Thread: California Dream Act's opponents gather signatures

It's nice to know there are some Californians who actually oppose illegal immigration,although I think it might be too late on their part.

California Dream Act's opponents gather signatures - latimes.com[/URL]
They want a November ballot initiative to repeal the Dream Act, which gives illegal immigrants access to state financial aid at public universities and community colleges. There is a January deadline.
In the parking lot of a closed Pasadena restaurant, a handful of tea party volunteers huddled under a tent to escape a sudden downpour of rain.
They were there to gather signatures to repeal AB 131, or the California Dream Act, which gives illegal immigrants access to state financial aid at public universities and community colleges. The rain smudged their signs, they were shouted at by a driver who called them racist, and the turnout was lower than they'd hoped.
But they were undaunted. On their side were a radio campaign and a small number of determined folks who arrived steadily despite the weather.
When the state Dream Act was signed into law in October, it was greeted with cheers by those who felt it would give undocumented youth a much needed opportunity to succeed. It has also inspired anger and dismay among many who believe that the state should not spend scarce resources on illegal immigrants.
"It's ironic they want to use education dollars for foreign nationals when they're raising tuitions for U.S. citizens," said volunteer Ernie Arnold of South Pasadena.
The effort to repeal AB 131 was launched almost immediately after Gov. Jerry Brown signed the legislation. Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-San Bernardino), who started the campaign, said his office received more than 20,000 emails requesting petitions and opportunities to volunteer in the first week and a half after the petition was filed.

I will sign that. Illegal immigration is the Achilles heel of this country. regardless of what the proponents say, its a HUGE drain on our economy! If people knew the amount of money that Illegal workers send over the border into Mexico, they would have a coronary. The last thing we should do is start offering incentives to Illegal immigrants to come over the border, take advantage of our learning institutions when American citizens are currently struggling to pay rising tuition costs, and take money out of our economy!

Lets turn the issue back to those that support illegal immigratiion. They have stated immigration is a federal issue. If it is then the feds should sue CA over this law, like they are suing AZ. The courts should stop its immplementation like that have stopped parts of AZ and other states laws.

When dealing with illegal immigratiion if CA can set policy, then States like AZ should be able. At least AZ if following federal law in its SB1070.

Originally Posted by mike2810

Lets turn the issue back to those that support illegal immigratiion. They have stated immigration is a federal issue. If it is then the feds should sue CA over this law, like they are suing AZ. The courts should stop its immplementation like that have stopped parts of AZ and other states laws.

When dealing with illegal immigratiion if CA can set policy, then States like AZ should be able. At least AZ if following federal law in its SB1070.

I was actually going to say that. If immigration is a Federal Issue then they should sue CA. they shouldn't just sue states that are implementing policies they disagree with. That's chaos.

Well, if they get an education and then join the work force, they would be tax payers for the rest of their days in the U.S. Just something to think about in terms of whose money is being spent.

Originally Posted by Temporal

Well, if they get an education and then join the work force, they would be tax payers for the rest of their days in the U.S. Just something to think about in terms of whose money is being spent.

I agree with the idea of the Dream Act, I don't agree with setting a precedent for states to create their own immigration laws.

Originally Posted by mike2810

When dealing with illegal immigratiion if CA can set policy, then States like AZ should be able. At least AZ if following federal law in its SB1070.

This is a common point of confusion. States can have more lax laws than the federal government on federal issues, but they can't have more strict ones. States are under zero obligation to dedicate their resources to enforcing federal law at all. They could choose to enforce it by denying undocumented immigrants financial aid or they could choose not to, it's up to the states. That's one of the main points of states' rights. But they can't interfere with feds enforcing federal law by trying to tweak the law in areas where the fed has jurisdiction.

California has more undocumented immigrants, by far, than any other state. Even more per capita by a decent margin. And they've had a large undocumented immigrant population for much longer than other states. They've figured out how to deal with it much better than most the other states as a result. Focus enforcement on those that cause trouble. Don't intentionally take steps to make the poverty and lack of education of the undocumented immigrant community that creates all the problems worse. Focus on how to optimize things so that the undocumented immigrants have the most positive effect on the state possible rather than just trying to prove some kind of point about how you feel about the issue.

Originally Posted by teamosil

California has more undocumented immigrants, by far, than any other state. Even more per capita by a decent margin. And they've had a large undocumented immigrant population for much longer than other states. They've figured out how to deal with it much better than most the other states as a result. Focus enforcement on those that cause trouble. Don't intentionally take steps to make the poverty and lack of education of the undocumented immigrant community that creates all the problems worse. Focus on how to optimize things so that the undocumented immigrants have the most positive effect on the state possible rather than just trying to prove some kind of point about how you feel about the issue.

I will stick with the approuch AZ is and has taken. While CA is still struggling with a massive debt, AZ has now balanced the books with a surplus.
CA will continue to lead the nation in illegal aliens as long as their is no changes in State laws.

As far as confusion. I think it would be interesting to challenge CA in court over the illegal education issue. If illegal immigration is a federal issue, then all items pertaining to it is a federal issue. Hence CA should be sued by the feds for setting immigration policy.

This State/Fed issue is going to eventually hit more than just immigration. For example drug laws or the use of medical "grass".

Originally Posted by mike2810

I will stick with the approuch AZ is and has taken. While CA is still struggling with a massive debt, AZ has now balanced the books with a surplus.
CA will continue to lead the nation in illegal aliens as long as their is no changes in State laws.

CA's median income is almost $7k/year higher than AZ's. The deficit is big at the moment for sure, but the surpluses were equally huge when the economy was booming. Also, the deficit partly just sounds bigger- $13 billion- than it is because most states have an economy that is only a small fraction the size of CA's economy. That's only 0.6% of our GDP. We need to deal with it. We should repeal the mandatory spending propositions and the propositions that limit property taxes, but it's not really that big of a deal. 0.6% of GDP. Compare that to the US's deficit which is around 10% of GDP.

Did AZ really balance the books? I hadn't heard that, although some GOP politicians down there were making unsupportable claims of things like that. Last I saw, Arizona's deficit was $2.1 trillion, which is 0.8% of AZ's GDP. So slightly higher than CA's.

Originally Posted by mike2810

As far as confusion. I think it would be interesting to challenge CA in court over the illegal education issue. If illegal immigration is a federal issue, then all items pertaining to it is a federal issue. Hence CA should be sued by the feds for setting immigration policy.

You're just thinking in more simplistic terms than the actual law is. The law doesn't say "illegal immigration is a federal issue, so anything dealing with illegal immigration is a federal issue". That could be how somebody who understood the issue might try to explain it to somebody that doesn't understand it. I'm sure I've even explained it that way. But that's a massive simplification. After all, either allowing illegal immigrants to get financial OR not allowing them to would both be policies pertaining to illegal immigration, right? So a state couldn't possibly comply with that standard. What the standard really is is that a state can't do anything that would change the legal standard somebody has to live by to comply with the law in an area that the federal government is supreme. So, a state can choose NOT to enforce immigration law at all, since the fed still enforces it and that doesn't change the law anybody needs to comply with. It can choose to partially enforce it for the same reason as long as the way it is choosing to enforce it doesn't interfere with the goals of the federal government. What it can't do is to enforce additional or different requirements because that would create a situation where the state, rather than the federal government, is creating new immigration law and that is a power given to the federal government only.

Originally Posted by mike2810

This State/Fed issue is going to eventually hit more than just immigration. For example drug laws or the use of medical "grass".

Actually that is one of the big state/fed cases, although it was about the commerce clause, not immigration. Gonzales v Raich. But it's a very different issue legally. Drugs aren't uniquely a federal issue like immigration is. Both states and the federal government have the power to regulate drugs. Drug trade is, after all, commerce. States have authority over intra-state commerce, and the feds have authority over inter-state commerce. So there isn't the same supremacy clause issue. With commerce that only comes into play if a state is trying to regulate something that is ONLY interstate commerce, like setting up import tariffs or something. In that case the supremacy clause would come into play the same way as with immigration.