Joseph Berger/NYT promotes DREAM Act, largely ignores impact

Posted Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 11:04 am
Joseph Berger of the New York Times offers "Debates Persist Over Subsidies for Immigrant College Students". It's in their "On Education" section, which is apparently exempt from their "tough" journalistic standards and thus the fact that it's basically an editorial in favor of the anti-American DREAM Act isn't that much of a concern.

While not a PIIPP, it does come close in that it profiles two sympathetic students, both of whom - surprise! - are high achievers. The most noteworthy aspect is that he doesn't explore the downsides of the bill, which would include letting illegal aliens take college discounts from U.S. citizens. In fact, only one sentence - a quote from Mitt Romney ("Illegals are not going to get taxpayer-funded breaks that are better than our own citizens") - discusses the downsides of the bill. Berger "forgot" to include the part where Romney tried to point out that "there's only so much money to go around" and that giving discounts to illegal aliens takes them away from U.S. citizens.

And, in fact, near the end the article turns into an overt advertisement:
When illegal immigrants do graduate from college, they still cannot find skilled jobs except underground. For the undocumented, a Social Security card would trump a diploma. That's why champions of legalization for the undocumented are staking their hopes on the stalled federal Dream Act. The bill, an acronym for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, would explicitly grant illegal immigrants enrolling in college six years of conditional residency that would enable them to work, drive and possibly be eligible in more states for in-state tuition. What's better, it would enable a student who completes two years of college to apply for a permanent resident’s green card.

Given how hard two years of college can be, that bill could hardly be considered an amnesty, particularly since the students were not to blame for their illegal entry in the first place.
Of course it's an amnesty, because that's how it will be perceived. And, it will send a loud message to millions of people around the world that all they need to do is come here illegally and we'll provide college discounts, even if it means taking them away from our own citizens.

Please write Clark Hoyt - Public Editor with your thoughts: public *at* nytimes.com
Tags: 
dream act
new york times
mitt romney
joseph berger

Comments

Fred Dawes (not verified)

Wed, 12/12/2007 - 19:24

one Dream one Mexico and one third world, with any of you who are not Mexican or third world people nothing, see La Raza, that is the plan. why do you just stand by and do nothing? Reason The main reason why is you have no Government only a gang Rule. Amnesty in is a form of Gang Rule and when that become de fact, you will know the third world Love. Amnesty is just a tool of the one world people who hate YOU.

amanda (not verified)

Wed, 12/12/2007 - 23:28

The proponents always say 'this is narrowly tailored toward the innocent child not a reward for the law breaking parent'. OK, since you're so concerned about not rewarding the parents, make any LPR grant to the child limited to him alone and without the usual chain application right an anchor baby can make at adulthood to legalize the parents. They dismiss that which proves they are lying about not rewarding the one who broke the law. Whenever amnesty is proposed, easy fraud and expansive chain opportunities are so consistently present a reasonable person can only conclude they are intentional. Did you hear any CIR proponents once give any numbers on how much chain migration would result from their 'pathway'? An honest proponent would give a number but it would be so high they know it would scare a lot of their support away. Likewise, based on '86, however many people you think would be eligible, factor in inevitable fraud which will raise the actual amnesty number considerably.

Fred Dawes (not verified)

Thu, 12/13/2007 - 01:01

amanda is great the system wants a new mass population and that population will look at the old population as food. mass amnesty is mass dismantling of this Nation and laws will mean nothing in fact the highest law of any race of people is to triumph/conquer/subjugation over the other guy. if you think that is BS Read history.