Joe Legal vs Jose Illegal

[KSMountain]

[quote=pri_dk]Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.[/quote]
Now *that* is a persuasive argument, to me.

[ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.

[ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.

[ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.

[ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.

[ucodegen]

If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

The only problem is that to provide for Jose’s kid, we have to take away from Joe’s kid.. or Juan’s kid. Juan being the person who took the legal way in. It create a moral conundrum. You end up punishing someone for doing it right and legal, and rewarding someone for doing it illegally
(Ironically, similar to some of the stuff with real estate mortgages right now). Unfortunately the ones at receiving end are the kids, as proxies for their parents behavior or the behavior of other parents. Kids of legal parents get punished because of class crowding, teachers having to spend extra time bring kids of illegals up to speed. On the other hand, to deny kids of illegals an education, punishes those kids for the behavior of their parents. Either way, a decision has to be made.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).[/quote]
——————–

So where do we draw the line? There are a limited number of resources. One of the main reasons California is having financial difficulties is because the cost of educating all of these kids is skyrocketing (it’s the state’s largest expense). I used to work for LAUSD, and can attest to the extra expenses required (by law and by practice) to educate illegal immigrants and their children.

It’s not a personal issue (like Russel and SK keep trying to make it). It’s a practical issue. We have finite physical and financial resources. If we agree to educate every poor kid who comes here from Mexico (and how does one justify discriminating against kids from other foreign countries?), then we have to agree to educate everyone who comes here from any poor country. You think we have immigration/cultural problems now? Imagine what it would look like if we opened it up to every poor person who found a way to come here.

We can’t do it. Not because we don’t **want** to, but because we physically and financially cannot afford to do it. That is a fact.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).[/quote]
——————–

So where do we draw the line? There are a limited number of resources. One of the main reasons California is having financial difficulties is because the cost of educating all of these kids is skyrocketing (it’s the state’s largest expense). I used to work for LAUSD, and can attest to the extra expenses required (by law and by practice) to educate illegal immigrants and their children.

It’s not a personal issue (like Russel and SK keep trying to make it). It’s a practical issue. We have finite physical and financial resources. If we agree to educate every poor kid who comes here from Mexico (and how does one justify discriminating against kids from other foreign countries?), then we have to agree to educate everyone who comes here from any poor country. You think we have immigration/cultural problems now? Imagine what it would look like if we opened it up to every poor person who found a way to come here.

We can’t do it. Not because we don’t **want** to, but because we physically and financially cannot afford to do it. That is a fact.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).[/quote]
——————–

So where do we draw the line? There are a limited number of resources. One of the main reasons California is having financial difficulties is because the cost of educating all of these kids is skyrocketing (it’s the state’s largest expense). I used to work for LAUSD, and can attest to the extra expenses required (by law and by practice) to educate illegal immigrants and their children.

It’s not a personal issue (like Russel and SK keep trying to make it). It’s a practical issue. We have finite physical and financial resources. If we agree to educate every poor kid who comes here from Mexico (and how does one justify discriminating against kids from other foreign countries?), then we have to agree to educate everyone who comes here from any poor country. You think we have immigration/cultural problems now? Imagine what it would look like if we opened it up to every poor person who found a way to come here.

We can’t do it. Not because we don’t **want** to, but because we physically and financially cannot afford to do it. That is a fact.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).[/quote]
——————–

So where do we draw the line? There are a limited number of resources. One of the main reasons California is having financial difficulties is because the cost of educating all of these kids is skyrocketing (it’s the state’s largest expense). I used to work for LAUSD, and can attest to the extra expenses required (by law and by practice) to educate illegal immigrants and their children.

It’s not a personal issue (like Russel and SK keep trying to make it). It’s a practical issue. We have finite physical and financial resources. If we agree to educate every poor kid who comes here from Mexico (and how does one justify discriminating against kids from other foreign countries?), then we have to agree to educate everyone who comes here from any poor country. You think we have immigration/cultural problems now? Imagine what it would look like if we opened it up to every poor person who found a way to come here.

We can’t do it. Not because we don’t **want** to, but because we physically and financially cannot afford to do it. That is a fact.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]If you don’t like paying for Jose’s kid, then why are you OK with paying for Joe’s kid?

Lots of people without kids of their own like to make the “why should I pay taxes so your kid can go to school?” argument. (I personally never agreed with this, even before I had kids).

The common argument for public education is that these kids will eventually become adults in the community. And an educated population benefits everyone.

Both Joe’s kids and Jose’s kids are going to end up in US communities as adults (like it or not). So perhaps we should educate them both.

Regrettably, I agree that we can’t afford to help Juanita (outside of personal charity).[/quote]
——————–

So where do we draw the line? There are a limited number of resources. One of the main reasons California is having financial difficulties is because the cost of educating all of these kids is skyrocketing (it’s the state’s largest expense). I used to work for LAUSD, and can attest to the extra expenses required (by law and by practice) to educate illegal immigrants and their children.

It’s not a personal issue (like Russel and SK keep trying to make it). It’s a practical issue. We have finite physical and financial resources. If we agree to educate every poor kid who comes here from Mexico (and how does one justify discriminating against kids from other foreign countries?), then we have to agree to educate everyone who comes here from any poor country. You think we have immigration/cultural problems now? Imagine what it would look like if we opened it up to every poor person who found a way to come here.

We can’t do it. Not because we don’t **want** to, but because we physically and financially cannot afford to do it. That is a fact.

[scaredyclassic]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either. I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals? That’s gotta be pretty low cost, and it provides at least some humanitarian assistance. I vote online. I know people whoa re doing online public schooling and they say it’s pretty good

[scaredyclassic]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either. I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals? That’s gotta be pretty low cost, and it provides at least some humanitarian assistance. I vote online. I know people whoa re doing online public schooling and they say it’s pretty good

[scaredyclassic]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either. I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals? That’s gotta be pretty low cost, and it provides at least some humanitarian assistance. I vote online. I know people whoa re doing online public schooling and they say it’s pretty good

[scaredyclassic]

i don’t really want to pay for white irish illegals either. I’m kind of skeptical about the whole public schools system; why not have parallel online schools available for illegals? That’s gotta be pretty low cost, and it provides at least some humanitarian assistance. I vote online. I know people whoa re doing online public schooling and they say it’s pretty good

[Author]

Posts