Illinois DREAM Act Becomes Law Amid Immigration Reform Debate
The Illinois DREAM Act, recently signed into law by Governor Pat Quinn, gives undocumented immigrant students access to privately funded college tuition assistance [They needed a law for that?? It's just grandstanding!]. Illinois, a state with one of the highest populations of illegal aliens, is the latest to pass such a measure. But lawmakers in other states, most notably Maryland, are working to stop similar legislation.
Illinois is the latest state to draft legislation giving undocumented students an opportunity to complete a higher education. The Illinois DREAM Act creates a commission that will oversee the distribution of financial aid to applicants.
The measure enjoyed bipartisan support when it passed in the state legislature earlier this year. But Kristen Williamson, a spokesperson for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, says her organization opposes it.
"This opposition doesn't come from trying to punish the kids or students for the sins of their parents, but rather not reward the parents for illegal activity. With the DREAM Fund commission, specifically in Illinois, although the money is coming from private funds, the funds are tax exempt," Williamson said.
And Williamson says opposition against similar measures in other states throughout the country is growing.
"Illinois is moving in the opposite direction of the rest of the country. I believe that there are 11 other states that have a version of the DREAM Act and I think in nine of them there are movements to get rid of it," said Maryland State Delegate Patrick McDonough.
In April, lawmakers in Maryland passed a law that would provide in-state tuition discounts under certain circumstances to undocumented students.
"It's a displacement of a citizen. If they get a certain slot at an education institution or they receive a certain scholarship or benefit, that is money that is going to be displaced that could be available in these very difficult economic times to a family member or an American citizen," said McDonough, a Republican who opposed the measure in Maryland.
He spearheaded a successful petition drive in Maryland to suspend the legislation. He says close to 75,000 people signed the petition. The issue now goes before voters in a statewide referendum during next year's general elections.
"In Maryland, it's going to have a big impact. It's going to bring out to vote a tremendous number of people, many of whom have never voted before. It's going to affect our congressional and U.S. Senate races. And I intend to run for the United States Senate against incumbent Democrat Ben Cardin and it's certainly going to have an impact on that race," McDonough added.
Legislation for a national DREAM Act, or Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act, which provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, was first introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2001. It passed the House of Representatives last year, but did not have the support necessary in the Senate to become law. The legislation was reintroduced in May in response to President Barack Obama's call for a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Lawmakers have yet to take up the measure.
SOURCE
70 per cent of Britons think there are too many migrants in the country
Seven out of 10 Britons think there are too many migrants in the country and only a quarter think immigration is good for the economy.
A survey of 23 countries by pollsters Ipsos Mori, will fuel the row over David Cameron's pledge to cut non-EU immigration to the "tens of thousands". Three quarters said migrants put too much strain on public services and 62 per cent said they made it harder for Britons to find work.
Russians showed the greatest opposition to immigrants with 77 per cent saying their country had too many, while Britain was in line with Belgium, Italy, Spain and South Africa.
The Japanese were happiest, with just 15 per cent wanting fewer. Brazilians were the most positive, with half saying immigrants make their country more interesting.
A spokesman for Ipsos Mori said: "Clearly people in Britain are concerned how immigration is affecting their job opportunities, the strain on public services and impact on a sluggish economy. These concerns are also reflected in many countries around the world."
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment