Behold this astonishingly factually inaccurate headline:
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?
5 Responses to “Journalistic Malfeasance”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
> thousands of non-Americans still nevertheless manage to legally join the US military and get fast-tracked to citizenship.
My dad, ferinstance, who emigrated to the US in 1947, joined the US Army in 1950 (not drafted), and became a citizen upon his discharge in 1954.
Young illegals can also still apply for a student VISA and then go for their green card, and do so legally. We were listening to something on the radio about this, and this teenage girl about to graduate high school was all distraught about the situation saying it would, “slam doors in her face.” So why is it the governments problem or mine? If you want opportunities, if you want to be a citizen then put on your big boy and girl pants go out to the immigration office and apply for citizenship. Illegal immigrants make me sick, sorry, but I live in California where Illegal immigration is so bad that my disabled son cannot get the state services that I pay for with my tax money just because I was responsible, went to college, got a good job, and have health insurance. Yet some wetback can come in here pop out a dozen kids they can’t afford, half of which end up with some form of disability and then suck off the liberal government teet for life. No thanks, throw the anchors back to mexico or whatever country they hail from.
It reminds me of diffusion across a membrane. The flow of illegals from Mexico will only stop when conditions are the same on both sides of the border. Either Mexico will get really great suddenly (fat chance in hell) or our country will be more like Mexico. Looking at Mexico right now, I certainly hope that does not happen. I think young men who leave their country as it falls apart are cowards. And I think we have the right to protect our country and limit our population so that the American standard of living can be maintained.
Sure there are many different ways to fix the problem, including making it impossible for illegals to get work. But building a wall and using lethal force are not out of the question in my book. And all that from a liberal elite from New York!
I have to wonder why the republicans are often so soft on this issue. (No I don’t; no republican wants to die poor, and illegals are cheap labor.)
> there are many different ways to fix the problem, including making it impossible for illegals to get work. But building a wall and using lethal force are not out of the question in my book.
Ah, but you wouldn’t *need* a wall if the laws weren’t insane in the US. If illegals were automatically deported, and businessness that knowingly hired then were fined heavily and those responsible arrested, and illegals were granted *no* government bennies whatsoever, they’d have no reason to come here… and no reason to stay. As the Arizona law showed, a lot of illegals started packing up and heading elsewhere of theior own volition.
As for Republicans being soft on this issue: yup, they suck. And it’s because, as you say, they want cheap labor… and also because they don’t want to offend the Hispanic voting demographic.
Are the laws insane, or are they simply not enforced?