Killing the Dream

Immigrants who go to college in America are an asset, not a liability.

They sound like a group custom-built and poll-tested to appeal to Republicans: hardworking youngsters with a powerful attachment to America, upright habits and a thirst to join the Army or enroll at State U. But the potential beneficiaries of the Dream Act are getting no love from the GOP.

That's because they are illegal immigrants -- born abroad and brought here as children by parents desperate for a better life. Why they evoke scorn is a mystery. The parents may be faulted for overlooking our laws, but not their offspring, who had no say in the matter.

Many of the kids are as American as Miranda Lambert in every respect but place of birth: They speak English, play football and softball, post photos on Facebook and know the menu at McDonald's.

Some don't even realize they're not U.S. citizens until they apply for a driver's license or a Social Security card. At that point they discover they are subject to summary deportation to a country they may not even remember.

They learn that their only future in this country is no future at all: living in the shadows, dodging the law and missing out on opportunities the native-born take for granted. It's a life sentence of exile, internal or external.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (Dream) Act would mitigate their plight by offering them a deal. Those who have been here at least five years and arrived before the age of 16 could ask for conditional lawful permanent resident status, which would let them stay for six years. Only those who have a high school diploma or GED, "demonstrate good moral character" and pass a criminal background check would qualify.

During that period, they would be free to go to college or enlist in the military. Those who do either for two years would be eligible for permanent legal status, allowing them to become citizens. Those who don't would be obligated to leave.

Time was, Republicans could appreciate how people would be so determined to enter the Promised Land that they would ignore the law. It was the GOP icon Ronald Reagan who in 1986 supported and signed an immigration bill offering absolution to nearly 3 million undocumented foreigners.

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though some time back they may have entered illegally," he declared unashamedly.

The Dream Act once had considerable Republican support. Robert Gates, George W. Bush's defense secretary, endorsed it. Texas Gov. Rick Perry defended it in presidential debates. Richard Lugar, the longest serving U.S. senator in Indiana history, signed on as the chief GOP sponsor. When it came up in 2007, it had the support of a dozen Republican senators.

But that was before anti-immigrant fever infected the party. Lugar is facing a primary challenge from a tea party favorite endorsed by the Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC) -- which has called undocumented foreigners "Nazis" who "have set up ethnic cleansing zones." So the usually steadfast Lugar dropped the bill like a hot stove.

This is one issue where the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is large and distinct. In his State of the Union address, the president endorsed the bill, imploring Congress to "stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country."

Romney flatly rejects the Dream Act. His sole concession is a willingness to "study and consider" an alternative being drafted by Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio.

But even that "compromise" is a fraud, because it would offer no plausible avenue to citizenship. It's a diamond ring without the stone.

Opponents of the Dream Act predict huge taxpayer costs as youngsters flock to public colleges at in-state rates. But why should the "dreamers" be barred from what their classmates can claim? It's easy to forget that though these kids are illegal, they are also blameless.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I'm afraid I have to disagree. This presumes that a college degree is the necessary talisman for all achievement, which is bushwa. What a college degree, particularly a college degree in the humanities, qualifies you to do is start studying for the next higher degree.

    The panjandrums of Higher Education have sold us a bill of goods.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    What a college degree, particularly a college degree in the humanities, qualifies you to do is start studying for the next higher degree.

    Not true,

    The primary purpose is to enable parasitism via government employment.

  • purple_persuader||

    Correct, college is or should only be for engineers, scientists and the like. in truth there should be more emphasis on vocational schools and a transition to apprenticeships/mentoring/interning.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Scholars. College should be for Scholars. Unhappily, the cirrent crop of so-called intellectuals have, for the most part, neither the talent nor any taste for scholarship.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    That may be the PURPOSE. Nevertheless, what a degree QUALIFIES you to do is study for another degree.

  • l0b0t||

    I'm unsure why they lump the military in with this nonsense. When I was in the Army back in the 1980s-90s, we had 3 guys in my unit (and dozens of soldiers who passed through my classes) who were not US citizens. Many of them came over on student visas that had expired so they enlisted to avoid deportation and earn their citizenship via military service. Did that policy change so drastically after 1994 that a new law is needed to implement it again?

  • KevinP||

    The military connection is a red herring.

    Since the late 1990s, the military has generally required that non-citizen volunteers be lawful permanent residents. Illegal aliens are prevented from signing up and this law would not change that.

    So the only beneficiaries of the DREAM Act would be illegal aliens who attend some years of college.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Since the late 1990s, the military has generally required that non-citizen volunteers be lawful permanent residents


    That's disgusting. Even the French (the French!) allow for citizenship "par le sang versé".

  • DJF||

    So you are recommending that the US have its own Foreign Legion to maintain order in the Empire?

    Or how about instead the US give up its expensive and dangerous empire and therefore not need millions of troops including foreigner mercenaries

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So you are recommending that the US have its own Foreign Legion to maintain order in the Empire?

    When you put it that way, that sounds fuckin' cool!

    Or how about instead the US give up its expensive and dangerous empire and therefore not need millions of troops including foreigner mercenaries

    Yeah, that makes more sense, but it's less cool. Why do you have to be such a Debbie Downer?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So you are recommending that the US have its own Foreign Legion to maintain order in the Empire?

    Do you actually believe that American soldiers would participate in a coup d'etat?

    An American foreign legion removes that uncertainty for TPTB.

  • l0b0t||

    Thanks Kevin. It seemed kind of fishy. Hell, my roommate for a year in the barracks was from Hong Kong, his family had escaped the Chicoms and sent him to school in the US. His visa ran out so he enlisted so he enlisted because (as he was fond of telling us) he wanted to be a US citizen, not a British subject. One would be hard pressed to find someone more patriotic than he. He seemed like a shining exemplar of the American ideal.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Sorry but your cost/benefit is wildly skewed. You're saying if we subsidize their college, we'll get more in net tax/payments from them than if we don't. But, that doesn't include the cost of the college subsidy. That shifts it far in the direction of payments. If we don't provide them any services (i.e. deport them), the net cost amounts to nothing beyond deportation cost.
    What exactly is the Rubio plan? Does it omit subsidization? If so, then it sounds like it could be much more in line with libertarian principles than subsidizing illegal aliens.

  • hk||

    You are extremely naive, they'll just come back and most immigrants are harmless. We should only punish the Drug War immigrants by making Drugs LEGAL. And then we wouldn't have to worry about your precious legalities.

    There's nothing wrong with coming to the United States and getting a job. You people are completely hysterical and hard to take seriously.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    All of that misses the point. A subsidized college education pushes the net tax/payments dramatically in favor of payments. The alternative isn't the net tax/payments of the average person (post-college) if they didn't go to college. It's the net tax/payments of either deportation or their continuing to "live in the shadows". It's not at all clear to me that that is anywhere near net tax/payments of a college grad less college subsidy.
    The question isn't whether I (or anyone else) minds people coming to the United States and getting a job - I'm all for it. The question is whether we should subsidize the decision to come to the U.S. outside of legal channels.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    With regard to "anywhere near...". I'm assuming the magnitude is negative in both cases.

  • purple_persuader||

    BD, once "hk" called you part of a hysterical group in response to you making a reasoned, economical argument he pretty much showed himself for the close minded idiot he is.

  • hk||

    Well you must be illiterate, since I don't believe in subsidized college education.

    I am against all subsidies. I suppose you just disqualified yourself.

  • hk||

    Too bad pro-illegal people don't all fit some left-wing mold.

    Take some time to read before you respond.

  • hk||

    That's fine with me, you are getting confused though.

    I do not object to your entire argument, I simply dislike this naive notion that you can effectively deport people. And that such people even deserve to be deported.

    By all means end the welfare state.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Regardless of whether you can effectively deport people, its perceived threat leads illegals to self-select against becoming welfare state clients. Personally, I see that as a laudable goal, even if an incredibly crappy way to accomplish it. As a practical matter the DREAM Act would move from a policy of discouraging such behavior to actively encouraging it through subsidy.

  • hk||

    You end the welfare state by keeping the government small and private-sector oriented. These other discussions are a distraction.

    Just repeal the Dream act.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Regardless of whether you can effectively deport people, its perceived threat leads illegals to self-select against becoming welfare state clients. Personally, I see that as a laudable goal, even if an incredibly crappy way to accomplish it. As a practical matter the DREAM Act would move from a policy of discouraging such behavior to actively encouraging it through subsidy.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Damn squirrels.

  • ||

    Since a college education is mostly signalling, what you'll get by granting legal residence to illegal immigrants who go to college is people who are now legally allowed to earn more than they could in the shadows they lived in before.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Oh, I've no doubt significantly more. You have both the gain from education and the gain from not being illegal. And I've no problem giving them the latter. Let us make attaining legal status simple, easy and practical. My skepticism is to the former. It's not clear to me that we should be subsidizing the educational gains of people who aren't in the country legally. If I'm not mistaken, most states require more than two years residence to qualify for in-state tuition.

  • Marshall Gill||

    It's not clear to me that we should be subsidizing the educational gains of people who aren't in the country legally.

    We shouldn't be subsidizing anyone's education, citizen or immigrant.

    Can someone help me out? How is subsidizing education libertarian?

  • wareagle||

    How is subsidizing education libertarian?

    it's not but this article is not speaking to subsidies in general. It is far worse - speaking to subsidies for a select few, as if a whole new welfare class needs to be created.

    If these students qualify to get in, let them in and make them pay like the rest of the student body does. Have we so lost our way that no one remembers the concept of paying your way through school anymore?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Oh, I quite agree that it isn't. The question is whether expading the population of the subsidized is somehow libertarian.

  • Jerryskids||

    It's not Libertarian(TM).

    Giving some illegals some path to citizenship that might have some chance of actually being passed into law doesn't pass the ideological sniff test.

    Much better to argue the philosophical purity of open borders rather than work toward incremental improvements in the status quo.

    (My own favored solution is to give INS and Border Patrol agents citizenship application forms and take away their guns. Anybody willing to bust their ass to get here just so they can have the sort of life that passes for "crappy" in the US but gives them enough money to support three families in Honduras or three villages in Cuba is pretty much the definition of a "Real American". The people who want to keep Real Americans out of America are the ones who need their asses deported to North Korea where they can enjoy all the restrictions on immigration they can stand.)

  • Bill Dalasio||

    My own favored solution is to give INS and Border Patrol agents citizenship application forms and take away their guns.

    Meh. You'd still need someone acting to keep out criminals and people with communicable diseases. But, I certainly don't have a problem with your point.

  • Jerryskids||

    You'd still need someone acting to keep out criminals and people with communicable diseases.

    True, but I don't think just being here should constitute a crime. Which is, I think, pretty much current policy - if you are here illegally and commit a serious crime you are liable to be deported, but just being here illegally is generally overlooked. The Sheriff Joe types want to enforce the laws the federales aren't enforcing - but they seem to be rather selective in which laws they think need enforcing.

  • Jerryskids||

    And as far as the DREAM act goes, I hope someday to see more private trade schools getting into the act. Real schools, though.

    Right now the local community college offers degree programs in all sorts of trades but the degrees are about worthless - you can learn more with 6 weeks of OJT than you can with 2 years of school work. And OJT *pays* the student for learning a skill, the community college is expensive as hell.

    I don't know why the local builders and businesses don't get together and start their own schools - let the OJT work be the tuition basically. Hell, you could get houses built and automobiles re-built for half-price and sell them to fund the school.

    I am sure there are laws that would keep somebody from opening a real school to compete with what we have now, though.

  • niobiumstudio||

    That is certainly not true, the average college debt is around $25k. This year, I paid just under $20k in taxes (and only got $55 back). I am two years out of college and only had $12k in subsidized loans and they only had to subsidize 4 years interest on that at 3% - far less than I pay in taxes. Considering I don't get a single government handout, pay my way, and pay a TON of taxes I would say my loan interest was well worth it for them - as would be for any immigrant attending college.

  • NotSure||

    The debate should not be about immigration, but about what should be studied in universities. I have seen stories here and other places that mention the ever growing student debts and the ever growing queues of students with useless degrees such as sociology and philosophy.

    Whether you have immigrants or locally born people studying usless crap, they are not an asset, they are a massive societal drain.

  • hk||

    I concur with this. I am confused why a Libertarian is asking us to pay for Hyper-left wing studies.

  • Barack||

    We seem to be outing a lot of Libertarian Whannabees today. Subsidize college? Waa?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Chapman is a semi-socialist, not a libertarian.

  • ||

    Okay, so what do we do about it? Forbid all colleges & universities from having programs that aren't engineering, physics, biology, chemistry & the like?

  • NotSure||

    No not forbid, simply don't use taxpayer money to fund these things. If people want to spend their money or use private sponsors to study sociology then let them spend it.

    I fail to see how spending taxes on sociology and all its relatives in any way benefits society, and I am asking this question from the left wing or utilitarian perspective, not even from a libertarian stance.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    No not forbid, simply don't use taxpayer money to fund these things.

    Absolutely.

    I fail to see how spending taxes on sociology and all its relatives in any way benefits society,

    Well, since Sociology is the study of "society"...

  • Spartacus||

    Yes, because letting the government choose which approach to subsidize (i.e. pick winners) has worked so well in the past.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    the ever growing queues of students with useless degrees such as sociology and philosophy.

    Useless to whom? The people who studied those subjects because they found it interesting? Or, perhaps, you mean useless to the social engineering technocrats who see college graduates as merely future drones for the political/social machine.

  • NotSure||

    Useless to themselves first of all, the vast majority of people who go to university go with the expectation of getting a good job. Whether the job is a private one or government one does not matter, because even the government can only absorb so many people with these pointless degrees.

    It is also useless to the people paying for this, a lot of funding comes from taxes, people who pay taxes see no benefit.

    I am not againt people studying anything they want, even Klingon if they must, I just don't know why I need to fund it ?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I am not againt people studying anything they want, even Klingon if they must, I just don't know why I need to fund it ?

    We agree there. Where I think we might disagree is that government funding for college has led to the transformation of the University from a place to pursue learning for learning's sake to a mere job training program. You seem to view this as a good thing, I disagree.

  • NotSure||

    I am a libertarian, so I am against all funding for any university. Basically the university funding does not even hold up to the principles of the liberal author of this article, which is what I am trying to get at.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ah, I see.

    Still, a world without Useless Fact Cowboys is not a world I want to live in.

  • hk||

    Lawyers need degrees though, lol.

    Some degrees have value, but yeah University should be for STEM studies.

  • wareagle||

    why is it our business what degree programs colleges offer? If schools want to put forth curricula in the humanities and students are foolish enough to believe that these will result in meaningful employment, by what right do you tell them no?

  • Mr Whipple||

    The world needs ditch diggers, too. As long it isn't a government funded, Keynesian ditch they're digging.

  • ||

    Opponents of the Dream Act predict huge taxpayer costs as youngsters flock to public colleges at in-state rates. But why should the "dreamers" be barred from what their classmates can claim? It's easy to forget that though these kids are illegal, they are also blameless.

    It's easy to forget that though these kids are illegal, they are also residents and therefore should get the in-state resident tuition just like all the other residents.

    It boggles the mind that this is controversial.

  • wareagle||

    why are you boggled? It irritates people who have been in those states for generations that prices are driven up and classroom seats are reduced in supply by folks who were brought here illegally. Yes, they are residents and it makes no sense to deny them admission. But, they don't get the in-state rate; split the difference between in- and out-of-state or do something else, just don't tell me that we have to further subsidize folks whom we've been subsidizing for years.

  • hk||

    They don't take up any seats, they're legitimate people dude.

    very strange wording there. Also they pay state taxes.

  • wareagle||

    no questions their legitimacy as people; it's their legitimacy in being here that is in question, and the DREAM Act chooses to neglect the broken immigration system. I would be far more lenient had their parents, after 5 or 10 or 15 years, taken some step toward citizenship. Hiding behind children is no prettier when libertarians do it.

  • hk||

    How does citizenship make them more valid? Your argument still doesn't make sense.

    If it is about taxes, than reform the tax code. Everyone will win.

  • wareagle||

    I have no issue with reforming the tax code. Or the immigration system. Got a big problem with pretending this legislation solves something.

  • hk||

    That's fine, I think your beef is misplaced though.

  • hk||

    *then

  • Jerryskids||

    prices are driven up and classroom seats are reduced in supply by folks who were brought here illegally

    I think the law of supply and demand only applies to the (more-or-less) free market. Tuition is related to "what people are willing to pay" only in that Tuition = What People Are Willing To Pay + Government Subsidies.

    I learned that back when I was in college and paid my own way on an annual income of $7-8k. I lived with three roommates in an apartment and ate a lot of ramen noodles and didn't have a car, but I got by.

    You can still do that - if you take out huge government-subsidized student loans for what you can't pay out-of-pocket. If the government handed out $50k vouchers for "free" college tuition, guess how much tuition would be? If the government handed out $100k vouchers for "free" college tuition, guess how much tuition would be? If the government handed out $150k vouchers for "free" college tuition, guess how much tuition would be?

  • R C Dean||

    It's easy to forget that though these kids are illegal, they are also residents and therefore should get the in-state resident tuition just like all the other residents.

    Of course, its not hard to argue that a state benefit for residents should only go to legal residents.

  • Barack||

    YES! Finally someone understands. Illegals aren't just sending their children to school for free, using our medical facilities for free, popping out babies we have to subsidize, and sucking our system dry.
    They're going to college. And we should subsidize their college. Why worry about the spawn of the stupid the citizens who've been paying into the system their whole life. Screw them.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    and sucking our system dry.

    Fuck your system. End the welfare state.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    There does not appear to be anything in the DREAM Act about paying for college, just about granting legal status.

  • Randian||

    There does not appear to be anything in the DREAM Act about paying for college, just about granting legal status.

    Way to go and ruin the nativist/"No True 'libertarian'" talking point, Father Sarloo.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There is something to the suggestion that since being an American citizen makes you entitled to all sorts of government handouts, that refusing to grant citizenship means fewer government handouts.

    But, like I keep saying, the solution here isn't keeping the children of immigrants as disenfranchised as possible--if the problem is that citizenship has come to mean being entitled to all sorts of government programs.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's no substitute for slashing welfare, but I think beating up on immigrants is often held up as a substitute for that.

    I don't care what you do, for the most part, so long as I don't have to pay for it. And I don't care who you are so long as I don't have to pay for you either.

    I don't care if you're an immigrant or a native born freeloader. I don't care what your race is. Personally, if I'm being forced by the government to pay for someone else, I'd rather the government, at least, didn't use the fruit of my labor to discriminate in favor of one group of freeloaders over another--but that's not the way most people are.

    For most people, the more you make them pay for each other, the pickier they become about who they're willing to pay for. That's why Sweden can get away with being so socialist--they hardly have any diversity. That's why anti-immigrant trogs get so vocal about welfare--because they can't stand being forced to pay for someone who doesn't look just like them.

    The solution is to get rid of the handouts. Bashing immigrants isn't the solution to anything.

  • Barack||

    A real Libertarian is finally on this board!

  • hk||

    Yes you are completely right. "Legal" citizens are just as disgusting if they commit crimes.

  • ||

    This would not be an issue at all if we had secure borders. I am all for people being able to come here and build a better life, but we have to let them in in a controlled manner.

  • Randian||

    Maybe...maybe we can, wait for it, build a wall or something!

  • ||

    ...or a moat with alligators in it.

    yeah yeah I know, we have one of the longest borders in the world, and much of it in difficult terrain. It is a difficult problem to solve.

    i am no isolationist, we should be attracting the best and brightest here. I just dont think we are doing a very good job of that.

  • wareagle||

    we have military folks all around the world. Shut down those installations unless the host country is willing to pay the protection we provide. Move those from countries that do not pay to the border. As a bonus, you spur economic development in areas that are sparsely populated.

  • hk||

    Ron Paul sounds like a fucking idiot on immigration, and in the newsletters.

    Ditch that kind of rhetoric.

  • hk||

    It isn't a difficult problem to solve, "illegals" aren't a security threat.

    Then I suppose the poor neighborhoods in Florida are also a security threat?

    I don't like your backwards hillbilly thinking.

  • ||

    huh. who gives a fuck what you like?

  • hk||

    So you admit it then?

    Btw it does matter what I think, since I'm ana actual Libertarian instead of a xenophobe.

  • hk||

    *I'm a

    You want people to get deported for no reason, while real criminals get to stay in the States.

    It isn't about protection at all.

  • wareagle||

    no, you're just another hack resorting to ad hominem attacks against positions with which you disagree. Some of us actually believe that borders matter, that immigration is a process, and there is ample evidence to back up both.

  • hk||

    Hmm stop personally attacking immigrants and then maybe I'll have more respect for your positions.

    There isn't ample evidence that your argument makes any sense, you've lost the border war and work visas fuck up your other arguments. People can come in here legally and do bad things.

    Ron Paul's rhetoric is the most disrespectful thing I have ever read coming from a Libertarian.

  • wareagle||

    who is personally attacking immigrants? And stop conflating the legal and illegal variety. This legislation whitewashes illegal immigration and that is BS policy. And you are the only one invoking Paul's name here.

    Of course, there is evidence that borders matter unless countries drew them up to kill time. And, of course, immigration is a process unless how nations handle newcomers is just a jobs program. Give me a break.

    Yes, people can come in legally and do bad stuff; that hardly absolves the ones who come in illegally regardless of what they do. This Act basically says sneak in, have kids, hide and game the system for the next 15 years or so, and it's all good. Good for who? No one is served by this.

  • hk||

    Your argument gets shred apart since you continue to ignore everything I just stated.

    1) Illegals don't commit crimes, criminals commit crimes.
    2) No Private Property owners hire "illegals", because it is their fucking property.
    3)Whining about welfare, which is mostly used by white people, has nothing to do with immigration.

  • hk||

    Yes you are attacking immigrants and their families, personally. Borders don't make any fucking sense.

    Countries have borders and countries also have stupid as shit laws no one should take seriously.

    Our country sure didn't have borders for a long as time, I wonder why.

  • hk||

    Btw I would love to have a serious debate. But if I sprinkle in some comments you don't like, such as "Fuck you", that doesn't mean my points are any less salient.

  • ||

    Yeah Obama's been a great supporter of immigrants, that's why he's already deported more than Booosh.

    Of course the repubs only oppose it cause they assume immigrants vote dem.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh, and I still don't get my fellow American citizens who, for instance, send their kids to public schools, even while they argue that we shouldn't have to pay for the kids of immigrants...

    ...as if forcing me as a tax payer to pay for their kids is okay because they were born here in the U.S.?!

    Being an American citizen doesn't give you a right to be a freeloader. Do you really think I care whether the parasites feeding on my paycheck are immigrants of native born?

    I imagine myself waking up in the hospital after being mugged. There's a cop standing there, and he says, "I've got some good news and some bad news. The bad news is you were mugged and all your money is gone. But the good news is the mugger was an American citizen!"

    Somehow many of my fellow Americans send their kids to public schools; finance their college educations by way of the government; their retirement plan consists entirely of Social Security and Medicare; and yet somehow they feel entitled to call other people "welfare queens".

    Because taking food stamps is wrong, I guess? I wish we could trade one native born self-entitled parasite for every three immigrants we take from Mexico...

    How many immigrant kids do we have to bash before the native born parasites among us lose their sense of entitlement?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Do you really think I care whether the parasites feeding on my paycheck are immigrants [or] native born?"

    Fixed.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You seem to have the common libertarian delusion that immigrants do not come to America to milk the welfare state. A few do not but the overwhelming majority do.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Have any evidence in support of that? It doesn't seem consistent with either logic (why would someone security-oriented give up home & family to go somewhere where they have no connections or legal means of claiming benefits) or the experience I've had with immigrants I've met.

  • Jerryskids||

    Working in construction, I do have some anecdotal evidence on this matter. There is a certain store in town where, if you drive up in a pickup, you are going to be swarmed by illegal aliens asking if you have work for them. Three blocks away, there is a store where, no matter what you are driving, you are going to be accosted by several citizens of this country asking if you have some spare change for them so they can buy a 40.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You seem to have the common delusion that sending your kids to public schools, for instance, isn't part of the welfare state--if you're an American citizen?

    You seem to have the common delusion that citizenship entitles you to something other than the right to vote.

    We all have a right to liberty and justice--whether we're American citizens or not--and that's it!

    Nothing about being an American citizen makes the welfare programs you participate in okay.

    The problem with our country isn't the immigrant freeloaders. It's the freeloaders. Immigrants are a red herring.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So you were a supporter of prop 187 then right?

    But of course you weren't because your hierarchy of priorities is something like this.

    Unrestricted Immigration

    Ending Welfare State

    Ending Drug Wars

    Ending Foreign Wars

  • Ken Shultz||

    My priorities are more like: liberty and justice, cutting taxes, cutting spending...

    I opposed Prop 187, but when they started marching down Hawthorne Blvd., in front of the hospital where I worked in LA, I shouted to their leaders that they should lose the Mexican flags they were marching under and replace them with American flags...

    I want lower taxes and lower spending. That doesn't mean I have to condone the government discriminating against children because of their national origin.

    Why would people who care about immigrants listen to me talk about libertarianism if they thought I wanted the government to deny little kids access to pubic schools because of who they are?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Nothing about being an American citizen makes the welfare programs you participate in okay.

    Yes,

    How dare I want to get back a small portion of my involuntary contribution to our governments.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The problem with our country isn't the immigrant freeloaders. It's the freeloaders. Immigrants are a red herring.

    The problem with our state are the dumbshits that enable socialists because the socialists also favor unlimited immigration.

    Why do you suppose that is?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The problem with our state are the dumbshits that enable socialists because the socialists also favor unlimited immigration.

    Why do you suppose that is?

    As I briefly eluded to earlier, I don't think that's true at all.

    Show me a country that's really socialist, and I'll show you a country with really tough immigration laws.

    Try to immigrate to Sweden! The socialistic Scandinavian countries are deporting Iraq War refuges who were seeking asylum. Is there anybody out there more hostile to immigrants than organized labor? Even Cesar Chavez turned illegal immigrants in to the INS.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....mmigration

    The concern about illegal immigration has risen here in the U.S. with the increased socialization of our country since the Great Society and the Johnson Administration.

    The idea that socialists support unlimited immigration is ridiculous. They've been right up there with the racists in terms of their opposition to immigration.

    "They stole our jobs" isn't something a capitalist would say.

  • hk||

    100% right.

    "They stole our jobs" is something a pussy Protectionist would say.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The idea that socialists support unlimited immigration is ridiculous.

    Well, maybe our socialists are just stupid about that too.

    And by socialists I meant the likes of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the democrat party establishment, especially in CA.

    They are for unlimited immigration and it ain't because the support liberty.

  • ||

    They are for unlimited immigration...

    What color is the sky on your planet?

  • wareagle||

    You seem to have the common delusion that sending your kids to public schools, for instance, isn't part of the welfare state

    so now public educ is welfare? Please. The natives already pay for that; in most jurisdictions it is called property tax. Owners pay it directly and renters do indirectly. Schools are among the items enumerated in most states' constitutions. If you want to argue how schools spend money, that is a different debate. By your reckoning, having a police department, court system, and road repair is also welfare.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Baloney!

    Pay your own tuition.

    The police department and court systems are there to protect our rights. That's a legitimate function of government--protecting people's rights.

    Whose rights are being protected by giving people free tuition?

    By your logic, is any use of taxpayer money is justified? So long as it's paid for by taxpayers?

    You want to spend money in the process of protecting our rights from criminals and when we're accused of a crime? I got no problem with that.

    You want to charge me to pay for your children, and you think that's justified--why?! Why do I have to pay for your children again? Why does you being an American citizen give you the right to sponge off of me?

    Educate your own children and leave me out of it.

  • wareagle||

    then go talk to your legislature and all the others that put public education in their constitutions, back in the day when the vision of govt was limited. They even set up a tax system to pay for it. That it is being poorly is an indictment of the current system, not the initial decision.

  • ||

    You do know that renters, through paying rent, also pay those property taxes right? And, at least in Texas, anyone that buys stuff pays sales tax which also helps pay for goods and services the government "provides".

  • wareagle||

    he knows..he just chooses to ignore.

  • ||

    That was in response to your "The natives already pay for that; in most jurisdictions it is called property tax.". If I had comprehended what you wrote after that I would have phrased my comment differently so shame on me.

    My point was just that "non-natives" pay those property taxes too so a position where they shouldn't get the welfare of public school or in-state tuition is kinda silly.

  • Mo||

    The overwhelming majority do? That doesn't jibe with the numbers of immigrants on welfare vs. citizens on welfare.

  • DA||

    But it makes a better GOP talking point and panders to xenophobes.

  • hk||

    Haha very funny. I love facts.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Do you know any actual illegal immigrants?

    Or live in their communities?

    I do, and yes it's an overwhelming majority.

  • Mo||

    I do know illegal immigrants and grew up in Orange County. However, you said immigrants, without specifying legal or illegal, come to America to milk the welfare state". As I and my parents are immigrants, I'm well aware of the immigrant community.

  • Jerryskids||

    In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

    About half of undocumented adults live with their own children under 18. Nearly half of unauthorized immigrant households (47%) consist of a couple with children.

    You do the math. Most illegal immigrant headed households I am familiar with are 12 young guys living in one apartment or trailer.

  • Jerryskids||

    This statistical trickery is the same trickery libertarians should be aware of when people start slinging around facts on how much worse off we are now than then by using household income statistics.

    When your college-aged kid gets a job paying enough to finally move out on his own, the average household income is going to drop even though you are now better off because you aren't supporting that kid (and half his shithead stoner buddies) living in your basement and he is better off because he finally got off his lazy goddamned ass and got a fucking job.

    (Not that I have any personal experience with that scenario, of course.)

  • J_L_B||

    immigrants do not come to America to milk the welfare state

    Rubio said something along those lines in an interview with Chris Wallace but I disagree with him on this. Immigrants like their government-dominated economies back home. To a large extent what they are fleeing is corruption. What they feel is that corrupt politicians who steal from the treasury are diverting resources that would otherwise go to make thier economic situation more bearable. If they could only find a country with little outright theft of public resources; the US is the closest thing to that ideal location.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except, to be fair, the American citizen or legal resident is much more likely (still not bloody likely) than the illegal alien to be paying taxes and less a freeloader.
    Aside from that, well said.

  • ||

    You're a fucking idiot if you think American citizens are less likely to be freeloaders than immigrants.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    An American citizen (or legal immigrant) is more likely to pay taxes. If you're defining a freeloader as someone getting a subsidy without offsetting tax burden (as Ken Schultz seems to be doing), then those more likely to pay taxes are less likely to be freeloaders. That's pretty much a statistical tautology and no amount of acting like an ignorant prick calling people names on your part will change that, dipshit.

  • hk||

    They'll pay taxes with the right tax code.

    The Socialist tax code we currently have now is garbage.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Again, I quite agree. But, the question of who is a freeloader under the status quo has to be judged in the context of existing tax law, not some hypothetical law that would make more sense.

  • hk||

    Again I disagree. When did the Socialists in Europe finally start to address their debt problems?

    Why does Italy plan to have a balanced budget (finally), after all these years?

    People don't notice that Dream Act is a problem, unless we accrue debt. You don't conform to bad laws, you make policymakers try to act more Libertarian instead.

  • hk||

    There have been Libertarians in the past that make the argument the state should restrict what kind of food we eat, since according to existing laws, we have to pay for fat people and their bad habits.

    But that seems crazy to me, we should instead make the state slowly more free and accepting. Not conform to their views.

  • ||

    So you wouldn't say a family with four kids going to public school is freeloading off their neighbors that don't have any children?

    And renters don't pay property taxes as part of their rent? I'm not the ignorant prick pretending that immigrants don't pay any taxes.

    Of course, if someone can prove that the majority of immigrants are receiving all this free stuff from Uncle Sugar without paying anything in (since that's basically what American's do), I will gladly say they are right.

  • Bean Counter||

    It still continues to fascinate me that libertarians all for property rights, unless the property is the product of your creative process or is located in the path of people illegally immigrating into a supposedly sovereign nation.

  • Randian||

    is located in the path of people illegally immigrating into a supposedly sovereign nation.

    I don't think any libertarian ever said they were in favor of trespassing on private property.

  • Mo||

    It amazes me that people can support free trade, except when the thing being traded is people instead of goods.

  • hk||

    Ron Paul effect. The guy is a legitimate weirdo when he gets all newslettery.

  • l0b0t||

    "...all for property rights, unless the property is the product of your creative process or is located in the path of people illegally immigrating into a supposedly sovereign nation."
    Citation needed.

  • ||

    Completely off topic: all the "I don't want to pay for your non-STEM degree" on Shakespeare's birthday makes me sad.

  • Jerryskids||

    Remind me - which government subsidized school did Shakespeare attend? (I guess that may depend on who you think Shakespeare really was. Which would affect which day you think is Shakespeare's birthday anniversary.)

  • Geoff Nathan||

    I find the concern for 'subsidized higher education' for illegal immigrants to be essentially crocodile tears.
    We're mostly libertarians here, and of course we in principle oppose public education supported by taxpayer money. We also oppose many other government-funded institutions, but it's only when any institution's services might go to the brown people that right-wingers get exercised.
    At most large state-funded universities public funding supplies in the neighborhood of 50% of the cost of instruction (and at some big places, like Michigan it's way less than that). So (in-state) tuition pays most of the freight. Out of state tuition is gravy (except for a few mega-States, like the aforementioned U of M, which is essentially a public Ivy League).
    The idea that undocumented aliens should pay out of state tuition, even though they live in (and pay taxes to) the state is pure spite.
    It's similar to the insistence on building and strengthening the wall at the Mexican border. Nobody has suggested a similar wall at the Canadian border, even though there are probably at least as many illegal (white) immigrants crossing there. But those folks look like 'us' and speak the same language, so they're not threatening. It's got nothing to do with the tiny amount of additional subsidy that such a proposal would entail.

  • wareagle||

    but it's only when any institution's services might go to the brown people that right-wingers get exercised.

    that's bullshit and sounds like what one might expect from the liberal red herring talking points handbook. The fact that most illegals happen to be brown is just that, a fact. We are not awash in illegal Scandinavians or Poles or anyone else.

    No one has suggested a wall with Canada for a simple reason - there is no large quantity of illegal Canadians costing the rest of us billions. If you can document to the contrary, I will willingly oppose cracking down on them, too.

    You gave yourself cover with the we're mostly libertarians here only to follow it up with a ridiculous false comparison. A few decades ago, we had a mass immigration of yellow people. I don't recall anyone bitching about how they were gaming the system.

  • Geoff Nathan||

    No one has suggested a wall with Canada for a simple reason - there is no large quantity of illegal Canadians costing the rest of us billions. If you can document to the contrary, I will willingly oppose cracking down on them, too. [Citation needed]

  • hk||

    The guy is a legit dumbfuck, since many of our enemies came in legally, or can come in though Canada.

    Clearly this is more about losing one's culture more than it is about welfare or security.

  • hk||

    *through canada's border.

    When people get deported they just come back X amount of times.

  • wareagle||

    you actually need a citation for the lack of a problem with the Canadian border? Why don't you provide one attesting to the existence of such an issue. You were challenged to provide evidence of Canada being a problematic sieve; I'll support doing something about that, too. Instead, you pour some weak tea about citation needed.

  • hk||

    Man now I know your positions are Bullshit. You must not have access to demographic information.

  • wareagle||

    right, we are awash in low-educated, low-skilled Canadians who cannot speak English and, therefore, there is a mass movement to draw up documentation in French, too. Give me a break. Various estimates re: illegals from south of the border range from 10-20 million. Who is making the case that similar numbers exist from north of the border?

  • ||

    Since the economy tanked we've actually been losing immigrants back to Mexico so I wouldn't exactly say we are "awash" in them.

  • hk||

    You clearly don't understand economics, low-skilled workers are some of the most crucial for our economy. I hate Union workers and these other Divas in our country.

    Give me a break about Muslim immigrants, they come from Canada IIRC, but no one seems to give a fuck. This obsession with Mexico is strange.

  • Jerryskids||

    A few decades ago, we had a mass immigration of yellow people. I don't recall anyone bitching about how they were gaming the system.

    ''It's an unusual migration - I don't think there's been anything like it in our history,'' said Ronald Takaki, the author of ''Strangers from a Different Shore,'' a book about Asian immigration published last year by Little, Brown & Company.

    ''People in earlier migrations were squeezed out of economies in transition from agriculture to industry,'' Mr. Takaki said. ''What's happenning today is that, while you do find accelerated modernization in Korea, India and the Philippines, it is not fast enough to accommodate a large new class of professional workers.''

    "Mr. Takaki, who is also a professor of Asian-American studies at the University of California at Berkeley, said these immigrants tend to choose the United States, in part, because its policies favor skilled applicants."

    Go back a century, though, when the railroads were importing the heathen Chinee and you will find far worse than what we have now.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    The idea that undocumented aliens should pay out of state tuition, even though they live in (and pay taxes to) the state is pure spite.


    Pay taxes to?
    BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
    Hate to have to explain this to you, Geoff, but illegals are pretty much working off the books. You see, they aren't real eager to advertise their presence to the govenment.

  • hk||

    That State sales tax is no joke.

    Same with property taxes, excise taxes, etc.

  • J_L_B||

    Nobody has suggested a similar wall at the Canadian border, even though there are probably at least as many illegal (white) immigrants crossing there.

    The debate on immigration isn't going to be helped with false equivalences such as this. Yes we have two large borders with two different countries, but only one of them is giving us a problem with a large influx of illegal immigrants.

  • Geoff Nathan||

    How would you know? Since Canadians are primarily either white or black, and speak standard North American English there's no real way to tell.

  • hk||

    Eactly he doesn't know shit. It doesn't make any sense at all and lacks a cognitive flow.

    I want to know how working at McDonalds is hurting anyone. And btw Protectionism doesn't work so save the rhetoric.

  • hk||

    *Exactly

  • J_L_B||

    Except:

    The miniscule amount of deportations to Canada

    The lack of a huge population loss that would have not gone unnoticed if millions of Canadians moved here illegally

    Canadian government statistics on the number of Canadians living abroad as a % of their population

    This isn't that hard to figure out

  • hk||

    "security" issue if you apply the same standards.

    Your argument is full of holes, admit it. Deportation occurs because people don't understand private property rights.

  • hk||

    *It is a "security" issue, you just like Canada more.

    And you fail to understand that my business is not your concern.

  • hk||

    Land is mostly private property, not the Government's property.

    If you don't like it buy your own fucking land and make the rules.

  • XM||

    This is already our land (so to speak) and we already have rules regarding immigration.

    You don't have to be a legal citizen to attend colleges. Several of my non citizen friends get their degrees (related to engineering, smart move) from local community colleges 3,4 years ago.

    What the dream act fans are really after is financial aid, which is not universally attainable if you're not a citizen. Plus you only have to finish TWO years of college to obtain a six year temp residency. You could theoretically drop out of college after 2 years, do nothing for the next 2 years, then enroll in some online college scheme to earn your degree, and viola, you qualify for permanent residency.

    The dream act is a gigantic infusion of air into the student loan bubble, and Reason writers knows it. They know a BA is not a job ticket, or that the bottom tier of the illegal students will drop out after Westwood college accepted them despite their B- grades.

  • hk||

    No clearly My Land, is not your Land. You shouldn't have rules for immigration on my land.

    On your land go do whatever you want, as long as it is consensual.

    And the Dream act sucks but Immigrants pay into a state tax system, i think the immigrant hawks are unfocused in their criticism.

  • RGaines||

    "During that period, they would be free to go to college.... Those who do...for two years would be eligible for permanent legal status, allowing them to become citizens. Those who don't would be obligated to leave."

    I'd like to see how this would play out in practice. I could easily see this leading to hyper grade inflation. After all, which professor wants to be the one responsible for flunking a student, knowing that that could mean deportation? I've been working in higher ed long enough to be sickened by how professors hand out passing grades for any ol' reason--fear of bad student evaluations, student sob stories, getting rid of troublesome or annoying students, general apathy, etc. But putting a professor (or worse, a grad teaching assistant) in a situation of possibly causing someone's deportation isn't going to help stop diploma mill trend.

  • XM||

    I expect random extra credit assignments (which in some fine arts / writing class involves you attending a school performance or speech from an invited speaker) and some sort of scaled or curved grading system that benefits the bottom tier.

  • XM||

    I expect random extra credit assignments (which in some fine arts / writing class involves you attending a school performance or speech from an invited speaker) and some sort of scaled or curved grading system that benefits the bottom tier.

  • Karen Kelly||

    Perhaps low enthusiasm comes from the fact that the majority of Mexican and Latino immigrants, legal or illegal, favor big government. This was shown in 2011 and 2012 Pew surveys, which were extensive. How does Reason propose shifting these beliefs to Libertarian. Supporting the Dream Act, open borders, and immigration from areas that favor collectivism and big government and the welfare state will hasten the death of Libertarianism and Reason magazine, for that matter.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement