Tag Archives: Balanced Politics. Org

Foundation for Child Development study: Immigrant children lose gains over time

24 Jul

Moi wrote in What is the DREAM Act?
University of Washington Daily has published two excellent articles by Lauren Kronebusch of the Daily staff. In Making The Dream A Reality, Kronebusch reports:

#“They grow up American in many ways,” Gonzales said. “They have American-born peers and friends, they’re moving together with a group of American born peers and friends, they do all of the things other kids do. … But at around 16, 17, 18 years old, they start to realize that as their friends are moving forward, … they find themselves stuck.”  http://dailyuw.com/news/2012/may/31/making-dream-reality/

See, ‘Nobody Can Take Education Away From You’ http://dailyuw.com/news/2012/may/31/nobody-can-take-education-away-you/
Nina Terrero reports in the NBC Latino post, Children of immigrants start life better off than U.S.-born children-but advantages erased over time:

Children of Latino immigrants begin life with a substantial advantage over the children of U.S.-born Hispanics, faring better across areas such as education, health and economics, says a new study released today by the Foundation for Child Development.   Yet over time, the study finds persistent disparities in income, health insurance coverage and education disproportionately affect the children of Latino immigrants.
According to “Diverse Children: Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration in America’s New Non-Majority Generation,” the children of Latino immigrants are more likely than the children of Latino U.S.-born parents to live in a family with at least one securely employed parent and are less likely to live in a one-parent family. These children were also less likely to be born at a low birth rate and also had lower rates of infant mortality. They were also healthier than the children of Latino U.S.-born parents and less likely to have a physical disability. The children of Hispanic immigrant parents were also more likely to be in school or working in their teen years.
“This study shows that contrary to what many people think of immigrants, their children do begin life well in the United States,” says Dr. Donald J. Hernandez, a professor of Sociology at Hunter College in New York City and the study’s lead author. “Hispanics come here with strong family structures, traditional cultural diets and a work ethic which motivates them to find and maintain employment.”
The study is the first of its kind to compare the well-being of children born to both immigrant and U.S.-born parents across black, Asian, Hispanic and white groups. It examined how children fare across 19 different indicators including family economic resources, parental employment status, reading and math proficiency, as well as health care insurance enrollment rates. Using national 2010 statistics compiled by federal databases including the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), researchers found the children of Hispanic immigrants begin life with an advantage over the children of U.S. born-Hispanics.
Over time, the advantages of immigrant children are erased, explains Hernandez.
The overall well-being of Hispanic children with immigrant parents ranked just behind that of black children with U.S. parents – ranked the most disadvantaged group – across of all 19 indicators. Seventy-one percent of Hispanic children fell twice below the federal poverty threshold (compared to 65 percent of all black children with U.S.-born parents). The median family income for Hispanic children with immigrant parents was also ranked lower than other groups at ($29,977) but just ahead of black children with U.S.-born parents ($33,396). Researchers found that Hispanic children of immigrant parents also had a lower rates of health insurance coverage than other groups, but were still ahead of black children with U.S.-born parents (19 percent compared to 15 percent).
Pre-kindergarten enrollment among Latino immigrant children in 2010 was lower than any other group at just 37 percent. Among Hispanic children of U.S.-born parents, only 42 percent were enrolled in pre-k, compared to other race-ethnic groups with enrollment rates of 50 and 55 percent.
http://nbclatino.com/2013/07/24/children-of-immigrants-start-life-better-off-than-u-s-born-children-but-advantages-erased-over-time/#.UfBSoE1uLX8.email

Here is the summary from Foundation for Child Development:

Race Ethnicity and Immigration Report
Author: Donald J. Hernandez, Hunter College & The Graduate Center, CUNY, & Jeffrey S. Napierala, University at Albany / July 24, 2013
Diverse Children: Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration in America’s  New Non-Majority Generation
There are significant disparities in the education, economic well-being, and health of children in the U.S. based on their race-ethnicity and whether or not their parents are immigrants, according to Diverse Children: Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration in America’s New Non-Majority Generation, the first report ever to draw these comparisons.
The report details the wellbeing of children in eight groups, distinguished by their race-ethnicity and whether they are children of immigrants or children of U.S.-born parents. It examines well-being across 19 key indicators that address family economic resources, health, educational attainments, and demographic circumstances.
“The data show the important advantages that immigrant families bring to this country and the strong foundation they give to their children,” says Donald J. Hernandez, author of the report. “But we also found evidence of enormous disparities in child well-being, along not only immigration lines, but also along race-ethnicity lines.”
Among the many findings, the report reveals that:
Hispanic children with immigrant parents were found to be just as likely to live with a securely employed parent as Hispanic children with U.S.-born parents, and substantially more likely to live with two parents and to be born healthy. They are, nevertheless more likely to live in poverty, to lack PreKindergarten education and health insurance, and to die between the ages of 1 and 19.
Children of immigrants (as compared to those with U.S.-born parents) in each of the race-ethnic groups, in fact, were found to be at least as likely to have a securely employed parent, more likely to be born at a healthy birth weight and to survive the first year of life, and more likely to live in a two-parent family. It is also true of each race-ethnic group that children of immigrants were found less likely to be covered by health insurance or to be enrolled in PreKindergarten.
Hispanic children of immigrant parents and Black children of U.S.-born parents fell behind all other groups for nearly half of all indicators studied. They were most at risk of growing up in poverty or near-poverty, of living in a family with low median income, at highest risk for child mortality (ages 1-19), and least likely to have very good or excellent health.
When it comes to education, all groups of U.S. children were found to be at risk, regardless of their race-ethnicity and whether their parents were born in the U.S. There were critically low rates of reading and math proficiency across the board; the lowest rates were for Hispanic and Black children. PreKindergarten enrollment was also low for all groups, and extremely low for Hispanic children — especially those with immigrant parents. 
The report puts these findings in the context of a new milestone in U.S. history: Today’s population of American children is more diverse than ever, and children of immigrants account for one out of every four children in the United States; most children of immigrants (89 percent) are American citizens.
The report includes detailed policy recommendations for improving the lives and wellbeing of children, especially those most at risk. Recommendations include expanding access to and enhancing early education, removing barriers to health insurance so that all children are covered, and providing families with ways to improve their economic security and future prospects.

Citation:

Download

DiverseChildren – Full Report.pdf (2276K)
http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/DiverseChildren%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf 

Sarah D. Sparks reports of the difficulties native-born Black children face in the Education Week analysis of the study, Child Well-Being in Immigrant Families Differs by Race, Study Shows:

Immigrants overwhelmingly come to America seeking a better life for themselves and particularly their children, but the well-being of immigrant students varies far more based on their race and economic position than their immigration status, according to a new study by the Foundation for Child Development. In fact, for some racial and ethnic groups, children of immigrants are doing better than the children of their U.S.-born counterparts.
For example, overall, black children of U.S.-born parents fared worse than all or nearly all other groups, both immigrant and U.S.-born, on 15 out of 19 indicators. By contrast, black children of immigrant parents fared better then their native counterparts in income level, parent education and employment, and high school graduation.
“The groups that are worse off are Hispanic children of immigrant parents and black children of U.S. parents,” said Donald J. Hernandez, the study’s author and a sociology professor at Hunter College, at the City University of New York. “It is kind of surprising because we typically think of children of immigrants as not doing as well, and it’s really a more nuanced picture that cuts over multiple indicators.”
“People often just look at the immigrant group and compare it to nonimmigrant groups,” Hernandez said. “By distinguishing the race and ethnic groups, we are focusing on children who have similar types of exposure to poverty and schools. The results really help to break through the stereotypes we have about these children by comparing them to children who had similar experiences.”
Taken as a whole, children of immigrant families are more likely to be poor and to struggle academically than are children of native families, but “Diverse Children: Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration in America’s New Non-Majority Generation,” which the New York City-based foundation released this morning, paints a more complex picture of the immigrant child experience by breaking out national child well-being indicators by Hispanic, black, white, and Asian background.
DREAM Act kids notwithstanding, nearly nine out of 10 children of immigrants, regardless of their parents’ nationality, were born in the United States and have grown up in American schools. Regardless of ethnicity, children of immigrant parents were as or more likely than children of native families to have parents with secure jobs, and less likely to live in one-parent families. Moreover, for all groups except Asians, immigrant families tend to move less frequently than U.S.-born families; that could be a benefit, in terms of stability and school continuity, but less helpful if it signals families trapped in segregated low-income neighborhoods.http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2013/07/child_well-being_in_immigrant_.html?intc=es

Balanced Politics. Org has a really good summary of Dream Act pros and cons:

Yes

1.The foundation of the United States, as it describes on our Statue of Liberty, is immigration.
2.Millions of illegal immigrants will stay in the shadows of society without some path to citizenship.
3.It would generate additional tax revenues from both employers and employees as jobs are allowed to come into the open.
4.We’d be able to count on the American justice system to protect wronged individuals and hold criminal immigrants accountable, whereas now illegals are afraid to be a part of the system due to possible deportation.
5.It’s inhumane to break up families that have built a life in America.
6.It may be good for the U.S. economy since immigrants can fill jobs that most Americans don’t want, often at a much lower cost to businesses.
7.Homeland Security resources that focus on illegal immigrants can be redirected to tracking and finding terrorists.
8.The current legal immigration path to citizenship is costly, time-consuming, inefficient, and limited. Thus, people seeking entry into the U.S. often have no choice but to do so illegally.
9.It brings freedom and a path to self-sufficiency that isn’t available to billions of others around the world who aren’t lucky enough to be born in the United States.
No
1.A path to citizenship rewards people for breaking the law.
2.It’s unfair to the people who have followed the rules in their quest for citizenship.
3.It will create a flood of illegal immigrants from everywhere who will try to get in before the law goes into effect.
4.The program would add millions of people to the welfare rolls, who consume government resources such as health care, social security, and education while paying little or no taxes. Thus, the out-of-control government deficits would be pushed further to the edge of bankruptcy.
5.It further erodes the English language and American culture in the United States.
6.It would take away more jobs from current American citizens and drive down wages of remaining jobs.
7.It would create an influx of voters who support the president & lawmakers that gave them citizenship at the expense of existing citizens.
8.It would lead to further overpopulation and crowding of American cities.
9.Terrorists, drug dealers, and other foreign enemies will exploit any open border or amnesty policies put in place.
10.Plenty of better solutions exist, such as increasing legal immigration limits and reforming worker visa programs.
Related Links
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/path_to_citizenship.htm

Many who support the Dream Act are looking a the impact of an aging population on a society.

Jeremy Laurance writes in U.K.’s Independent about the impact on aging. In Why an ageing population is the greatest threat to society:

Of all the threats to human society, including war, disease and natural disaster, one outranks all others. It is the ageing of the human population.
No invading army, volcanic eruption or yet undreamt of plague can rival ageing in the breadth or depth of its impact on society. Over the next half century the proportion of people aged 60-plus around the world is expected to more than double. By 2050, for the first time in human history, old people will outnumber child-ren on the planet.
In some developed counties the number of older people will be twice the number of children. The impact of this transformation will be felt in every area of life, including economic growth, labour markets, taxation, the transfer of property, health, family composition, housing and migration. And the “demographic agequake” is already under way. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/why-an-ageing-population-is-the-greatest-threat-to-society-656997.html

A argument for immigration is that younger people are added to the population base and helps the aging problem. Bottom line is that ALL children in this society must have a good basic education.

Where information leads to Hope. ©  Dr. Wilda.com
Dr. Wilda says this about that ©
Blogs by Dr. Wilda:
COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/
Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/
Dr. Wilda © 
https://drwilda.com/

More about the DREAM Act: Freedom University in Georgia

28 Oct

Moi wrote about the DREAM Act in What is the DREAM Act?

As with any law or law change, there are pros and cons.

Balanced Politics. Org has a really good summary of Dream Act pros and cons:

Yes No
  1. The foundation of the United States, as it describes on our Statue of Liberty, is immigration.
  2. Millions of illegal immigrants will stay in the shadows of society without some path to citizenship.
  3. It would generate additional tax revenues from both employers and employees as jobs are allowed to come into the open.
  4. We’d be able to count on the American justice system to protect wronged individuals and hold criminal immigrants accountable, whereas now illegals are afraid to be a part of the system due to possible deportation.
  5. It’s inhumane to break up families that have built a life in America.
  6. It may be good for the U.S. economy since immigrants can fill jobs that most Americans don’t want, often at a much lower cost to businesses.
  7. Homeland Security resources that focus on illegal immigrants can be redirected to tracking and finding terrorists.
  8. The current legal immigration path to citizenship is costly, time-consuming, inefficient, and limited. Thus, people seeking entry into the U.S. often have no choice but to do so illegally.
  9. It brings freedom and a path to self-sufficiency that isn’t available to billions of others around the world who aren’t lucky enough to be born in the United States.
  1. A path to citizenship rewards people for breaking the law.
  2. It’s unfair to the people who have followed the rules in their quest for citizenship.
  3. It will create a flood of illegal immigrants from everywhere who will try to get in before the law goes into effect.
  4. The program would add millions of people to the welfare rolls, who consume government resources such as health care, social security, and education while paying little or no taxes. Thus, the out-of-control government deficits would be pushed further to the edge of bankruptcy.
  5. It further erodes the English language and American culture in the United States.
  6. It would take away more jobs from current American citizens and drive down wages of remaining jobs.
  7. It would create an influx of voters who support the president & lawmakers that gave them citizenship at the expense of existing citizens.
  8. It would lead to further overpopulation and crowding of American cities.
  9. Terrorists, drug dealers, and other foreign enemies will exploit any open border or amnesty policies put in place.
  10. Plenty of better solutions exist, such as increasing legal immigration limits and reforming worker visa programs.

Related Links

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/path_to_citizenship.htm

Many who support the Dream Act are looking a the impact of an aging population on a society.

Jeremy Laurance writes in U.K.’s Independent about the impact on aging. In Why an ageing population is the greatest threat to society:

Of all the threats to human society, including war, disease and natural disaster, one outranks all others. It is the ageing of the human population.

No invading army, volcanic eruption or yet undreamt of plague can rival ageing in the breadth or depth of its impact on society. Over the next half century the proportion of people aged 60-plus around the world is expected to more than double. By 2050, for the first time in human history, old people will outnumber child-ren on the planet.

In some developed counties the number of older people will be twice the number of children. The impact of this transformation will be felt in every area of life, including economic growth, labour markets, taxation, the transfer of property, health, family composition, housing and migration. And the “demographic agequake” is already under way.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/why-an-ageing-population-is-the-greatest-threat-to-society-656997.html

A argument for immigration is that younger people are added to the population base and helps the aging problem. https://drwilda.com/2012/06/01/what-is-the-dream-act/

Kathy Lohr of NPR reports on a new university in Georgia. In the article, Undocumented Students Take Education Underground, Lohr reports:

About 35 students meet every Sunday at an undisclosed location in Georgia to study. They are undocumented and banned from attending some of the most prestigious colleges in the state.

Georgia is one of three states to bar undocumented students from attending schools. But a group of professors at the University of Georgia has created a fledgling school to provide a place for students to learn.

They call it Freedom University, named after the schools set up during the civil rights era to teach African-Americans in the Deep South. University of Georgia history professor Pam Voekel is one of the volunteer instructors.

“They really do see this as a civil rights struggle,” she says. “They are being excluded from higher education, and so we went with that as part of that kind of tribute to that prior struggle.”

A Form Of Protest

The school came about after Georgia legislators passed a bill to ban undocumented students from attending the top five universities in the state. The law also requires these students to pay out-of-state

But Voekel says students wanted to do more than just protest.

“What the undocumented students were saying is, ‘We want to be in a classroom. How you could really help us, professors, is to offer courses,'” she says….

Freedom University professors like Lorgia Garcia-Pena have cautioned that the deferred action policy does not address education.

Yovany Diaz, a student at Freedom U, is applying for deferred status, though that won’t afford him in-state tuition at Georgia universities.

“It allows people to apply to not be deported right now. It does not solve the problem for our undocumented dreamers,” she says.

Those who fought to pass the restrictions say only legal residents should be allowed to attend public schools. Earlier this year, state Se. Barry Loudermilk lobbied for a measure that would have expanded the current ban from five universities to all public colleges.

“We have to be responsible with taxpayer dollars,” he says. “We also have to ensure that these seats that are available in our colleges and universities are there for our citizens, students and legal foreign students that have come into this nation looking for a better education. They’ve done so legally, and they want to get a seat at the table.”

The Georgia Board of Regents says it will follow the law. A spokesman says the government’s deferred action program does not mean that undocumented students will now be considered U.S. residents.

‘A Given Right’

In Atlanta, Martin returns to his parents’ home after class and after working with his father as a day laborer. Posters of Led Zeppelin hang on the wall. So do the honor medals Martin earned in high school.

“Because of the ban and because of all these negative things, something was able to spawn from this, and that was Freedom University,” he says. “It should be a given right to be educated, you know?”

Martin and others here know they’re not getting credit for classes, but they hope their time at Freedom University will prepare them for courses at a real college. Since last year, six students have received private scholarships at out-of-state schools. http://www.npr.org/2012/10/28/163717277/undocumented-students-take-education-underground

According to the Christian Science Monitor (CSM), fewer than expected have applied for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA):

David Grant reports in the CSM article, DREAM Act-lite: 7 in 100 eligible illegal immigrants apply, so far:

Now, the numbers are in for the program’s first month. As of Sept. 13, at least 82,000 illegal immigrants have filed applications to take the government up on its offer, a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the DHS announced Friday. That’s almost 7 percent of the 1.2 million illegal immigrants whom advocacy groups estimate are currently eligible for the program.

All in all, we’re very satisfied,” not only with the number of applicants but “also with the way the program is being implemented,” says Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

While some advocates may have expected “hundreds of thousands” of applications out of the gate, Ms. Hincapie says that was never a realistic proposition because of the complexity of the application, concerns from illegal immigrants about making themselves known to the government, and questions about how a potential President Mitt Romney would handle the program.

Another 500,000 or so individuals will meet eligibility requirements in the future, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), for a total of about 1.7 million potential applicants.

Of the 82,000 people to apply, 63,000 have appointments scheduled for the recording of biometric data. Twenty-nine cases have already been resolved, with 1,660 more cases ready for final review, according to DHS….

Successful applicants win a deferral from deportation for two years, but after that they must periodically reapply to reauthorize their deferrals, Doris Meissner, MPI senior fellow and former commissioner of the US Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), told the Monitor last month. While rooting out fraud is always important, Ms. Meissner said, lying to the government during the application process is cause for deportation, and fraud uncovered even after someone is sheltered under DACA means illegal immigrants applying fraudulently “will have put themselves into serious jeopardy.” 

To qualify for the DACA program, applicants must be under age 31, have lived in the US for five or more years consecutively, served in the military or be pursuing an education or have graduated from high school, have come to America before age 16, and have no significant criminal record. Applicants must pay a $465 fee and submit to a biometric scan and background investigation.

If successful, applicants gain a two-year deferral from deportation proceedings and the opportunity to apply for a work permit, but no path to US citizenship. If unsuccessful, there is no appeals process. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0914/DREAM-Act-lite-7-in-100-eligible-illegal-immigrants-apply-so-far

Freedom University points to the failure of U.S. Immigration policy.

Resources:

ADREAMACT                                                                            http://adreamact.com/

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART © http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©                        http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©                                                                                        https://drwilda.com/

What is the DREAM Act?

1 Jun

The University of Washington Daily has published two excellent articles by Lauren Kronebusch of the Daily staff. In Making The Dream A Reality, Kronebusch reports:

Having finished a study on undocumented-immigrant youth and young adults in Los Angeles, Roberto Gonzales, former assistant professor in the School of Social Work and now assistant professor at the University of Chicago, conducted a comparative study in and around Seattle, examining the experiences of undocumented youth in adolescence and young adulthood.

#He was implemental in making sure undocumented students at the UW had a “safe space” where they could share their everyday experiences, fears, and hopes with one another. For confidentiality reasons, much about the group is not reported here. Daniela was a part of the group while it was more formally organized under Gonzales’ leadership.

#In the past 10 years, Gonzales has spoken with hundreds of undocumented young adults who, like Daniela and Rebecca, have lived most of their lives in the United States.

#Many of those Gonzales spoke with had, as he described it, “Americanizing experiences.”

#“They’ve accumulated Americanizing experiences, and very importantly have subscribed to kind of ideals of meritocracy where, if they work hard, if they dream boldly enough, if they reach high enough, they can attain the goals,” Gonzales said. “For many of them, along the educational system, that’s been matched by their success, but once doors finally stop opening, they finish with school. … They find themselves with shrinking options.”

#Many of those interviewed, however, had finished high school with jobs in restaurants, factories, offices, and landscaping. Acquiring work, whether within or outside of a student’s field of study, acquiring work with or without a high-school diploma, finding a safe and secure place to live — those are all aspects any young adult faces, all aspects an undocumented young adult faces.

#“They grow up American in many ways,” Gonzales said. “They have American-born peers and friends, they’re moving together with a group of American born peers and friends, they do all of the things other kids do. … But at around 16, 17, 18 years old, they start to realize that as their friends are moving forward, … they find themselves stuck.”  http://dailyuw.com/news/2012/may/31/making-dream-reality/

See, ‘Nobody Can Take Education Away From You’ http://dailyuw.com/news/2012/may/31/nobody-can-take-education-away-you/

The National Immigrant Law Center provides a summary of the Dream Act:

Students with conditional permanent resident status would be able to work, drive, go to school, and otherwise participate normally in day-to-day activities on the same terms as other Americans, except that generally they would not be able to travel abroad for lengthy periods and they would not be eligible for Pell Grants or certain other federal financial aid grants. They would, however, be eligible for federal work study and student loans, and states would not be restricted from providing their own financial aid to these students. Time spent by young people in conditional permanent resident status would count towards the residency requirements for naturalization.

Requirements to lift the condition and obtain regular lawful permanent resident status

At the end of the conditional period, unrestricted lawful permanent resident status would be granted if, during the conditional period, the immigrant had maintained good moral character, avoided lengthy trips abroad, and met at least one of the following criteria:

Graduated from a two-year college or certain vocational colleges, or studied for at least two years toward a B.A. or higher degree, or

Served in the U.S. armed forces for at least two years.

The six-year time period for meeting these requirements would be extendable upon a showing of good cause, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security would be empowered to waive the requirements altogether if compelling reasons, such as disability, prevent their completion and if removal of the student would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the student or to the student’s spouse, parent, or child.

In-state tuition: Restore state option

The DREAM Act would also repeal section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which currently discourages states from providing in-state tuition or other higher education benefits without regard to immigration status.

Under section 505, states that provide a higher education benefit based on residency to undocumented immigrants must provide the same benefit to U.S. citizens in the same circumstances, regardless of their state of residence.

Since section 505 became law, twelve states have enacted laws permitting anyone, including undocumented immigrants, who attended and graduated from high school in the state to pay the in-state rate at public colleges and universities. The twelve states are California, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. These states all pay the section 505 penalty by providing the same in-state discount rate to current residents of other states who previously went to high school and graduated in the state. The DREAM Act would repeal this penalty. This would not require states to provide instate tuition to undocumented immigrants, but rather would restore this decision to the states without encumbrance.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__centers__bickel_brewer_latino_institute_for_human_rights/documents/documents/ecm_pro_070431.pdf

As with any law or law change, there are pros and cons.

Balanced Politics. Org has a really good summary of Dream Act pros and cons:

Yes

No

  1. The foundation of the United States, as it describes on our Statue of Liberty, is immigration.
  2. Millions of illegal immigrants will stay in the shadows of society without some path to citizenship.
  3. It would generate additional tax revenues from both employers and employees as jobs are allowed to come into the open.
  4. We’d be able to count on the American justice system to protect wronged individuals and hold criminal immigrants accountable, whereas now illegals are afraid to be a part of the system due to possible deportation.
  5. It’s inhumane to break up families that have built a life in America.
  6. It may be good for the U.S. economy since immigrants can fill jobs that most Americans don’t want, often at a much lower cost to businesses.
  7. Homeland Security resources that focus on illegal immigrants can be redirected to tracking and finding terrorists.
  8. The current legal immigration path to citizenship is costly, time-consuming, inefficient, and limited. Thus, people seeking entry into the U.S. often have no choice but to do so illegally.
  9. It brings freedom and a path to self-sufficiency that isn’t available to billions of others around the world who aren’t lucky enough to be born in the United States.
  1. A path to citizenship rewards people for breaking the law.
  2. It’s unfair to the people who have followed the rules in their quest for citizenship.
  3. It will create a flood of illegal immigrants from everywhere who will try to get in before the law goes into effect.
  4. The program would add millions of people to the welfare rolls, who consume government resources such as health care, social security, and education while paying little or no taxes. Thus, the out-of-control government deficits would be pushed further to the edge of bankruptcy.
  5. It further erodes the English language and American culture in the United States.
  6. It would take away more jobs from current American citizens and drive down wages of remaining jobs.
  7. It would create an influx of voters who support the president & lawmakers that gave them citizenship at the expense of existing citizens.
  8. It would lead to further overpopulation and crowding of American cities.
  9. Terrorists, drug dealers, and other foreign enemies will exploit any open border or amnesty policies put in place.
  10. Plenty of better solutions exist, such as increasing legal immigration limits and reforming worker visa programs.

Related Links

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/path_to_citizenship.htm

Many who support the Dream Act are looking a the impact of an aging population on a society.

Jeremy Laurance writes in U.K.’s Independent about the impact on aging. In Why an ageing population is the greatest threat to society:

Of all the threats to human society, including war, disease and natural disaster, one outranks all others. It is the ageing of the human population.

No invading army, volcanic eruption or yet undreamt of plague can rival ageing in the breadth or depth of its impact on society. Over the next half century the proportion of people aged 60-plus around the world is expected to more than double. By 2050, for the first time in human history, old people will outnumber child-ren on the planet.

In some developed counties the number of older people will be twice the number of children. The impact of this transformation will be felt in every area of life, including economic growth, labour markets, taxation, the transfer of property, health, family composition, housing and migration. And the “demographic agequake” is already under way.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/why-an-ageing-population-is-the-greatest-threat-to-society-656997.html

A argument for immigration is that younger people are added to the population base and helps the aging problem.

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©