<p>
</p>
<p>People have been complaining about how all the immigrants are “filling” classrooms compete with true blue native-born Americans for spots …</p>
<p>Maybe if we harnessed market forces through a voucher programme we would have a greater abundance of spots.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I believe you misunderstand the complaint. I don’t recall anyone arguing against private schools admitting whomever they desire. The issue is public colleges and public funds going to benefit undocumented immigrants. The objection is rooted in the idea that public colleges and public funds belong to the voting populace of the U.S. Call it xenophobic, or non-libertarian, or selfish, or whatever you want. But until the U.S. has enough cash on hand to house, feed, clothe and educate the rest of the world, then it is reasonable for Americans to allocate their finite resources to themselves.</p>
<p>So, although I haven’t had time to read through all of these comments, I have read through many of them and it seems like there is a bit of confusion about the facts surrounding this topic. I subscribe to this blog and they just posted an article that clears up some of the misconceptions about this. Definitely worth a read. </p>
<p>[Colleges</a> Ban Illegals: Will Taxpayers Suffer? | myUsearch blog](<a href=“http://myusearchblog.com/colleges-ban-illegals-tax-payers-suffer]Colleges”>Colleges Ban Illegals: Will Taxpayers Suffer? | myUsearch blog)</p>
<p>ye,</p>
<p>Please. Once again, a lack of a college education does not = prison time. Nor does it = welfare recipient. This is insulting to those who have chosen a career path that does not include college.</p>
<p>They should not be given access to schools! They don’t pay taxes and sc uh</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But should not the best system and the best culture come to grow and encompass the rest of the world? If the other nations’ systems are inferior, why should they exist and continue to perpetuate economic inefficiency? Again, you are only looking at the short-term allocation (that is, not accounting for growth). Those immigrants are themselves resources waiting to be harnessed – resources wasted and underutilised in other countries. That’s the whole principle of comparative advantage…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but it means underutilisation of economic resources and potential. Allocative inefficiency …</p>
<p>The people who choose not to have a career path that doesn’t include college have probably judged that they can more efficiently allocate their resources in a place other than a college career.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was addressing the opposition to their pre-college education as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remember, the primary purpose of the tax is counteract the underallocation of resources to a service or good with positive externalities. </p>
<p>Allow immigrants to contribute back to compensate for this underallocation, and link their future interests with the most efficient allocation … which makes sense since you are generating an economic return on the immigrants.</p>
<p>Why the bloody hell do you all overlook simple solutions of allowing such immigrants to pay their taxes? The lack of a legal avenue is the only thing holding them back. Is it because its sheer convenience would totally undermine your argument?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No need to waste your breath, as the U.S. Sup Ct has already ruled that every resident of the U.S., regardless of status, must attend K-12 in the same manner as U.S. citizens. There is no “choice” to educate them or not, unless this ruling is overturned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A college degree can be a waste of time and money for many people. Look at the lost income and lost opportunity attributable to spending another 4 years in school, not to mention the cost of tuition. A college degree does not necessarily = economic or social success. Nor does a lack of one necessarily prevent it.</p>
<p>Of course, there are those who still complain about it – I was addressing those.</p>
<p>But there is an economic argument they present about “robbing” American kids of their spots (in wherever) – this underallocation of resources (especially on the primary and secondary level) would not occur if voucher schools were implemented on a larger and more massive escale.</p>
<p>galo, it is you that espouses circular logic, not to mention your proclivity for deflecting facts with esoteric theories. In all these posts you’ve proved nothing other than your desire to apply old concepts, questionable even in their time, to new realities. Unfortunately, this is not a forensics club. You may fancy yourself engaged in such an excercise, but these borrowed political ideals are not persuasive in the present context. Your granstanding in this thread as chief facilitor of the rules of engagement doesn’t help you here either. </p>
<p>I agree with zoosermom. You are long on ethereal thinking as it relates some of YOUR favorite poliical philosophers – as I said, a dreamer of sorts-- but you either lack tangible understanding of real world application or choose to be selectively ignorant of it - hard to tell which. Nonetheless, if you aim to influence the thinking of others you will need a different tact. You will not defeat the practical concerns about present realities with philosophical constructs that are meaningless to those affected by this crisis, including those you purport to defend (except to the degree they can count you as an ally). It may win you points in a forensic competition, but that’s not what this is about. Good luck.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its hard to believe that you are implying that the U.S. is not already doing this. Most people tend to object to our over-involvement in the business of the rest of the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why there is marginal analysis involved.</p>
<p>Your statements are perfectly vaild, but you keep on generalising for every member of the population. It’s as though you are talking about allocating 100% of students to college, or allocating 0% of students to college.</p>
<p>Right now, undocumented immigrants face that 0% allocation – (the few that do attend private schools are rather economically insignificant). Massive allocative inefficiency.</p>
<p>Yes, for many people the MB, MC and ATC cost curves will tell them it won’t be economically efficient to have a college education. But this doesn’t invalidate the cost curves for those who will be more economically efficient with a college education, even after factoring in opportunity cost.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heaven I forbid I even suggest Milton Friedman (as he’s quite the consequentialist) … but I suppose you might have heard of the book “The World is Flat”. Over-involvement? Merely a progress towards greater economic efficiency. (I am talking about economic actions here, not military ones.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Massive? Ye’s post cited 112 undocument students in N.C, who would be impacted. Eariler, I averaged out the # of potentially college-bound undocuments students at 650 per state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is false.
I don’t know about other states, but in CA, undocumented immigrants can attend public colleges, as long as they meet the residency requirement. (Remember pi and her brother at UCSB?) I believe someone posted that this is true in TX as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Point out <em>how</em> I have espoused circular logic. Bare assertion gets you nowhere…</p>
<p>How have I deflected facts? I have attacked all of the opposing economic arguments, and to date I have yet to see any competing economic theory for why immigrants don’t reap an economic return to society … </p>
<p>Furthermore, zoosermom et al. keep talking about “moral obligation” and how the rich of the other countries (with inefficient systems) have economic obligations to a population who was only present in their home country for a few years of their lives.</p>
<p>Esoteric? To date there has not been an articulated moral basis for why you both think their moral obligations exist the way you say so. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To many undocumented immigrants who have acclimated and assimilated here all but in name, there can be nothing more meaningless and superficial to those affected by the crisis than the idea they are somehow bound to the rich of a country that was only involved for an ephemeral portion of their lives.</p>
<p>You and zoosermom come up with superficial ideas about why ultimate ancestral origin is important and all these weird ideas about being tied down to one’s place of birth. There can be nothing more impractical than that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, the allocative inefficiency is remedied a tiny bit. Definitely solvency here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but those students will have very huge effects on their communities … The marginal benefit / marginal cost ratio for each student will be much much higher than say, if you added yet another college graduate to a rich community. So again, the magnitude of inefficiency (in terms of opportunity cost unaccounted for) will be much much higher.</p>
<p>This is also an annual rate. I don’t know about you, but an extra 650 college graduates every year would have a pretty big impact on my state, especially if that means extra nurses, or extra engineers, especially in our northern regions – it would be a third of the estimated total amount of AP students in my state.</p>
<p>The other thing is again, growth. If you’re college-educated, aren’t your children likely to be college-educated? Won’t you push for your younger sibling to also enroll? Won’t you have a positive influence on your community and convince them to be college-educated? All the xenophobes conveniently ignore the growth factor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>gal, immigrants can pay their taxes. No one is stopping them. Do you think the IRS does not want certain peoples’ money? Anyone can file a return and pay their taxes with their name omitted. As long as they keep a copy of their return and check, they have evidence of payment for future reference.</p>
<p>If that’s the case, I see no problem with denying public admissions to anyone who has had the chances to pay their tax obligations but hasn’t. [Discounting those who haven’t been required to file a return…]</p>
<p>But then this isn’t a debate about undocumented immigrants’ abilities to enroll in public schools and get financial aid, isn’t it? The tax issue then, is totally independent of it.</p>
<p>(A second pertinent question I would like to ask – one not dependent on the first – is whether should children pay for their parents’ crimes?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I believe you have been confusing two separate issues. Taxpayer does not = citizen. Paying taxes does not confer the same rights as citizenship. Citizenship confers the right to vote, which allows a person to have a “voice” in how public funds are spent. Many U.S. citizens do not want their public funds spent on undocumented immigrants, because despite what some businesses and governmental officials have encouraged, they do not want to put the needs of the rest of world in front of their own. (Call it selfish, but it is closer to survival response.) </p>
<p>Obviously, the problem is that these people are here and our government is not enforcing the laws to make them leave.</p>
<p>Yes, it is a “sins of their fathers” problem. Must these students be punished for their parent’s decision to evade our laws? Right now, the answer is “yes,” in some ways - they cannot legally get a job or get federal financial aid.</p>
<p>“Furthermore, zoosermom et al. keep talking about “moral obligation” and how the rich of the other countries (with inefficient systems) have economic obligations to a population who was only present in their home country for a few years of their lives.”</p>
<p>It is not the children who choose to leave their home countries, it is adults who have spent their entire lives in those countries. You really don’t think very hard before you post, do you?</p>
<p><a href=“Call%20it%20selfish,%20but%20it%20is%20closer%20to%20survival%20response.”>quote=Bay</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Selfish but myopic (like the rich in the original countries zoosermom talks about). Ultimately, they compromise their self-interest even more. </p>
<p>The libertarian solution is self-interested but farsighted.</p>
<p>Consider two actions of self-interest: buying a gold bathtub one can barely afford OR employing a new employee where the ATC curve is decreasing. Which ultimately is more self-interested?</p>
<p>According to you, you’d call the selfish action of buying that luxury good “selfish” – and apparently paying that employee that salary is “unselfish”. But in actuality, it’s the second action that is the most self-interested: you’re going to have a better MB/MC curve with the latter option.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is economically inefficient to do so, actively opposing various market forces, which I have stressed time again, include comparative advantage, nomalisation of economic profit, the equitable entry and exit of firms and individuals, among many other such factors. Economic efficiency doesn’t conflict with the the rights framework provided by acclimating to another society by being a productive member – it only affirms it.</p>
<p>Such restrictions on immigration are inherently unnecessary to providing for economic efficiency and a just rights framework of a society. It is a permanent issue [other than the ability to refuse <em>actual</em> criminals from passing a border] that cannot be altered, much like voters cannot actually vote to deprive a certain group within the contract of all their liberties, providing the actions any one individual within that contract have been just [like what you saw in the French Revolution].</p>
<p>The policy of allocation based on income level, social group, industry etc. is a different matter. That is a policy issue. Society may even discriminate in allocating resources between new members of a society and more acclimated members, for simple reasons of trust and the maturity of the contractual relationships formed – which is a reason for discriminating between allocating to new immigrants and residents/citizens. But why shouldn’t a member of society who has been a productive member of society be able to naturalise? He has gone through the process all but in name.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s consider an individual such as FiveKey. According to you, funding his education would be putting the interests of the rest of the world in front of the rest of the world – despite the fact that were I to make an investment in him that relied on his lifelong loyalty to the United States, I would gladly make that investment. </p>
<p>That is why the arguments against are rather myopic and xenophobic – they are hurting their own self-interests in the process. Needs of the rest of the world? He’s going to fulfill YOUR needs. If I were to be suddenly drafted simultaneously in the US and Singapore – guess which military I would choose to enroll in? The US military.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re not equivocating “what the policy is currently” to “what the policy should be” are you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You were talking about the obligations of the rich of those countries to those children … I don’t get it?</p>