5 ms·

I don't know the specifics of the current reasoning or history that Arizona has with immigration but at a base level I'm pretty infuriated that these kids actua

by Yhippa 11y ago

I don't know the specifics of the current reasoning or history that Arizona has with immigration but at a base level I'm pretty infuriated that these kids actually have the desire to do hard things that society needs and got thwarted. I know there are rules but how many potential new engineers (is there still a big shortage?) are we letting slip through the cracks?

OJFord 11y ago
Does "illegal" in this (immigration) context have a more subtle meaning in the USA? When the article says he lost his place when voters pulled scholarship money from "people in the country illegally", I read that and think, well I'm not surprised - surely if the university is aware that somebody is in the country illegally then they have a duty to report it to the authorities, and certainly not offer them studentship - nevermind a scholarship?!
- skybrian 11y ago
  The question is whether children should be blamed for what their parents did. Many people would say no.
  - OJFord 11y ago
    Oh I see. Still sounds mad to me though, I mean what's the alternative appending something like > or, you are under 18, and not to blame for your illegal residency to citizenship requirements?
    - pkaye 11y ago
      That is already there in the laws. Overstays under 18 years of age are not penalized when you subsequently try to legalize. Otherwise there is a 3-10 years ban which takes some legal effort to overcome. Furthermore to legalize one must qualify through job or family and this can be a tough barrier for many.
    - skybrian 11y ago
      You usually don't need to be a citizen to go to school. Many college students come from other countries. Requirements for a scholarship need not mention citizenship. Also, unless there's a law specifically against it, there's nothing to prevent colleges from admitting or giving scholarships to people who have broken laws. You generally have to go out of your way to find out what someone has done. A college that only accepted people who hadn't broken any laws wouldn't be admitting most high school students. Excluding people doesn't happen automatically - you have to actually make an effort to do it.
  - rtl49 11y ago
    From a more detached point of view, the question is whether law ought to be enforced irrespective of how it is violated. Many people would say yes.
    - dasil003 11y ago
      Vanishingly few would experience that detachment for anything they were personally involved with.
      - rtl49 11y ago
        Possibly so, which is why decision-making is so often delegated to those who have no personal involvement.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        This is how people get shipped to ovens. "Just executing the law, bro"
        rtl49 11y ago
        In this case it would result in their being repatriated to their countries of origin. Usually these are ovens only in a figurative sense.
        skybrian 11y ago
        Well, let's not bring the Nazis into it. If you're deporting people to Syria or Somalia or some other dangerous place (which they sometimes have no memory of), it's quite bad enough. Legal terms (like "country of origin") are abstractions that often hide what that consequences of a decision actually are.
    - MisterBastahrd 11y ago
      If we applied that to driving laws, people would revolt. As long as people have a reasonable expectation to not be directly impacted, they usually don't care.
  - OJFord 11y ago
    It's not really about blame though, surely, it's just about upholding the law. The child of an illegal immigrant is there illegally, they're not to blame, but they're illegal residency surely shouldn't be supported. An analogy might be distributing inheritance evenly, because "children shouldn't be blamed for what their parents did [and how much they made doing it]". Some people might argue we should do that... but even they'd surely agree it's pretty extreme. Just seems like a rather ambivalent relationship with immigration law to me. But hey, that's just my outsider's point of view!
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Some people see the law as unjust and not their responsibility to uphold. Kicking a person out of the only country they've ever known is pretty harsh when they've done nothing wrong. The inheritance analogy falls pretty flat for this. Consider instead if the law said that children of murderers must be imprisoned along with their parents. If you came across the child of a murderer who had yet to be apprehended, would you report them?
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >but they're illegal residency surely shouldn't be supported. Then provide 0 medical services, CPS services, police services, or legal system services. If you have someone here illegally, especially a child, being targeted by a predator, it sucks. Really bad. But to offer them any services paid for by the American people is supporting their illegal residency. I find that most people who push for the view of not supporting legal residency in cases such as school care or even medical care are still willing to do so when you talk about the illegal resident being the target of a predator. This makes me think that either they don't fully accept their own logic or that there is something else at play that they didn't expand upon.
- revelation 11y ago
  Well California gives driving licenses to illegals: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/dmv-698896-licenses-undocumented.html http://www.ocregister.com/articles/dmv-698896-licenses-undoc... The relationship to illegals in the US is rather schizophrenic.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    "Illegals" is derogatory. Also, you are trying to apply a psychiatric diagnosis of an individual to a population of people, which is nonsensical.
    - revelation 11y ago
      Hold your horses, I'm not too attuned with local politics to know which particular word is considered correct right now.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The US government is intentionally "schizophrenic." Immigration law is set by the Feds, driver's licenses are up to the states, and there's no particular reason those distinct entities have to align their views in their different areas of responsibility.
    - revelation 11y ago
      "No particular reason" except for an expectation that the outcome be sensible. See, you can make the argument that "this is how it's organized" all you want, but when the outcomes don't make sense it just morphs into "why is it organized like this".
      - mikeash 11y ago
        The reasons for the federal structure of the US government are well documented and not very hard to find.

by Yhippa 11y ago

OJFord 11y ago

Does "illegal" in this (immigration) context have a more subtle meaning in the USA? When the article says he lost his place when voters pulled scholarship money from "people in the country illegally", I read that and think, well I'm not surprised - surely if the university is aware that somebody is in the country illegally then they have a duty to report it to the authorities, and certainly not offer them studentship - nevermind a scholarship?!

skybrian 11y ago
The question is whether children should be blamed for what their parents did. Many people would say no.
- OJFord 11y ago
  Oh I see. Still sounds mad to me though, I mean what's the alternative appending something like > or, you are under 18, and not to blame for your illegal residency to citizenship requirements?
  - pkaye 11y ago
    That is already there in the laws. Overstays under 18 years of age are not penalized when you subsequently try to legalize. Otherwise there is a 3-10 years ban which takes some legal effort to overcome. Furthermore to legalize one must qualify through job or family and this can be a tough barrier for many.
  - skybrian 11y ago
    You usually don't need to be a citizen to go to school. Many college students come from other countries. Requirements for a scholarship need not mention citizenship. Also, unless there's a law specifically against it, there's nothing to prevent colleges from admitting or giving scholarships to people who have broken laws. You generally have to go out of your way to find out what someone has done. A college that only accepted people who hadn't broken any laws wouldn't be admitting most high school students. Excluding people doesn't happen automatically - you have to actually make an effort to do it.
- rtl49 11y ago
  From a more detached point of view, the question is whether law ought to be enforced irrespective of how it is violated. Many people would say yes.
  - dasil003 11y ago
    Vanishingly few would experience that detachment for anything they were personally involved with.
    - rtl49 11y ago
      Possibly so, which is why decision-making is so often delegated to those who have no personal involvement.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        This is how people get shipped to ovens. "Just executing the law, bro"
        rtl49 11y ago
        In this case it would result in their being repatriated to their countries of origin. Usually these are ovens only in a figurative sense.
        skybrian 11y ago
        Well, let's not bring the Nazis into it. If you're deporting people to Syria or Somalia or some other dangerous place (which they sometimes have no memory of), it's quite bad enough. Legal terms (like "country of origin") are abstractions that often hide what that consequences of a decision actually are.
  - MisterBastahrd 11y ago
    If we applied that to driving laws, people would revolt. As long as people have a reasonable expectation to not be directly impacted, they usually don't care.
- OJFord 11y ago
  It's not really about blame though, surely, it's just about upholding the law. The child of an illegal immigrant is there illegally, they're not to blame, but they're illegal residency surely shouldn't be supported. An analogy might be distributing inheritance evenly, because "children shouldn't be blamed for what their parents did [and how much they made doing it]". Some people might argue we should do that... but even they'd surely agree it's pretty extreme. Just seems like a rather ambivalent relationship with immigration law to me. But hey, that's just my outsider's point of view!
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Some people see the law as unjust and not their responsibility to uphold. Kicking a person out of the only country they've ever known is pretty harsh when they've done nothing wrong. The inheritance analogy falls pretty flat for this. Consider instead if the law said that children of murderers must be imprisoned along with their parents. If you came across the child of a murderer who had yet to be apprehended, would you report them?
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >but they're illegal residency surely shouldn't be supported. Then provide 0 medical services, CPS services, police services, or legal system services. If you have someone here illegally, especially a child, being targeted by a predator, it sucks. Really bad. But to offer them any services paid for by the American people is supporting their illegal residency. I find that most people who push for the view of not supporting legal residency in cases such as school care or even medical care are still willing to do so when you talk about the illegal resident being the target of a predator. This makes me think that either they don't fully accept their own logic or that there is something else at play that they didn't expand upon.
revelation 11y ago
Well California gives driving licenses to illegals: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/dmv-698896-licenses-undocumented.html http://www.ocregister.com/articles/dmv-698896-licenses-undoc... The relationship to illegals in the US is rather schizophrenic.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  "Illegals" is derogatory. Also, you are trying to apply a psychiatric diagnosis of an individual to a population of people, which is nonsensical.
  - revelation 11y ago
    Hold your horses, I'm not too attuned with local politics to know which particular word is considered correct right now.
- mikeash 11y ago
  The US government is intentionally "schizophrenic." Immigration law is set by the Feds, driver's licenses are up to the states, and there's no particular reason those distinct entities have to align their views in their different areas of responsibility.
  - revelation 11y ago
    "No particular reason" except for an expectation that the outcome be sensible. See, you can make the argument that "this is how it's organized" all you want, but when the outcomes don't make sense it just morphs into "why is it organized like this".
    - mikeash 11y ago
      The reasons for the federal structure of the US government are well documented and not very hard to find.