Whoa! He's gotten all super-badass about the illegals. Hey, I really like the new, improved, populist Huckabee position on immigration. But it's kind of a flip-flop. Will these anti-illegal immigration leaders give Huckabee a second look now? Or can Huckabee be fairly accused of pandering.
I do side with Huckabee Classic in this one area, at least. Check out this controversy:
Hutchinson, also a Fred Thompson supporter, specifically takes exception to Huckabee's opposition to a federal raid of 119 illegal immigrants at an Arkansas poultry plant, 107 of whom left the country either voluntarily or through deportation.Huckabee disapproved of the action by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and called for a federal investigation of the summer 2005 raid.
He reportedly said, "How is our government benefiting from an abandoned 1-year-old? I'm thinking as a parent, if I was in that position and my only crime was plucking a chicken to feed my family. I didn't hurt anyone. It would be different if the crime was robbing a bank with a gun or making methamphetamine."
Concerning Huckabee's response to the raid, Hutchinson said, "It was wrong to criticize the agents. They don't make the laws. They enforce them."
Further, to believe that the raid means Huckabee will be soft on immigration misses the point of the criticism about the raid, said Stewart.
"Huckabee's concerns surrounded the fact that federal authorities didn't contact the state and local authorities about the raid," Stewart said. "Once they went in and made the raid, the parents were hauled off to jail and the kids were left to fend for themselves and taken into state custody.
"The governor felt as if there should have been federal, state, and local coordination prior to the raid so that the children could have been taken care of. [Emphasis mine -- RD.] Once again, he does not feel that children should be penalized or punished for the actions of their parents."
Agreed.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Sorry, Larry, I did confuse the tuition comment between you and Rod.
Huckabee had a few proposals, one of which was a scholarships as part of the Arkansas Challenge. This isn't just a case of in-state tuition, but the same scholarships available to all students in Arkansas.
If we are going to redefine the word "citizen", fine. Let's have that discussion and change it if necessary. But let's not redefine it by legislation that gives non-citizens benefits of citizenship and then just say they are citizens because they live here. Let's not cheapen citizenship by saying just because you live here, you're an American. American is a place where all men can pursue their own happiness, but we have a Constitution for a reason.
Our obligation to adult children of illegal immigrants is the same obligation we have to all adults. The freedom to pursue their dreams, but that doesn't mean the taxpayer must pay for those dreams simply because their parents came here illegally. And at the same time tell the children of parents who happen to live in Texas, sorry you don't qualify because your a citizen and happen to live in Texas.
Let these adult high school graduates do what most college students have to do to pay for college, they work. Let them get a job and work for the American Dream just like the rest of us. The American Dream is not a right based on birth even if you're a citizen, but a blessing bestowed upon those are willing to work hard and overcome the obstacles that their life presents to them. Like Smith Barney ads used to tell us, in America "make money the old-fashioned way, we earn it!"
I'm all for helping these children though. If you would like to set up a scholarship for the children of illegals and fund it to give them a leg up on life, go right ahead. But don't force the American taxpayer to pay for it. We're struggling just to put our own children through school.
If your kids get good grades, participate in activities and score well on the SAT, they're not competing with "illegal immigrants"
(lots of whom, BTW, came to the U.S. as infants, don't speak Spanish except with their parents and are basically as American as apple pie if you don't ask them for their papers). Your children will get in on their own.
Please elucidate, if you are capable, how increasing number of applicants for a fixed number of college entrance slots does not change chances of a random kid to get in?
Since you are having difficulties with logic, let's make it simple:
If AR has 10,000 openings in freshman class of state universities and there are 20,000 applicants, a randomly selected applicant has 50% chance of getting in.
Add to the mix 10,000 applicants who are illegal. A random applicant's chances, legal or not, drop to 33%.
What do quotes in "illegal immigrant" mean? Are they somehow legal accordingly to your legal theories?
Do you believe that any person in the world has a right to come here and live in the USA?
And if you don't believe in that right, why do you think the term illegal immigrant is not valid?
mik:
Arkansas doesn't have anywhere close to that many illegal immigrant children who would be applying to colleges. The effect would be strictly on the margins. And frankly, if your kid scored marginally in his grades and test scores, and an illegal immigrant child scored off the charts, I truly don't understand the unfairness. We're a meritocracy in the U.S., right? (More like a sarcastic, "Yeah, right ...")
As for the quotes, you read much too much into them, but now that you mention it ...
Of course I accept the term illegal immigrant. (Better than illegal alien, which makes it sound like they came here from the moon.) But I do think categorizing a child who came here at age 2, who barely speaks enough Spanish to communicate with his/her parents, who socializes in English and with the full community, who has received a full public education, as "un-American" (to use quotes) is preposterous.
Arkansas doesn't have anywhere close to that many illegal immigrant children who would be applying to colleges.
How do you know? You told us that a part of AR is crawling with illegals and that is the reason Huck wanted to give them goodies.
The effect would be strictly on the margins.
You just said that there is no effect. I'm confused, is there effect or not?
We're a meritocracy in the U.S., right?
No, we are a republic. If, as Open Borderistas wish, we will accept applicants from the whole world, there will be less than 5% of US kids in US colleges. Look at population size and high school scores of China, India, Russia, S Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine. Just the top 3% of High School students from those countries will fill all available slots in US colleges.
It pains me to tell you that, but all indications are that you, personally, would have ended up in Hoola-Pallooza Community College for dog trainers.
As Steve Sailer, the best political statistician in the US, keeps saying
as far as topic of immigration, it is a topic where ignorance, lies, and wishful thinking are the norm.
mik:
I actually went to one of America's top universities (as you should well know as a CC regular; it's been the subject of several fights on here) and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. As a prognosticator, you're Carnac the Magnificent.
I make a distinction between kids who are already here (and are for all intents and purposes, IMHO, American) and what you call "foreign students," whose first exposure to America would be at age 18. You don't. I think you're wrong; you think I'm wrong; but we're not going to change each others' minds.
But I never said Arkansas was "crawling" with illegal immigrant kids. (Certainly not 1/3 of the public school system -- where on earth did you grab that number out of a hat from?) It is true that the Latino population has increased rapidly near the Wal-Mart headquarters in northwestern Arkansas and that, well, it's been documented that some of them are undocumented. This is also the most Republican part of Arkansas; naturally, Huck would have wanted to keep the business leaders (read: the Tyson and Walton folks) happy. I'm not saying it's right (though I personally think it was the right thing for the wrong reason, perhaps); I'm saying it's political reality.
Finally, you're parsing "impact" and "margins" way too much. I don't think I ever said there would be no impact, period; my point is that the impact would be so marginal that for all intents and purposes there would be almost no impact.
And frankly, I don't see where slots for DESERVING (high grades, good, um, conduct, since I can't say citizenship) illegal immigrants are any worse than reserving slots for wastrel kids of alumni. If it's an even exchange there, absolutely no deserving white-as-the-driven-snow Amerkins would be affected whatsoever.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.