04-05-2006, 12:50 PM
Quote: Give the people a path that can get them to a legal status.
Okay, hate to intrude but since I will be TAing entry level government courses and grading poorly written papers by 17-19 year old children next semester, I am going to. After all, you can't appreciate really shitty papers unless you read discussion by people who grasp the English language.
The problem with this is that it tacitly says that the United States is not going to exercise its inherint right to regulate immigration. By giving amnesty to people who have been essentially breaking the law only because they have gotten away with breaking the law for a protracted time does not sit well with me, although the social and infrastructural ramifications of 'getting tough' on immigration are definately mitigating factors to my disgust at this idea.
One of the central problems I have with this is the message it is going to send - why bother coming to the country legally? I had a friend at UT for the 5 years I attended who was from Kuwait on an educational visa. He was a model member of the community and an excellent student, and when he graduated with honors from a Public Ivy university and didnt get a job right away he was forced to go back to Kuwait, despite his desire to stay here. Why are we sending away skilled and educated laborers but rewarding people who didn't even bother going through the proper, legal channels for immigration?
I also dislike the idea of giving health care to people who did not bother to immigrate legally when there are American citizens who do not have it. It annoys me to no end that illegal aliens in Texas can get in state tuition at one of the best public universities in the country, whereas a guy from Oregon has to pay 4 times as much.
Is there a solution? I don't think so in the near future, and this issue bothers me as I am torn between my libertarian ideals and my desire for some sort of social stability.
In conclusion, Maull sucks.