[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

1> You state that there are 65000 undocumented students that are graduating every year. To me that means that there are 65000 legal immigrants that are being denied access to our school systems (and immigrant status) becuase illegal (yes, illegal) immigrants are taking up that space and those funds.

You need to know that that's a preposterous assumption. It's not as if governments say "there are exactly x spots for immigrants this year, and if that quota is exceeded, the rest will be turned away". If there's a demand, and the school districts do not discriminate on the basis of immigration status when it comes time to register, then the school districts will continue to provide education as best they can. (Obviously this can stretch resources, but most school systems are funded on the basis of enrolment, no matter the status of the pupils. You might argue against this practice on fiscal grounds, but ultimately, it is somewhat removed from the question of the schools filling up with aliens.)

Also, school districts are not necessarily interested in the immigration status of their students. This is a matter of privacy and of liability. If they actively try to find out about someone's immigration status, then they open themselves to allegations of discrimination on that basis. If they don't know, they can't be held responsible. (It's an open question whether any particular school system is just avoiding excess responsibility, or actually feels an ethical duty to protect students' privacy.)

If you're instead meaning to imply that 65 000 more students could have been granted visas to study at the secondary level, but were not granted those visas because of the presence of illegal immigrants, then you need to evaluate whether other factors might conceivably weigh upon the issuance of visas. Are there 65 000 willing immigrant students who could be issued visas under the current system? Remember, they have to demonstrate all kinds of resources within the country, like a sponsor, a place to live, financial support, etc. in order to qualify for a visa (and doubly so for a minor).

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

2> You say they are not guilty of commiting any crime, yet by their existance within the borders without papers they are, indeed, knowingly and willingly breaking the law. The law does not take into account how long they've been here, what type of person they are, or anything else other than their right to be here (which they do not have).

Although U.S. law probably does not require that willful intent be demonstrated in immigration matters, you brought up the question, and it's worth discussing.

Who formed the intent to enter the country illegally? Probably the parent—so it's unethical to punish the child for this. And given that the child (now aged 12 to 30) was probably not consulted on the decision to enter illegally, to what degree can they be held liable for their continued presence? Surely you can't hold a minor responsible under these circumstances. And for older immigrants (18 to 30), even if they are now culpable, do they have a defence in the fact that their means are insufficient to support a return to the "old country" with an acceptable standard of life? (Or would you have the U.S. government order them back, despite the fact that it would be the proximate cause of their resulting hardship?)

Also, as a pointed example, are you suggesting that a high school student, being competent enough to understand that he is in violation of immigration law, ought to turn himself in to the authorities for deportation? You realize that that might be a little unrealistic to hope for?

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

3> You are correct that we are spending $70000 per student on education (K-12). Don't you believe that we should be educating those who follow our laws rather than knowingly and willfully break them?

Are you saying that we shouldn't educate minors, on the grounds that their parents broke the law? Should this apply to other offences too?

Maybe you haven't stopped to consider what happens when students don't get an education? It doesn't matter if they ultimately get deported, or if they remain in the U.S.; withholding education does not serve the public interest, because it results in people failing to accumulate skills that would allow them to contribute to any economy, American or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

4> You state that 'deporting them all' is unrealistic, and I agree with you on that point. But the answer is not to reward them for breaking the laws (for doing so only encourages more). The answer is with supply and demand. To stem the supply we need to give them nothing (No schooling, No welfare, No unemployment, No protections) and to stem the demand we need to increase the punishments for assisting them (fines and jail for giving them work, transporting them, and harboring them).

Actually, to a limited extent, the answer is to reward them. Not for breaking the law, but for making contributions to the economy. You know all those jobs that Americans want $30/h to do? If they can do them for $10/h, and do them approximately as well—and let's not kid ourselves, there's not a whole lot of difference in a whole lot of occupations—then they're the ones saving American businesses from going under.

This is perceived as bad for the Americans who are no longer employed, but in some sense, it is also good for the American economy, because it readjusts the expectations to favour a more sustainable standard of living. That is supply and demand.

Note that I'm not saying that this is necessarily a state of affairs to strive for—because there are obvious problems with alienating the American labour force, and diminishing the standard of living—but you can't just assume that they make no useful contribution, and can therefore be treated as persona non grata. Their contributions are valuable, and an integral part of many American regional economies.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

By gaining control of the illegal (yes, I used that word again) immigrant issue we will be able to increase legal immigration and secure our borders better.

DREAM is well intentioned, but will only exacerbate an already bad situation. Legal immigration is the way to go, not giving those who break the law even more freedoms.

Changing public perceptions to combat widespread bigotry is the way to go. Then, and only then, can the U.S. implement a rational policy for legal immigration. The ridiculous laws that conflate immigrants with terrorists, and the widespread ignorance of America's economic dependence on foreign labour (in certain sectors) conspire with the public's xenophobia to make American immigration policy a farce of unfortunate proportions.

I shouldn't single out America for all the criticism, though. Many other countries struggle with this question. Fundamentally, people are afraid that the foreigners will use state resources and occupy local jobs, while sending their income overseas where it contributes to someone else's economy. The thing to realize, though, is that this is a problem shared by all developed nations—in other words, the states that can best afford to contribute some of their wealth toward the economic progress of the developing world. In some sense, this is the least-socialistic way to do things: let the workers compete in a free market, and let individuals choose the way that they spend their resources, even if that means sending cash overseas. (The developed state can therefore feel less responsibility, as a matter of foreign policy, to prop up the economies of the developing world, because individuals are sending the cash where they feel it is most needed.)

Ultimately, I think that everyone would prefer that immigrants enter through legal channels alone, and that as a corollary, the legal channels be constructed in proportion to the foreign policy responsibilities of a developed nation. But in the current state of affairs, we need to ask whether permitting some illegal immigration to take place yields a more favourable overall outcome than stopping it suddenly. And when the illegal immigrants being helped are the ones who have shown the most motivation to become productive members of American society, I don't understand how it can be argued rationally that they are unworthy of citizenship. In effect, aren't they demonstrating that they possess the same favourable qualities that are judged when someone makes an application for an immigrant visa?