This will be controversial, but if these illegals have been here since childhood and have attended US schools through high school, they are not going anywhere else.
They are going to remain here and be our newest citizens (or just stay here as illegals).
If you want these people to ASSIMILATE and BECOME AMERICANS,
who speak English and lose their ties to other countries, then don’t blanch at spending for the education which makes assimilation possible.
Otherwise, you’re going to end up with a Quebec situation,
which benefits nobody.
(time to duck...)
Their “assimilatation” starts when their family goes back across the border and they get in line with everyone else. That is the only acceptable path to assimilation.
You better duck. Your argument is, in essence, lay back and enjoy it. Meanwhile, American citizen children of American citizens are to be denied spots at university so we can assimilate the illegals. Already, state schools in Virginia are having to turn down more than 25,000 LEGAL students a year. You want to make that worse. Oh, and we already have a Quebec situation. See Prince William County. American citizens and their children have a RIGHT to come first, and and right not to have their interests come second to the interests of illegals. Unless you think we ought to be paying for a college education for the entire planet, you need to rethink this.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-08-29sm.html
>>Both studies found that immigrants used government services at a greater rate than native-born residents did. The New Jersey study found, for instance, that the typical immigrant family received about $4,044 annually in government services, about 11 percent higher than the average native-born family. At the same time, immigrant households paid about 8 percent less in taxes. The net result was that “the average native household generated an annual fiscal surplus of $232” to government, while “the typical foreign household was a net burden of $1,484.” The gap was even wider in California, where immigrant households produced a net deficit of $3,463 each, because so much of that state’s recent immigration had been in the form of low-wage, low-skill workers.
Though the study did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, it did break down foreign-born households by the regions of the world from which they had come. In both states, the study found the steepest deficit in Latin American households, which in New Jersey consumed 26 percent more in government expenditures than the average native-born family, but paid 38 percent less in taxes. By contrast, immigrant households in New Jersey that hailed from Europe or Canada actually consumed, on average, less in government services than the typical native-born family, and paid nearly as much in taxes. <<
What you are advocating is the Dream Act. Using your logic, we should grant amnesty to everyone who is here.
If you want these people to ASSIMILATE and BECOME AMERICANS, who speak English and lose their ties to other countries, then don’t blanch at spending for the education which makes assimilation possible.
Why should we pay taxes to subsidize their education at a public/state university and take the places of qualified amcits? If they want to attend college, there are plenty of private institutions that will take them in with open arms without checking their status.
Otherwise, you’re going to end up with a Quebec situation, which benefits nobody.
We are well on our way to that situation. In 1950, Hispanics comprised 1% of the population. By 2050, they will be 24.1% of the population. We are making accommodations to them rather than the other way around, e.g., ballots, ESL, driver's tests, etc. We even put the SS Trustee's Annual Report in Spanish
"The orientation of U.S. businesses to Hispanic customers means they increasingly need bilingual employees; therefore, bilingualism is affecting earnings. Bilingual police officers and firefighters in southwestern cities such as Phoenix and Las Vegas are paid more than those who only speak English. In Miami, one study found, families that spoke only Spanish had average incomes of $18,000; English-only families had average incomes of $32,000; and bilingual families averaged more than $50,000. For the first time in U.S. history, increasing numbers of Americans (particularly black Americans) will not be able to receive the jobs or the pay they would otherwise receive because they can speak to their fellow citizens only in English."
"In 1917, former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt said: “We must have but one flag. We must also have but one language. That must be the language of the Declaration of Independence, of Washington's Farewell address, of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech and second inaugural.” By contrast, in June 2000, U.S. president Bill Clinton said, “I hope very much that I'm the last president in American history who can't speak Spanish.”
"And in May 2001, President Bush celebrated Mexico's Cinco de Mayo national holiday by inaugurating the practice of broadcasting the weekly presidential radio address to the American people in both English and Spanish. In September 2003, one of the first debates among the Democratic Party's presidential candidates also took place in both English and Spanish. Despite the opposition of large majorities of Americans, Spanish is joining the language of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and the Kennedys as the language of the United States. If this trend continues, the cultural division between Hispanics and Anglos could replace the racial division between blacks and whites as the most serious cleavage in U.S. society."