<p>oops. double post</p>
<p>How about this scenario? Juan Jr’s illegal parents both work in a low paying service job and cannot afford non-resident tuition at the local community college or the state university. The family pays payroll taxes as well as property taxes(via rent payments), sales taxes, gas taxes if they have a car, etc just like their citizen neighbor next door.</p>
<p>Now Juan Jr is a smart kid and he faces 2 options on graduation from hs. Jr College-state univ if he is considered an in-state student or going to work at near minimum wage if he is not.</p>
<p>If he goes to college and graduates he will have the opportunity to be a productive worker, paying thousands of dollars in taxes each year, and having a happy family life. Or he could be undereducated, become a less than optimally productive worker, pay far less taxes during his 40 yrs of working while being dissatisfied with his life and what might have been, all things which could badly impact his wife(wives) and children.</p>
<p>Were either of these scenarios to play out, the public policy choice would be either very wise or very foolish in the long run.</p>
<p>In the mean time we legals are happy to eat in restaurants, stay in motels, buy foods and use contractors who are able to keep their prices low by employing Juan jr’s minimum wage earning parents.</p>
<p>I believe that the best investment society came make is to provide its children with the best education possible. Yes, we can take a short term view and refuse to allow Juan to enroll in the local-state college student at resident tuition rates. But do not think for a minute that it is a wise choice.</p>
<p>and do not think for a minute, originaloog, that there is one such Juan. </p>
<p>I love it when people always want to provide the “exceptional” model immigrant. Lots of them are models. But there are lots of models in other countries, as well; it’s just that they’re not conveniently across the border from us. They may have even more motivation, more desire, more ability, more courage than Juan. But there’s this little obstacle against them called the Atlantic Ocean. </p>
<p>The country does not have room for all the “exceptions” like Juan, Jr. </p>
<p>Here’s a radical thought:
How about MEXICO educating Juan, Jr., at the kind of cost we offer our “children.” (Notice the appeal to emotion again.)</p>
<p>“I believe that the best investment society came make is to provide its children with the best education possible.” </p>
<p>Um, the “its” in that sentence is Mexico’s. How many more “societies” shall we take responsibility for? The suffering in countries south, east, and west of us is enormous. </p>
<p>We have periodic immigrant rallies in our State, as I’m sure many other posters also have in their States. The argument is the same: ‘I [personally, random particular immigrant] pay my taxes, contribute to society, etc. Why do you persecute me?’ The answer is, this isn’t about just you, including if your name is Juan, Jr. Have we all met, and do all associate with, immigrants who perhaps are or were undocumented? And are many of these very nice people, law-abiding, whom we do not wish to see suffer? Yes. At least I can speak for myself there. And do I withhold educational services from them? No. </p>
<p>It’s about a plan for the future. I’ll leave it to others to debate the merits & demerits of mass deportation. I’m speaking about the future. All the Juan, Jrs. should collectively address their needs to their gov’t, not to ours (except insofar as our gov’t might apply pressure to their gov’t), BEFORE they begin breaking our laws via illegal entrance.</p>
<p>“Um, the “its” in that sentence is Mexico’s. How many more “societies” shall we take responsibility for? The suffering in countries south, east, and west of us is enormous.”</p>
<p>Probably all of those we (starting with Al Gore) have destroyed, through NAFTA, so-called “free trade”, the WTO and the World Bank. (Relative to that, costs of immigration are CHEAP!)</p>
<p>But I’m not complaining, really. Romney, Giuliani, and the rest of the Republicans have granted all immigrants at least two more years of amnesty. Two more years of citizens turning 18, and voting. Two more years of citizens being born. The Republican amnesty plan works for me.</p>
<p>“But I’m not complaining, really. Romney, Giuliani, and the rest of the Republicans have granted all immigrants at least two more years of amnesty. Two more years of citizens turning 18, and voting. Two more years of citizens being born. The Republican amnesty plan works for me.”</p>
<p>What are you saying? That these people are going to vote Republican? Or Democrat? and why?</p>
<p>“Probably all of those we (starting with Al Gore) have destroyed, through NAFTA, so-called “free trade”, the WTO and the World Bank.”</p>
<p>IF that ^^ is the partial or complete source of the drive north, then we take responsibility for reversing however we contributed to such error, & fix THAT.</p>
<p>Large-scale immigration is an impermanent end-run around long-term needs of those who desire a better standard of living.</p>
<p>ephiph-letting Mexico educate Juan Jr is fine if he and his family are deported but the fact of the matter with the way laws are enforced now Juan Jr. will most likely reside in the USA for the remainder of his days.</p>
<p>So the question to be answered is how do we enable him to be as productive a member of society as possible? What is in our best interest?</p>
<p>I would prefer that Juan Jr grow up to be an accountant, teacher, police officer, engineer than working in a restaurant kitchen, doing landscaping or other such menial job. And yes, to become an American citizen first and foremost.</p>
<p>In most cases, Juan Jr. already IS an American citizen, and by the same laws and Constitution by which I am, with the same privileges and responsibilities. </p>
<p>And he’s going to vote, too.</p>
<p>Re, Post 287,
You missed my point entirely. I’m talking about Juan Jr. getting educated BEFORE he gets deported, before he comes here, which is one of the provisions of the nevertheless ill-conceived Amnesty – I mean, “immigration” bill. (A more educated work force.) You haven’t answered the question, oog, as to why the U.S. should provide the free education & Mexico shouldn’t, when their leaders are rolling in corrupt billions of dollars.</p>
<p>Mini,
I propose limiting future citzenship to births of those legally qualified to be here. Then “Juan” would not in fact be a citizen. Yes, he votes. Which is why McCain loves him. The struggling Juans pay McCain’s & other congressional salaries. They don’t “love” immigrants. They love their jobs; they love their perks; they love the businesses filled with illegals, because those business owners also pay McCain’s (& others’) salaries. All of them are looking out for Numero Uno, not for “Juan.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not have that belief. You’re making up wild unfair characterizations of me to bolster your position. What does that say about your ability to evaluate research objectively?</p>
<p>Bilingual ed is about the same as English-only immersion, and far cheaper than the ESL pull-out programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-3/ten.htm[/url]”>http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-3/ten.htm</a></p>
<p>The cost was the same for English-only and bilingual. I don’t know how much plainer I can make it. There is no cost savings to the taxpayers for English-only. </p>
<p>Bilingual education doesn’t favor immigrants over “natives” any more than English-only does, if we look at actual facts, and not knee jerk fallacies.</p>
<p>Studies have shown bilingual instruction works better than English only and does not cost much more; in fact the benefits outweigh the costs.</p>
<p>I’ve linked to scads of studies and even meta-analysis of other studies–and in return you’ve made up insulting nonsense about me to try to demonize my position.</p>
<p>You can insist that the studies are meaningless because you don’t like what they say. To me it has about as much weight as the person with the superstitious dread of evolution insisting that the science supporting it “doesn’t count”, and making up tall tales to demonize the “evolutionists.”</p>
<p>I realise that you probably stand to benefit a lot from continuing the status quo and the idea of change is probably very threatening to you. But it doesn’t justify you making up random, hostile characterizations of other posters.</p>
<p>“Mini,
I propose limiting future citzenship to births of those legally qualified to be here.”</p>
<p>You can propose all you like. Juan, Jr. gets to vote too, and it requires a Constitutional Amendment. I would prefer a Constitutional amendment to limit voting to those who believe in evolution, but the odds are about the same.</p>
<p>Of course, if we want to leave the U.S., or at least the southwest to the original European settlers - that is, Hispanics - that would seem reasonable to me as well, though I do hope they’d allow English as a second language.</p>
<p>Anyhow, I kind of like the Romney/Giuliani/Republican amnesty myself.</p>
<p>“I would prefer that Juan Jr grow up to be an accountant, teacher, police officer, engineer than working in a restaurant kitchen, doing landscaping or other such menial job. And yes, to become an American citizen first and foremost.”</p>
<p>If you read back a few pages, you will see that the upward mobility rate for the Mexican illegals is very low, esp as compared to groups such as Africans, Asians, Middle Eastern origin. Even 3-4 generations into the US, Mexicans and their children lag way behind in school performance and college educations, and have an extremely high HS drop-out rate. To so overwhemingly favor the Mexican illegals in immigration, esp at the expense of other LEGAL immigrant groups who more quickly do rise up the educational scale and contribute far more in taxes and Soc Security, is not in the best interest of the US.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone here is against the US being a melting pot and providing opportunities for legal immigrants, but let’s at least get some diversity in immigration!</p>
<p>ten characters</p>
<p>“I don’t think anyone here is against the US being a melting pot and providing opportunities for legal immigrants, but let’s at least get some diversity in immigration!”</p>
<p>I do agree, and think we owe much easier immigration status to the two million pro-western, well-educated, and secular Iraqis who have had to flee because of our government’s malfeasance, and who are now living in miserable conditions elsewhere. </p>
<p>We took in Hmong, Mien, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese refugees, and now it is time we stepped up to the plate for the Iraqi refugees.</p>
<p>Post 290 is almost completely irrelevant to any of the replies I have posted on this thread, but that has never stopped him from continuing to select elite “studies” that do not pertain to the majority of teachers in the majority of those public schools with 80+% immigrant population, because those are in states, districts, & regions which do not have the local or larger tax base to support designer programs. Maybe at one point in history they would have been “not much more expensive” than alternative approaches, but that is certainly no longer true.</p>
<p>QUOTE:
“I realise that you probably stand to benefit a lot from continuing the status quo and the idea of change is probably very threatening to you. But it doesn’t justify you making up random, hostile characterizations of other posters.”</p>
<p>This is a complete nonsequitor & just utter nonsense. I do not “gain” from “continuing the status quo.” My “status quo” is an area dominated by families illterate in their own language, not well motivated to learn the host language, & maintaining a Third World mentality toward education in a First World country. I’m trying to reverse the status quo, but following ongoing, sequential arguments is just not Your Thing, I can see. The rest of us have gone on to other matters.</p>
<p>“I do not have that belief.” You either prefer one group over native citizens, or you are a dreamer, because it is not possible to serve both immigrants & nonimmigrants equally, in the manner that you propose. You are certainly not a professional accountant. I don’t care what the “studies” supposedly show. The dollars do not currently support such programs. The daily practical reality of limited existing dollars in 2007 is much more convincing than the studies.</p>
<p>When I argued for support of LEGAL native residents first, you stated that I must judge them as more “worthy” than illegal immigrants. In a legal sense, yes, they are, actually. In a moral sense, no they’re not. But we’re not in a position to dispense moral justice to the entire poor population of Mexico. That’s MEXICO’s responsibility. And they are NOT more worthy of our generosity than any other poor population anywhere else in the world, some of whom may ALSO have illegal residents here, who have ALSO been contributing to our economy. But many of you folks are ready to grant sainthood to Mexicans for some reason, a superior moral position to anyone else who is similarly unfortunate.</p>
<p>A rare moment: mini and I agreeing (post 294). Mark that on your calendars.</p>
<p>Epiphany, if you have some studies (and not just talking points) to show that English-only is cheaper and more effective than bilingual ed, let’s see them.</p>
<p>I’ve even shown you meta-analysis by Johns Hopkins of more than 20 studies. You haven’t pointed to one specific flaw in the Hopkins’ researchers work or methodology. All you do is make hostile accusations about what you perceive as my motives.</p>
<p>What’s your objection to the Hopkins study? Have you even read it?</p>
<p>mini is all goo goo. It thinks he can stage the revolution by importing a polity. He wants to stop engine blocks from coming north and corn from going south (anti-NAFTA, anti-globalization) but keep the border unrestricted for immigration. Good luck.</p>
<p>Juan Jr. is a social conservative and judging from his entreprenurial bent an economic one as well. He might even have a bit of a fascist streak in him judging from the name of La Raza and its program.</p>
<p>BTW birthright citizenship, which was established by the 14th Amendment, is not quit as clearcut as it seems. You have to be born in US territory and subject to its jurisdiction for starters. In fact while the Supreme Court has ruled that the children of legal residents are US citizens (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) there has never been a ruling that explicitly says that the children of illegal aliens are citizens.</p>
<p>So Juan Jr may or may not be getting the vote. There appears to be plenty of wiggly room in the 14th Amendment (see any of a number of cases involving American Indians) for the congress to clarify this under section 5. This is particularly true since the clear intent of the framers of the amendment was to protect the citizenship of emancipated slaves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think if you read any of the studies I cited, instead of prejudging them based on your own biases, you would find your description of them not to be true.</p>
<p>Just reciting the same talking point over and over doesn’t make it true. If you can show that despite other research to the contrary, the successful programs in the Hopkins study are designer programs requiring a larger tax base, let’s see it.</p>
<p>20% of Mexican nationals already live in the US including members of their congress. There is talk of setting up Mexican legislative districts in the United States to represent Mexican nationals (legal residents, illegal aliens, and dual citizens) living in the US. A Mexican national is basically anyone who has a Mexican parent including Juan Jr. A Mexican who takes the oath of American citizenship which begins, "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; " can nevertheless regain his Mexican nationality and hence voting rights very easily and is strongly encouraged to do so by the Mexican government.</p>
<p>There is a real problem with dual citizenship and not just with Mexicans. I do not believe the US should recognize dual citizenship but the Supreme Court has made it all but impossible to strip someone of US citizenship once obtained.</p>