Dream Act Put into Place by Govenor Brown

TOPIC, people.

The Dream Act.

NOT immigration in general, NOT Arizona or California, NOT States' right.

Longpost ahoy.

I would not rather that they were driving licensed, so much as I'd rather that they were citizens, first. The reaction shouldn't be "well, they'll do it anyway, let's just not bother enforcing the law," it should be, "you become a citizen properly and follow the law, or you don't live here, period." (Temporary stays notwithstanding).

Of course children should be protected, but they should be citizens if they expect that society will take on that responsibility. Whether its through the public or private sector, it will affect all of us, and I see no reason why breaking the law should allow one to force the hands of others in helping one achieve the status of "educated" or "able to drive a car" or whatever it is one wants to do.

Exactly. With the addition that this should not only apply to public services but also to the private sector.

The crime is their fault, in the purely abstract sense that they choose to come. Yes, their country is a hellhole, but they should work towards fixing that. I sympathize, but that doesn't mean that they can simply show up and start demanding things from us because "sending them back would be cruel." If they want access to things we get normally, they should become citizens. How difficult that is and ways to improve the system from that aspect are topics of a different discussion.

They'll still go to a school, of some kind, and whether parents are paying (private) or the taxpayers in general (public), we will still be paying, at least in part, for their education, as a nation in total, or at least on a state-by-state basis.

I agree with Kino. My dad came here from Mexico with his family—legally—decades ago. They're all citizens, and my dad worked his fucking ass off. He now owns his own business and contributes to society in a constructive manner, and it pisses him off too that they come over illegally. "It's hard to do it legally" is not an excuse for coming here illegally. We can work towards making it easier, fine, but if you can't do it the right way, too bad, we should kick you out. An immigrant can't decide the terms of entrance into other countries. It might not be "fair," but it's a simple fact of life with regards to nation-states.

Eric, we need a name for your small tokens of wisdom.

Ignoring the entire can of worms that comes with trying to legalize controlled substances, as I understand it, the drug trade in Mexico is predominantly "hard drugs," with relation to what comes into the US. An argument for legalizing marijuana I can accept; I won't agree, but I can accept it. "Hard drugs," on the other hand, have not excuse to be legalized and add nothing but problems for society. Besides that, why should it be up to the US to fix everybody's problems? I'm really tired of hearing how everything is 1) the US's fault, 2) somehow related to something the US does, therefore it's entirely up to the US to change and 3) it's the US's obligation to police the planet? Is nobody capable of solving their own problems in the world anymore?

I know it's a flawed and callous argument, but really, the answer to "Mexico sucks" shouldn't be "go to the US/make the US fix it/it's the US's fault", it should be "fix the problem." At this point, Mexico needs a revolution, or something nearly as drastic. I really doubt that, even if the US legalized all the drugs that are now illegal, that Mexico (and, to add scope, the rest of the drug trade countries) would improve markedly within even a decade or two. Yes, some of the problem comes from us, but the vast majority of the weight of fixing the issue should be on them, not us. It's their problem(s), and they have to work together to fix it, or nothing will ever change. Forcing "improvement" on others will only cause backlash and make it worse.

{Off-topic deleted. On-topic part left. — Madrugada}

Well, fine, then why isn't part of this bill that anyone who uses it must become a citizen? Then I might even entertain the idea of supporting it, because at that point it's pros have outweighed it's cons. The law is condoning the breaking of other laws; that's half the reason why it's bullshit.

edited 27th Jul '11 5:00:19 PM by Madrugada

Because California can't determine citizenship rules, it's outside of their authority.

I still want to know what the heck belongs in this discussion, if not the reason for the act.

You know, this is going to be a really short thread if the great mod stick censors any attempt to discuss the overall context into which the Dream Act is being implemented.

The children of illegal immigrants didn't choose their parents.

Going to refrain from replying more than that, since it'll likely just get modded.

Yep, and I wouldn't be surprised if my posts get thumped like the others. Your point?

What?

Justice is, to me, righting a wrong. The law is the definition of what is right and wrong according to the people. If a law is "wrong," it is changed, not disregarded and contradicted by other laws. This Dream Act isn't helping to fix the issue; if anything, it's making it worse. As for people who break the law, the whole point is that they are punished; if not, why bother with "law and order" at all? Just let people be violent and do whatever in the streets; that's the kind of thinking I see there, so, correct me if I'm wrong.

The solution is that they become citizens. To me, that's final. What other option is there? "Oh, you can break the law, we don't care! Go ahead, get subsidized education!" No, they should be made to follow the law, at the very least. The bare-bones minimum it would take for me to accept this law is what I said before: if you enjoy its benefits, you have to become a US citizen, period. Otherwise, it makes no sense to me and ought to be repealed.

edited 27th Jul '11 5:06:39 PM by MatthewTheRaven

Thats all well and fine. but the way the system works(?), thats pretty much impossible to accomplish on a wide scale

The problem is the presumption of justice I mentioned, and as I already said, California has no jurisdiction over citizenship, that's a federal issue.

They can, however, recognize that the immigrants aren't going to go away, and that their own policies can determine what happens with the immigrants.

In this case, they've chosen to pursue a positive outcome rather than negative reinforcement. Basing it on citizenship is silly, California can't set up conditions for citizenship.

edited 27th Jul '11 5:12:25 PM by blueharp

So refine the system. Don't disregard it; that just sends the message that if a law is difficult to follow, you can ignore it. Instead, we should reform the law itself, so that it's not so difficult to follow.

Yes they can. The State of California is a part of the United States of America. They can demand that all those who participate in any state-funded or -facilitated action is a citizen of the country. They aren't setting the citizenship standards—the process by which one becomes a citizen—so much as they would simply demand that one be a citizen. That would be perfectly justified and the Federal Government would probably support such an idea.

edited 27th Jul '11 5:14:11 PM by USAF713

That would be what California is doing, refining the laws within the scope of its authority.

No, they cannot set up conditions for citizenship. That is a Federal issue, not a state one.

Sure, they could base some condition on citizenship, but the problem is with that whole process, which is why this law was passed, because they believe it's better to pick a different route.

It's like there a disconnect where you aren't even seeing their reasons. You may disagree with their reasons, but I don't think you are even seeing the point of them.

edited 27th Jul '11 5:17:52 PM by blueharp

Thats about as politically likely to happen as compromise.

So the legal system is hard. It would be bad if changing the law were as easy as saying "let's do something different!" because there are so many separate ideas of what is and is not right. Democracy isn't supposed to be easy. If it were, a small few could trump the wants of the majority. If one wants change—such as to the citizenship laws—one should work towards that goal, like groups do for every other goal. Not write contradictory laws like this one, which fly in the face of the entire political system.

How would they be setting up conditions for citizenship. They are simply stating what is—or damn well should be—a fact of the legal system: if you want something from the government, you have to be a citizen under that government's jurisdiction.

I see the reasoning, but I really don't care, because I believe the implications here are so much worse than they intended. The entire thing boils down to "the citizenship and immigration system is difficult, so people are here illegally. Illegally, which is breaking the law. But we think they should still get government services, because they're people too, so we're going to give it to them! Without making them, oh, I don't know, follow the law first, and become citizens like normal people!"

It's not a better path, it's a path towards self-destruction of the entire legal system this country runs on.

edited 27th Jul '11 5:22:41 PM by USAF713

It's not the legal system. It's a matter of politics, not procedure.

Also, it falls quite in line with the whole system, they're acting within the scope of state authority, and it's hardly a criminal rejection of the federal authority. It's just part of the tension between states and the federal gov't, and nothing that isn't part of history.

Well, I believe you are wrong, or at least, a little hyperbolic, about the obligations of a government, they do have responsibilities to anybody under their authority. You may argue over the details, but there is no complete abrogation of duty just because you aren't a citizen. For the rest, you are presuming the law is just, which is an attitude I do not agree with at all.

But I think we're wandering again.

The Dream Act is a response by legislature of state of California to what it believes is an issue, that illegal immigrants aren't going to magically disappear, so rather than rant and rail at that, or engage in what are believed to be fruitless punitive measures, they've decided to work to improve people's lives. And this particular aspect of the bill doesn't even use state money, but private, so it's not even tax dollars, it's just the state not criminalizing something.

I'm sure the legislators involved would not object to changing the rules of citizenship to make them more reasonable, but they don't have the authority to do that, it is a Federal issue, not a state one.

edited 27th Jul '11 5:34:21 PM by blueharp

Eh, it's California, now it's just an explicit part of the law instead of something that just gets done.

And hey, the law does require:

3. If undocumented, the filing of an affidavit with the college or university stating that they have applied for a lawful immigration status or will apply as soon as they are eligible to do so.

There, problem solved, it's hardly California's fault if the Federal government never deigns to make them eligible.