose kids are going to college in the US, all legally .</p>
<p>Dunno why some people on this thread have so much trouble grasping the legality issue.</p>
<p>Yes, we get the distinction between legal and illegal. But there is something perverse about a logic that says that Harvard can admit a random kid applying from Mexico, but not a Mexican living illegally in the US through no fault of his own.</p>
<p>Allowing Harvard to do this is different from letting you hire an undocumented landscaper. Those laws aren’t simply a matter of disincentivizing illegal immigration, they are a response to a legitimate economic concern. If you hire an undocumented worker, that means there is an American that isn’t getting the job. What is more, the availability of an undocumented labor pool drives down wages and leaves domestic laborers unable to compete - not to mention leaving a whole class of employees subject to exploitation and abuse. The same can’t be said for Harvard, since, as I said, they could just as easily have admitted Dario if he were an international applicant from Mexico, so he is no more “taking the space” away from an American citizen or legal resident than any other international student is. Even if he is technically not counted in the international pool, it doesn’t really matter, since there is no reason to believe that Harvard decides in advance exactly how many international students vs. how many domestic students they plan on admitting. </p>
<p>
The “no fault of his own” argument is a red herring. What else in life are you going to give to people by sole virtue of their present circumstances being no fault of their own?</p>
<p>It’s no fault of my children that I made an imprudent decision 25 years ago to sell my holdings in Apple stock. Now my kids will have to work for a living.</p>
<p>Actually I don’t care about Harvard and I don’t think we allow Harvard. My argument is against a state school like UCSF where it’s supported by state fund, at least some of it, where does it get the funding to fund illegal immigrants when it’s technically broke. It raises tuition, admit more OOS, while it continue its policy of admit people who didn’t pay into the system. The UCs rejected tons of qualifying kids, accept tons of OOS students to make up for the short fall. Yet, Janet Politano got huge salary. Where does that leave the people in California? It does not serve California taxpayers and lead to more frustration.</p>
<p>The issue here is not “taking away the space” from a qualified US kid. The much broader question is why while a citizen or an employer would be punished for “harboring” an illegal alien, Harvard gets a pass. What would happen to this kid after his graduation from Harvard? Continue on as an undocumented grad student? What happens if nothing is done to legalize his status while he is happily studying at Harvard - will he be able to get a job in the US upon his graduation (status adjustment from some student visas to work visas is fairly easy for international students, not so fast for an undocumented). The issue is much more complex than the simple “he took away a spot”.</p>
<p>DrGoogle, I agree that the question of in-state universities is knottier, and I don’t think undocumented kids should be treated as in-state students for the purposes of admissions. </p>
<p>Bunsen, from my reading of the law, I don’t think what Harvard is doing meets the legal definition of harboring. If I found out that a friend of mind were an illegal immigrant I wouldn’t be obliged to turn her in, nor would I be “harboring” if I let her stay in my apartment when she couldn’t make ends meet. It only crosses the line if I either start employing her under the table or actively help her to break the law - i.e, by assisting her to forge papers. If I’m sheltering her from active deportation proceedings that’s another issue, but short of that, most interactions with an undocumented immigrant, including offers of aid, don’t run afoul of the law. Given that, I don’t know that Harvard is being treated any differently than a private citizen or employer. They can’t give Dario a campus job or help him to fraudulently obtain a social security number, but there is no reason they can’t legally admit and house him - for free, if they wish.</p>
<p>As for the question of what he’ll do upon graduating, that’s not one Harvard necessarily has to concern itself about. As a whole, Harvard favors students with unlimited potential, but that doesn’t mean they don’t find good reason to admit students with various constraints. I have heard of a couple of cases of elite schools, including Harvard, admitting students with severe physical disabilities that will drastically limit their career options; in one case, the student had an illness that meant he probably wouldn’t live much past the age of 30. In any case, Dario in in a pretty good position to emerge as an activist for the undocumented, if nothing else, but I wouldn’t assume that’s the extent of his options. Look up Dan-el Padilla Peralta, who was an undocumented immigrant who became the salutatorian of Princeton a number of years back, and seems to be doing okay for himself since, including stints at Oxford and Stanford (which he entered legally on a student visa). </p>
<p>I remember hearing this story on NPR a couple of years ago:
<a href=“Florida Court To Rule: Can A Lawyer Be Undocumented? : NPR”>Florida Court To Rule: Can A Lawyer Be Undocumented? : NPR;
so I had to find out what happened:
<a href=“Undocumented immigrant denied law license in Florida | Al Jazeera America”>http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/7/illegal-immigrantdeniedlawlicenseinflorida.html</a>
More interesting reading. </p>
<p>My favorite part of this thread: everyone citing everyone else’s logical fallacies as a way to shoot them down. It has not yet been realized that this is the Fallacist’s Fallacy.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/fallacists/”>Logical Fallacies; </p>
<p>Sorry, not necessarily contributing to the debate, just noticing something.</p>
<p>Dario’s parents ought to be investigated and deported, but they won’t be. And that is what makes us lose faith in our government and become cynical. </p>
<p>And apprenticeprof, the mere presence of illegal immigrants in our country is in fact, a “very real economic concern.” Hard to understand how you don’t recognize that. It’s a security concern as well. </p>
<p>I find it offensive that anyone would lump illegal immigrants with legal immigrants.</p>
<p>Sure, illegal immigration is a real concern. That doesn’t mean Harvard can’t admit an individual student just as they would have if he actually lived in Mexico, Peru, Macedonia, or anywhere else in the world. </p>