The college route I think is a bit harder to manage as it's pretty easy to be a student without actually doing any real schooling. It would take much more oversight than the military route. But if not abused, I'd support this route too.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
Note I am not entirely sold on the concept myself. I am absolutely opposed to those who came here illegally on their own having a path to citizenship, but this seems somewhat of a different thing. It seems to be aimed at those brought here by there criminal parents.
I don't have a problem with the bill in theory. But I don't think now is the time to enact it. As long as the federal government refuses to take serious and necessary steps to combat the uncontrolled and unregulated flow of illegal immigrants, we shouldn't be adding incentives to illegally immigrate.
Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.
I'm torn on this one.
Children brought here illegally by their parents aren't committing a crime. They had no choice in the matter, and were just along for the ride. Staying after they become of age is a crime, but by that point (for some at least), America is the only home they have ever known. I think 16 is too old though. You are almost an adult by that point. Lower the limit some (to maybe 12 or 13) and I'd be more okay with it, ASSUMING that it was actually enforced the way it's written.
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I'm against it, as it sets a bad precedent. We're trying to end the anchor baby movement, and all this would do is enforce it. Guilt by association should mean something these days.