Am I reading this right? The bill is SB 1159, which looks like it passed to me when I look it up on the California legislature website -- with the following language:
How is it "a flaw in our laws" that her parents chose to bring her here illegally as an infant?
That's not the flaw, the flaw is the catch-22 she gets stuck in that prevents her from gaining citizenship despite doing exactly what should allow her to become a citizen; working hard to become a valuable asset to our society.
We want Physicians, she wants to fill that need but can't get a medical license without being a citizen and can't become a citizen without getting a medical license.
Why is it you think that makes sense? What do you believe she should do differently?
How is it "a flaw in our laws" that her parents chose to bring her here illegally as an infant?
The flaw in our laws is not that her parents brought here. The flaw is that now she has no way to rectify her immigration status so that she's here legally, though her immigration status is not of her own doing. Is that really the best this country can do?
We want Physicians, she wants to fill that need but can't get a medical license without being a citizen and can't become a citizen without getting a medical license.
Why is it you think that makes sense? What do you believe she should do differently?
I think it makes perfect sense that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for professional licenses. What I don't understand is why anyone would think that doesn't make sense. And what I believe she should do differently is stop flouting our laws on a daily basis.
Logic and rationale behind these legal decisions and or state legislature actions is simple; just as with gay marriage the federal government does not issue professional licenses; states do and the federal government has tended to go along. Absent being devolved upon the federal government by the USC all other powers remain with states. The recent decision by NYS's highest court regarding that illegal immigrant being awarded a law license pretty much stated this; that is the federal government intruded, usurped or what have you NYS's sovereignty in attempts to tell it whom it can and cannot issue professional licenses.
If the federal government does not want illegal aliens/immigrants to have professional licenses or other benefits then it needs to remove them from US soil. Long as they are here and more importantly in states like California and New York that welcome, support and protect then the matter is pretty much settled.
Unlike nursing the practice of law does not always involve being "hired" as an employee or contractor. This NYC attorney as with the one in CA can hang out a sign and work for themselves independently now that they are officially admitted to the bar. As far as one knows neither federal or local courts inquire of lawyers before them if they are in the USA legally. Long as the attorney in question has a valid state license that is what matters.
Anna you are incorrect in your statement that illegal immigrants get lesser tuition costs than legal citizens. They do not get federal aid and have to pay tuition cost out of pocket. Most of the times they do not even qualify to apply for scholarships or loans from private loan sectors. In addition, many of these people did not have a choice to come to this country illegally. They were young and came with their parents. Not getting your residency is an extremely difficult and long process.
If you are illegal then you never see the taxes that are taken away from you since you cannot apply for unemployment or get social security benefits. Where does that money go? To the government. I do say though that for the man in NY, he could have at least tried to become legal after many years being here.
Problem one has with the argument "these people had no choice...." because their parents brought them to the USA as infants or children is jus that; the parents 9.99% of the time made a conscious decision to pack up and arrive in the USA precisely because of their children.
Thanks to the SCOTUS *all* minor children in the USA are entitled to *FREE* public education though high school, this includes illegals. When you look at the public school systems in Mexico, South America and elsewhere you find the quality is often lacking. Even for so called "public" schools there are often fees and other payments you just don't find in the USA.
If you have a "special needs" child again by federal and often local laws it will receive free education either from the local public school system *OR* private/specialized again at the taxpayer's expense. You don't even have to give the local school a chance or make inquiries. A Hispanic/Latino mother sued and won against NYC to receive back and future payments because she took her special needs child directly to a private school and wanted the City to pay the bills. NYC countered the woman never even contacted them/sent her child to their school system for evaluation, but that argument carried no water with the courts.
Immigrant children by the tens of thousands over the past year or so have arrived unaccompanied on USA soil. Supposedly they came of their own free will (ok, right), out of missing their parents or some such. All remain and thanks to the current administration's shut down of deportations will likely never be sent back. By the time these thousands of cases wind their way through an already clogged/over burdened immigration court system the youngest of such children will likely be young adults. Then they will come out with the same argument the gentleman attorney from NYC and others have used; having been here since a child/infant the USA is the only country known and it would be "cruel" to send (them) back now. Especially after taxpayers have already "invested" so much.
It would seem to me that, after investing so much in the education of those children, that it's pretty stupid to kick them out of the country as soon as they approach the ability to become taxpaying workers.
And, yes, undocumented immigrants do pay taxes:
The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has estimated the state and local taxes paid in 2010 by households that are headed by unauthorized immigrants. These households may include members who are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. Collectively, these households paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes. That included $1.2 billion in personal income taxes, $1.6 billion in property taxes, and $8.4 billion in sales taxes. The states receiving the most tax revenue from households headed by unauthorized immigrants were California ($2.7 billion), Texas ($1.6 billion), Florida ($806.8 million), New York ($662.4 million), and Illinois ($499.2 million) {See Figure 1 and Table 1}. These figures should be kept in mind as politicians and commentators continue with the seemingly endless debate over what to do with unauthorized immigrants already living in the United States. In spite of the fact that they lack legal status, these immigrants—and their family members—are adding value to the U.S. economy; not only as taxpayers, but as workers, consumers, and entrepreneurs as well.
Unless you're 100% Native American, you, too, are an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants. The assertion that at least your particular immigrant ancestors came here "legally" loses a lot of force one faces the fact that immigration laws from their beginning thru the 1950's were written specifically to exclude certain "undesirable" ethnicities, including the Irish, Italian and Polish, as well as black, brown and yellow-skinned nationalities. D'ya see a pattern here? In other words, Western Europeans invaded this continent, forcibly expropriated the land and all its resources, then made it a rule that only certain Europeans were allowed to live here. Slaves, since they were property and not people, didn't count.
I totally agree that we need rational and enforceable immigration policies ... but let's not dance around the less than savory motivations that are helping to drive the discussion.
It would seem to me that, after investing so much in the education of those children, that it's pretty stupid to kick them out of the country as soon as they approach the ability to become taxpaying workers.
I take a different point of view -- I think it's ridiculous that US taxpayers are paying for the education of illegals. I believe that parents should have to document to the public schools that at least one parent is here legally (or that the child is legal) before a child can be enrolled in public schools. I'm sure that the fact that they can enroll their children in free schools here that are significantly better than the schools in their home country is one incentive for some people to come here illegally. They might think twice if they knew their children couldn't go to school here.
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
That's not the flaw, the flaw is the catch-22 she gets stuck in that prevents her from gaining citizenship despite doing exactly what should allow her to become a citizen; working hard to become a valuable asset to our society.
We want Physicians, she wants to fill that need but can't get a medical license without being a citizen and can't become a citizen without getting a medical license.
Why is it you think that makes sense? What do you believe she should do differently?