Boston population rises to 645K

If I may briefly interrupt the generous (may I even say "liberal") application of tar and feathers, there is some support for the proposition that population movement can be based on benefits. For example, see this tedious academic paper from the University of Chicago: http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/faculty/articles/meyer_do_the_poor.pdf

As for illegal immigrants, most people immigrate in search of opportunity. (For a contrast, see the early settlement of Georgia, Australia and Siberia.) I don't think that it is a giant stretch of logic to suggest that a part of what makes up "opportunity" is state indifference to the "illegal" nature of an immigrant's presence.

Nor do I think it is a hate crime for some taxpayers to feel aggrieved at giving perks to illegal immigrants, such as the recent proposals to extend "in state" tuition rates to illegal immigrants.

Reasonable people can differ on the question of immigration, be it of a legal nature or not. Given the aging of the current population and the inadequate base of youth to support the economy, it may become a necessity to embrace a flood of young immigrants. Or not!

Either way, I don't think brother Lurker, who almost always writes with a thought provoking sense of wry humor deserves all this hatin' on him.
 
Lurker said:
I have a really hard time believing that the city's population is growing significantly from any other segment than those whom are seeking easier access to government services, when employers within the city limits have been in decline.
Click to expand...

Hogwash. I've lived in Boston for 21 years, so I suppose I missed some of the insight available from the 80s, but what I see is an increase in middle class population. Boston is a desirable place to live, those who can afford it are moving in.
 
If people live and pay taxes in Massachusetts, they should get in-state tuition here. If they live somewhere else (New Hampshire, Rhode Island, NYC, etc.) then they shouldn't. I don't understand why citizenship should even factor into this decision.
 
If "live and pay taxes" in Mass is the standard, an unemployed 18 year old student living in state wouldn't qualify for an in state tuition rate. Care to refine your test?
 
tobyjug said:
If "live and pay taxes" in Mass is the standard, an unemployed 18 year old student living in state wouldn't qualify for an in state tuition rate. Care to refine your test?
Click to expand...

Even the unemployed pay sales taxes, and they certainly pay property taxes (or at least the parents do)

Illegal immigrants usually also pay income taxes and property taxes. And unlike legal residents, they never see that money back.

Yes, some illegal immigrants get paid under the table....but so do many legal residents. Your all american waitress is just as likely to skim on tips, and joe the plumber is just as likely to edit his invocies as an illegal is.
 
OK, let's look at your theory. You posit that if an illegal immigrant (the "illegal" part means he does not lawfully reside here) pays income tax (a proposition open to debate, but let's go with it) he is entitled to the in-state tuition rate. But what of a person who resides in Nashua NH, but works in Mass. He is required to pay Mass. income tax and does so... he can't get the in state rate because he doesn't legally reside in Mass.?

How do you reconcile this unjust result?
 
THe New Hampshire resident can pay in-state tuition in New Hampshire.
 
Or they can have a system in place with regional in-state tuition agreements.

How about this: if an illegal immigrant is in fact in the United States illegally, they do not have my proposed federal identification card (passport, SSN, or national driver's license?) they are subsequently unable to take advantage of state services?

Why is this so difficult? You want to receive unemployment? Okay, show us your card. You want to register to college? Just enter your card number on the application form.

This seems so simple - will someone please point out the flaw in this plan?
 
Hint: same reasons why some politicians do not want to require verifiable ID to vote.
 
And, with the wind, I vanish.

When the douchebag is gone, I'll be back.
 
kennedy: you are trying to solve something that isn't actually a problem.
 
Those who can debate ideas do so; those who cannot...vanish!
 
Ron Newman said:
THe New Hampshire resident can pay in-state tuition in New Hampshire.
Click to expand...

...and by the same logic, a Guatemalan illegal immigrant, for example, could pay in-country tuition at the public Universidad de San Carlos.
 
The Census estimates factor in the number of students living in an institutionalized setting; i.e. college dormitories. Students living outside an institutionalized setting get counted as part of the count of housing units.

I don't know the methodology Census uses for adjusting for the unoccupied rate for housing units. The population of several cities which have seen dramatic declines in housing stock do not seem to have dramatic declines in population, on the yearly estimates. The decadal Census should correct for that. A special census was done for cities affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
 
tobyjug: No, because he still lives in Massachusetts, regardless of his citizenship. I simply don't understand why anyone should care about his citizenship.
 
People should care about his citizenship because he is attending an American public institution that in one way or another, receives federal funds. That's not to say he shouldn't be given the opportunity - but naturalization is a debate for another day.


How is my proposal not addressing a problem? People whine that illegal immigrants strain public services without paying for them. If they're required to register with the government in order to receive such services, they're forced to pay for the services by becoming an accountable citizen.
 
JohnAKeith said:
And, with the wind, I vanish.

When the douchebag is gone, I'll be back.
Click to expand...

John,

If you ever want to be taken seriously as a political candidate, you really need to learn to not defame those whom you disagree with. Argue and attack the ideas not the person.
 
Ron,

That is the nub of the question: should American citizenship confer rights not available to non-citizens. This will be one of the great topics of 21st century jurisprudence.

Traditional notions of citizenship tend toward exclusivity. Our system reveres ancient Athens and its great "participatory democracy". However the citizens who could participate were a small social elite and only the citizen had the right to vote in the agora and hold office. The Roman citizenry was a more inclusive, but still elite group. Only it had the right to vote, hold office, power to contract and marry lawfully, and to avoid humiliating punishments.

The Tiber was the headwater of the 18th century Potomac; the "founding fathers" adopted the Roman model. 19th and 20th century jurisprudence (and a civil war) were of an epoch of internal self examination of this confluece of ancient and modern, and a grappling with the rights of American individuals and their respective access to the full rights of citizenship. In regards to the relationship between American citizens to each other, we no longer follow the ancient model of social exclusivity.

Looking ahead, what of the external relationship of the rights of Americans to non-citizens? Is there a Wilsonian universality of values that should transcend borders? If so, logic dictates that there should be no legal distinction between citizen and "undocumented alien" in this country. The "undocumented alien" should be able to vote, hold office, and in short, enjoy every privilege of citizenship upon arrival. In other words, the reason for citizenship, i.e. a mechanism for distiguishing citizen from non-citizen, ceases to exist. "Citizen" would cease as a legal classification.

Is this a good result? If not, and if all persons are created equal, what is the logical place to draw the line between those who enjoy full rights and those who do not? And what is the rational and ethical basis for sorting these equal beings into different piles?

Toby
 
kennedy said:
How is my proposal not addressing a problem? People whine that illegal immigrants strain public services without paying for them. If they're required to register with the government in order to receive such services, they're forced to pay for the services by becoming an accountable citizen.
Click to expand...

The big problem with your proposal is that I find insulting the idea that I should have to prove myself to a government that collects taxes from me. I pay taxes, that's all the government gets to know about me. If our government is in the business of providing subsidized education, it shouldn't have the option of selective subsidization. Either it is a right of anybody who lives here, or it is not, in which case the subsidy should be eliminated to all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top