Behold this astonishingly factually inaccurate headline:
GOP blocks youth immigration
This is a very brief news update announcing that Senate Republicans managed to stop the “DREAM Act” which would have given young illegal immigrants a “path to citizenship” via military service or by going to college. The news article *doesn’t* mention that without the “DREAM Act,” thousands of non-Americans still nevertheless manage to legally join the US military and get fast-tracked to citizenship. The article completely fails to back up the claim of the title that the GOP “blocks youth immigration.”
In fact, much of the discussion of this bill has been utter rubbish. I heard a snippet on NPR today where one of the commenters,bemoaning the failure of the bill, pointed out that in the American legal system we do not throw the children of serial killers into jail, thus implying that we shouldn’t toss out the children of illegal immigrants. There is, of course, a serious problem with this arguement: serial killing is not a good analogy for illegally crossing the border. Theft or tresspassing are much better analogies.
So, it’s time to do some basic thought experiments. Sure, it sucks for the children of illegal immigrants. There are few good answers for them. But there are answers that society as a whole has decided are good enough for other circumstances. So, consider:
Situation A: Foreigners sneak into the US with a baby. Baby is not at fault here. What to do with the baby?
Situation B: A pair of American citizens runs a scam, bilking ten million dollars out of a person, company or organization. The couple have a baby, and use that ill-gotten loot to raise the baby in the lap of wealth.
Situation C: American citizen works hard and smart, and makes a billion dollars. Raises baby, then keels over. Wants to leave that billion dollars to the baby.
OK. Let’s start with Situation B: what would society do? If the parents are convicted of stealing ten million dollars, the judicial system will recover that money – or at least whatever it can find – and return it to the rightful owner. The child of the thieves – remember, the child here has done no wrong and is at no fault – suddenly finds his fortune evaporated. Additionally, the child finds his parents suddenly absent, spending the next five to ten years in prison. So, in this case, society has determined that it’s perfectly acceptible to take an innocent child and strip from him his prospects, future and family.
Now, Situation C: the billionaire wants to leave his fortune to his kid. Most people would say “let him,” or something very similar. But not *everyone* in our society, and certainly not everyone in the position to make the rules. The new estate tax law will have the estate shaken down for 35% of every penny over $10 million. Other people want it to be 45% or more for every penny over a smaller amount. So the billionaire gets taxed twice… once when he makes the money, and again when he gives it to his kid. The rational person would want to know why the hell it’s anyone’s business what the billionaire does with his money, or why anyone should care how much he gives to someone else. But not the money-grubbers. They care who gets how much.
So, put Situations B and C together, and you have a society that’s cool with not only taking opportunities away from the innocent children of criminals, but also the innocent children of the industrious and law abiding. Now ask yourself, how manytalkign heads who would agree with these positions would suddenly get all snippy at the idea of taking away opportunities from the children of illegal immigrants.
The children here are at no more fault that the children of the scam artists… and they have no more right to the opportunities and goodies than the children of the scam artists – and considerably less right than the children of the billionaire.
So, does it suck for the children of illegal immigrants? Yup. But it sucks for the children of every other kind of criminal as well. “But I have a kid who needs me to stay out of prison and keep working to pay for his goodies” rarely works as a defence in court for those convicted of rape, assault, murder, home invasions, identity theft, drug trafficking, prostitution, fraud or any other damned crime. Why should it apply to criminal aliens?