OT – The Dream Act

[briansd1]

[quote=ocrenter]
there’s a whole lot more native borns sucking this country dry. You’ve been listening to talk radio wayyyy too much.[/quote]

Actually, immigrants provide a great portion of the growth in this country.

For example in 2000, 36% of the New York City’s population was foreign born (problably more now). NYC is one of the richest, most dynamic city in the world.

Immigrants open shops, restaurants and small business the revilatize blighted areas.

And as the United States looks at ways to jump start the economy, groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Fiscal Policy Institute point to immigrant entrepreneurs as critical contributors. Many move here legally and create new jobs, pay taxes and add to a neighborhood’s revitalization.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/video-making-it-in-america/13822/

Legalizing immigrants already in this country would unlock untold potential.

[briansd1]

AN, nobody is cutting in line if there’s a new line that opens up. You have the choice to move to the new line, or stay in the current line.

If you move to the new line, your wait can be longer or shorter.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]AN, nobody is cutting in line if there’s a new line that opens up. You have the choice to move to the new line, or stay in the current line.

If you move to the new line, your wait can be longer or shorter.[/quote]
If the new line is quicker (letting people in the new line get in faster than if they would go to the end of the original line), then, yes, it is like cutting. But really, what’s the point? Why waste money and energy creating a new line when we already have a line? What’s the purpose of a new line, other than to score some political points?

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=ocrenter]
there’s a whole lot more native borns sucking this country dry. You’ve been listening to talk radio wayyyy too much.[/quote]

Actually, immigrants provide a great portion of the growth in this country.

For example in 2000, 36% of the New York City’s population was foreign born (problably more now). NYC is one of the richest, most dynamic city in the world.

Immigrants open shops, restaurants and small business the revilatize blighted areas.

And as the United States looks at ways to jump start the economy, groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Fiscal Policy Institute point to immigrant entrepreneurs as critical contributors. Many move here legally and create new jobs, pay taxes and add to a neighborhood’s revitalization.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/video-making-it-in-america/13822/

Legalizing immigrants already in this country would unlock untold potential.[/quote]

We need something a whole lot more pragmatic than deporting American grown kids because they were “cutting”. That’s just plain stupid.

Obama is really one of the toughest administration when it comes to border enforcement, his numbers are actually slightly higher than Bush, and this is during a recession when there has been significant reduction in attempted illegal crossings.

After proving he is tough on border enforcement, he then go for the low hanging fruit, kids that were already educated here and have done well but came illegally.

That is as pragmatic and logical of a policy decision as anyone can make.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=ocrenter]
We need something a whole lot more pragmatic than deporting American grown kids because they were “cutting”. That’s just plain stupid.
.[/quote]

That’s the problem. We do it, and it sets the expectation of just come and hide long enough for your kids to be ‘american’ grown.

How long is that? How young is it?

Do they need to come under the age of 1? 2? 3? 5? 10?

How long do they need to be here? Already 18? Successful in school, no run ins with the law?
Or will it be they’re over 14?
Or 10?
Or 5?

And how many other issues be we bring by encouraging millions to live in the shadows so their children will be ‘american’ grown?

That’s why need a draconian policy and then grant ayslum for the ‘countryless’ american grown children.

We need the policy first, then the asylum. Asylum first, brings a repeat.

For every kid like Ana in the prior article what other negatives are we getting in the basket of illegal immigration?

For every Ana, is encouraging their families to stay and keep Ana here bringing others with one kid that will drop out and become a gangbanger? 1/10th? 1/100th?

It will take 100 Anas to counter the costs we incur for one additional gangbanger.

It isnt even gang members. Ana represents what success rate? I look at LAUSD and they have a 1/3 drop out rate. If Ana is 1 in 100 achieving like that, even 1 in 10 achieving like that, we 3 drop outs. At 1 in 100 it’s 30 drop outs.

What’s the cost to our society of facilitating 30 more drop outs?

And no, I’m not blaming their community for the gang problem or the school failure problem, however it’s not making it better and the additional costs are real.

[ocrenter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=ocrenter]
We need something a whole lot more pragmatic than deporting American grown kids because they were “cutting”. That’s just plain stupid.
.[/quote]

That’s the problem. We do it, and it sets the expectation of just come and hide long enough for your kids to be ‘american’ grown.

How long is that? How young is it?

Do they need to come under the age of 1? 2? 3? 5? 10?

How long do they need to be here? Already 18? Successful in school, no run ins with the law?
Or will it be they’re over 14?
Or 10?
Or 5?

And how many other issues be we bring by encouraging millions to live in the shadows so their children will be ‘american’ grown?

That’s why need a draconian policy and then grant ayslum for the ‘countryless’ american grown children.

We need the policy first, then the asylum. Asylum first, brings a repeat.

For every kid like Ana in the prior article what other negatives are we getting in the basket of illegal immigration?

For every Ana, is encouraging their families to stay and keep Ana here bringing others with one kid that will drop out and become a gangbanger? 1/10th? 1/100th?

It will take 100 Anas to counter the costs we incur for one additional gangbanger.

It isnt even gang members. Ana represents what success rate? I look at LAUSD and they have a 1/3 drop out rate. If Ana is 1 in 100 achieving like that, even 1 in 10 achieving like that, we 3 drop outs. At 1 in 100 it’s 30 drop outs.

What’s the cost to our society of facilitating 30 more drop outs?

And no, I’m not blaming their community for the gang problem or the school failure problem, however it’s not making it better and the additional costs are real.[/quote]

That is why Obama shored up the enforcement aspect first. By tightening up enforcement, you significantly reduce the flow of illegals. But then you still have a bunch of American grown illegals you have to generate a policy on. Especially the productive ones that are doing well. The drop outs will not be taken care of by the dream act nor obama’s new policy. They can continue to face deportation, which again has reached the highest level ever.

You tighten up the illegal stream and you open up the legal channels, but do it at the same time.

[Author]

Posts