While immigration is a necessary function for both the country and people wanting to immigrate, the issue needs to be approached with the country’s interest, capacity, and political climate in mind. Often it seems as though the issue comes down to the humanity of the situation. Often times immigrants come over talking about a new chance for themselves and their dream of that country. This plays at the heartstrings of the public and often tips the favor of immigration and immigration reform to the immigrants side. While this may not be a bad thing, when dealing with these opinions a country needs to keep its economic and political stability in mind. In this international era a country also has to understand the immigrants mind and their reason
…show more content…
The first is that the requirement of high school attendance created a “de facto residence requirement” (Colvin 400). This means that in the whole practice and reality of this law, the number of people who attend California high schools without living in the state is small to non-existent. Therefore, the law has no real basis or legal population it is serving. The second way the courts found it violated law was that tuition discount in the form of in-state tuition constitutes as assistance. This assistance in technically a benefit under federal law (399). In-state tuition for the state of California was on average 8,373 $. Out of state tuition was 31, 960 $. There can be no doubt that this difference of over 20,000 $ in tuition rates for residents versus non-residents is a monetary benefit (401 402). The message of these state statutes is clear. They support illegal immigrants and have favored a more merciful immigration system. They argue these statutes based on humanitarian grounds. The aliens are just people after all, and many would want to stay illegal rather than gamble on the distant promise of naturalization. Therefore staying illegal is their conscious choice. They can still contribute to our society and economy, so it is thought that these aliens should get tuition assistance. While moralistically this is the noble idea, legally and politically this is a complete train wreck. The introduction of mercy into the justice system is unrealistic on this enormous scale, because mercy and justice are two fundamentally different
The first is that the requirement of high school attendance created a “de facto residence requirement” (Colvin 400). This means that in the whole practice and reality of this law, the number of people who attend California high schools without living in the state is small to non-existent. Therefore, the law has no real basis or legal population it is serving. The second way the courts found it violated law was that tuition discount in the form of in-state tuition constitutes as assistance. This assistance in technically a benefit under federal law (399). In-state tuition for the state of California was on average 8,373 $. Out of state tuition was 31, 960 $. There can be no doubt that this difference of over 20,000 $ in tuition rates for residents versus non-residents is a monetary benefit (401 402). The message of these state statutes is clear. They support illegal immigrants and have favored a more merciful immigration system. They argue these statutes based on humanitarian grounds. The aliens are just people after all, and many would want to stay illegal rather than gamble on the distant promise of naturalization. Therefore staying illegal is their conscious choice. They can still contribute to our society and economy, so it is thought that these aliens should get tuition assistance. While moralistically this is the noble idea, legally and politically this is a complete train wreck. The introduction of mercy into the justice system is unrealistic on this enormous scale, because mercy and justice are two fundamentally different