Comments about ‘Los Angeles Times: Don't punish the young undocumented immigrants’

"That was bad enough."

Really? No matter how one may wish to rationalize it, the fact is that in-state tuition for children of persons who have illegally invaded this country is a STOLEN BENEFIT -- if not stolen by the child directly then virtually stolen by the parents FOR their children.

"...children born in the United States, under whatever circumstances, are fully American."

Many reasonably argue that the notion of unconditional citizenship for children of illegal invaders of this country is a gross misinterpretation -- and abuse -- of the U.S. Constitution. Legitimate questions of placement of allegiance also come into play.

And it is a lie to assert that the government punishes children for the sins of their parents. The truth is that actions have consequences, relative to law. Those who willfully choose to violate that law bring those consequences upon themselves and upon their own children.

Who gained from the Saucedo episode? Perhaps a bona fide resident of this country. What, was he LESS deserving of the opportunity? Is it NOT important that HE gain an education, better contribute to his community as a result, and better compete in a world economy? Is HE not deserving of our "compassion?"

anti-liar,

There are only two kinds of citizenship - that which is spelled out in the constitution and that which plays out in our own political views. Only one matters. Only one has legal standing. Only one is constitutional (which used to be an important point among conservatives and libertarians).

If we dislike that particular constitutional provision, then we change it (but beware what you ask for - the law of unintended consequences can come into play). Otherwise, we live with it and grant these kids the full benefits of citizenship. They are then, our full equals in regards to citizenship whatever the faults of their parents or guardians.

And please, lets not go down the "people are not interpreting the constitution correctly" road. This has been upheld by liberal and conservative justices for a century and a half.

As with most stories by the media this story lumps both legal and illegal immigration in the same basket (or tries to make the reader believe they're the same).

Persons born in this country are entitled to the same rights as any other citizens.

Persons brought here illegally by their parents are trespassing, as are the parents.

Most of us are opposed to the "Dream Act" because it confers quasi citizenship on trespassers for purposes of higher education.
Since they're not citizens they're NOT entitled to the same rights and benefits as native born Americans or naturalized citizens.
We can't reward lawbreakers, no matter how much the media makes us believe we should.

BTW - its interesting that the LA Times STILL chooses to advocate for illegal immigrant trespassers even as Kalifornia essentially goes bankrupt.

There's not a connection is there?

I don't think the "aw, they're just kids" sentiment ought to rule the day here -- illegal is illegal.

So what would you do?

If a child comes into your house, sits down at your table and expect you to feed him. Most of us would feed him, feel good about doing so, and send him on his way. But what if he came back every day, with brothers and sisters. And what if you find out that it was the child’s dad who caused your dad to loses his job by working for lower wages.

Perhaps you would realize that the problem for your family and the family of the immigrant is not the fault of the families at all. That the real fault lies with a system where unscrupulous businessmen take every advantage of the modern world for themselves and yet insist that workers abide by the rules and conditions established hundreds of years ago.

Business is the property of the community, the people of the community owns the concept of business. When labor was the main part of business, a balanced sharing existed between the community and the private business operation. Technology, innovation and just new knowledge have unbalanced the sharing to the disfavor of the people.

So what should we do?

We need to rethink the tasks and methods used by business to support the lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the people. As real live human being people we have the right and authority to define the how and what in the servicing of our needs.

A business operation is not people. It is simply a conglomeration of papers or their images,
that describe the ownership, the authority, the purpose and operation of a business operation.

Private capitalism is good because it promotes efficiency, innovation, progress and makes people feel good, while servicing the needs of the community. But these attributes belong to a business operation only when it plays by the rules set forth by the people for all business operations.

The elimination of labor from the business operation means that we need to find a new way of redistributing the wealth created by the business operation. We need to decide the proper sharing of wealth for the business operators, the business owners and the community of people.

To Ultra Bob who wrote "Business is the property of the community...":

So...it was the community that gave me seed money and guaranteed my loans so that I could try and get my business off the ground. It was the community that worked 80+ hours per week with no pay until the idea became an actual product. It is the community that will step in and pay all my business's debts if it fails.

As a business owner, all these facts somehow seemed to escape me (although I was well aware that if my business becomes very successful, the community is more than willing to share in that success by taking more of the profits than I will receive).

My spouse's employer, who owns a large farming operation, gives $5000 scholarships for employee's dependents attending college. He strongly believes in investing in the future of America and, as a result, puts his money where his mouth is.

As a libertarian, I don't believe in man-made borders. However, after the recent election, I am extremely disappointed in the Latinos who voted for the authoritarian candidate. In other words, which is worse? Drawing borders and building fences to keep people out or letting everyone come in so they can continue to empower an elite, authoritarian central government of a few individuals? I think the latter is worse, therefore I am becoming more and more anti-immigration.

d@killpack - I respect your open-mindedness and ability to reason. Of course the latter scenario is worse -- it ultimately presents a hazard to everyone's liberty -- which is why borders and law and order are important. It's because not all who want to come into this country share your good values and have your good intentions. I hate to say it, but I find that many libertarians are incapable of such rationality.

@Twin Lights
"Only one matters... This has been upheld by liberal and conservative justices for a century and a half."

That is an oversimplification. One, the mass-scale, illegal-alien invasion of the U.S. is a far more recent phenomenon and issue. Two, the current interpretation of the 14h Amendment really is based on an obscure and again relatively recent footnote which was slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982.

But the larger principle remains that they were born here only because their parents were in the country illegally. This makes the entire enterprise morally wrong at the core.

And it is bad for the nation. Typically the parents' disrespect for the rule of law is bequeathed to their American-born children.

Joecapitalist2

Who owns business?

Who creates the opportunity for a business operation?

Who creates the need for a business operation?

Who provides the customers for a business operation?

Who provides the workers for a business operation?

Who specifies the quantity, quality and the manner of creation of the product?

Who provides the infrastructure needed for the business operation?

Who provides the protection from other businesses for the business operation?

Who provides the rules and regulations for the business operation?

Who pays for all the costs, taxes and profits?

The answer to all of the above is Society and it’s agent called government.

Who provides the money to build, run and create the product?

Who gets all the profit?

The answer to these questions is the Investor, who loans the business operation some of his surplus money.

anti-liar,

If it is an oversimplification, when has the Supreme Court opined otherwise? If it were based on just Justice Brennan, then 40 years have passed since with no challenge.

The constitution does not qualify how or why they are here. Morally wrong is not the same as unconstitutional.

If it were a matter of the parents’ disrespect for the rule of law, then many kids born to fully American parents should be booted as well.

So if you deny children of undocumented residents a realistic chance of an education you deprive our nation of a person who is more capable, self-sufficient and able to be a benefit to us all. We need MORE educated and trained people, NOT fewer.