The United States is a College Freshman

A college freshman, newly moved into the dorms and out of their parents' care, thinks everything about this is just awesome. You can do what you want, crash anyone's party, go where you want live how you want. You can do what you want because you finally don't have anyone to stop you.

And then you realize that the stuff you really want to do is expensive - but you want to keep on doing it anyway. So, you start trimming the fat elsewhere. You don't need to eat well. There's always Cup-O-Noodles. That's like a quarter for something you would otherwise need to pay at least a few dollars for. And who needs to do laundry? Keeping things clean can wait, right?

And then you start finding it a little harder to make ends meet. Tuition looks like it's wearing a bigger hole in your pocket. So is health insurance. Maybe I can skimp on them a little, you think. Or take out a loan and worry about it later.

And then later comes. And you still can't pay for it.

Eventually, you realize that maybe you need to accept the truth - you want to buy all the shiny things, all the gadgets. You want the biggest collection of video games, you want to crash everyone's parties. But the truth is, you can't afford all of that.

Now, you are the United States. You think you can do what you want, crash anyone's party, go where you want live how you want.

And then you realize all of those things are really expensive - but you want to keep doing them anyway. So you start trimming the fat elsewhere. There's always mass production in Asia. That's like a quarter for something you would otherwise need to pay at least a few dollars for. And who needs to think about investing in green technology? Keeping things clean can wait, right?

And then you start finding it a little harder to make ends meet. Your education system looks like it's wearing a bigger hole in you pocket. So is the healthcare system. Maybe I can skimp on them a little, you think. Or take out a loan and worry about it later.

And then later comes. And you still can't pay for it.

Eventually, you will realize that maybe you need to accept the truth - you want to buy all the shiny things, all the gadgets. You want the biggest military, you want to crash everyone's parties. But the truth is, you can't afford all of that.

Unfortunately, we as a country have not yet realized that truth. We still want to have the biggest collection. We still want to crash everyone's parties. We still are willing to skimp on things we need in order to please our whims and impulses. We, as a country, have been freshman for a long time. I think it's about time to graduate.

My thoughts on your thoughts: 9/11

I'm starting to feel slightly disgruntled at the way some people are approaching the subject of the ten year anniversary of 9/11.

I see so many people referring to it as the "worst act of terrorism ever committed", or the "greatest tragedy" - a lot of superlatives being thrown around, when it should have been a moment that opened our eyes to the fact that the United States is just as vulnerable and just as flawed as the rest of the world.
September 11, 2001 was a tragedy, but to call it the greatest tragedy just because it happened to us and not someone else for once, is selfish and ignorant.
On September 11, 2001, there were 2982 deaths due to terrorist attacks - the largest death toll to ever befall our country due to a single incident, which is something completely true.

One of the widely agreed-upon definitions of terrorism is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets, which also includes another act: genocide. State sponsored terrorism. So, what other tragedies now constitute terrorism.

The first and most obvious is the Jewish Holocaust, which lasted four years. The lowest estimated death toll is about 4.2 million. That means there was an average of at least about 2,900 deaths per day for four years.
In the Rwandan genocide of 1994, there is an estimated death toll of about 800,000 over the course of 100 days. That's an average of about 8,000 deaths per day for over three months.

And finally, something I've read a lot about and talk alot about, though it is a daily average which doesn't seem like much in comparison to the numbers above: during the Philippines' fight for independence from the United States, which lasted about 13 years in reality, though the official war only lasted for three, there was a total of about 1,520,000 Filipinos killed by Americans, an average of about 300 deaths per day. American General Jacob H. Smith ordered his men to "kill everyone over the age of ten" and turn the island into a "howling wilderness".

This is not meant to belittle what people must feel about the events of 9/11, but the date should be one to also recognize that in order to live in a safer more peaceful world means not turning a blind eye to what happens in the rest of the world.

A DREAM Act Rooted in Reality

Most readers of my blog are aware of the fact that I was a vocal critic of the DREAM Act. However, out of Christmas spirit, I wanted to write a blog that would help the DREAM movement rather than say only what I think is wrong with the legislation they are supporting.

Locally, there is still a great deal of rattle about the DREAM Act's failure to pass in Senate, and what the movement's next move should be. In particular, a great deal of online communities have been trying to strategize how to continue pressuring legislators and keep the DREAM Act fresh in their minds.

However, the harsh reality is that leaving the DREAM Act as is would make it highly unlikely to be seen again for a vote anytime soon. That being said, an immigration bill that puts aside demographic pinpointing and votegrabbing and takes a pragmatic approach is more likely to be able to garner support from both sides of the aisle. Just an example, I've written a sample of what a pragmatic, nonsensationalized DREAM Act would look like - I do not necessarily like the requirements or think they are the ones which would gain the most public support, but I do think that the changes would help the DREAM Act pass.

Lessons Learned: Where the DREAM Act Movement Went Wrong

For those among us who did not watch the C-SPan coverage of the DREAM Act cloture vote this morning, especially those of us on the West Coast who may have had a hard time being up early on a Saturday, the results were a 55-41 vote, with the DREAM Act falling five votes short of success.

Those of you who follow my blog will know that I have been a staunch critic of the DREAM Act, though not of immigration in general. I do believe that maintaining the influx and efflux of people is part of what will pull the United States out of its slump. However, should the DREAM Act come up for a vote again any time soon, there have been some important lessons in this failure:

DREAM Debunked: The Source of my Skepticism

First of all, I would like to thank those with whom I have been able to disagree with respectfully. I have, however, received a handful of threatening and less than eloquent responses (if we qualify the term "handful" with hands the size of frying pans.)

I understand that a lot of people who disagree with the DREAM Act are roaring ideologues, spouting charged nativist chants such as "No Amnesty!" and "America for Americans!". I am not one of them. What I am, however, is a skeptic. I am not against immigration, but I am against the DREAM Act because I feel that it was poorly constructed in the rush to have legislation of its kind introduced and passed, and I cannot see it as being pragmatic or effective legislation because of what it lacks.

DREAM Act: In Folly Ripe, In Reason Rotten

In my previous blogs, I have made points that appeal mostly to people who already disagree with the DREAM Act. The general response I have received otherwise is "You have valid points, but the principle of the DREAM Act trumps these things." So, I would now like to approach this issue from a different angle.

Beyond the hunger strikes and the trite chants of "No human is illegal", is the DREAM Act likely to live up to its supporters' expectations when put into practice?

DREAM On: Why the DREAM Act Cannot Work

In my previous blogs, I voiced a “big picture” objection to the DREAM Act, which is probably a bit more conceptual than advocates would like because the legislation, for so many people, is not conceptual - it is something that affects them deeply and personally. In this blog, I would like to instead critique the assumption that the DREAM Act, if passed, is going to succeed in practice.

First, it should go without saying that just because I feel a piece of legislation is flawed does not mean that I find it inherently wrong. Many of our laws our flawed - they are flawed because while they may have correct intentions, they do no work. Our educational system itself is flawed, and this, in fact, turns out to be the cornerstone of my objection to the DREAM Act.

Right now, my concern is not so much whether or not the DREAM Act will pass, or will succeed. My concern is whether or not it can succeed.

To set the stage, let me tell you a little bit about myself. In September of 2007, I started working as a peer mentor at City College of San Francisco, for a student organization called “Students Supporting Students’, which made a point of reaching out to student students of marginalized ethnic and economic backgrounds. (The specific term they use is ‘students of color’, which is a title that I do not like, so I will refrain from using it.) From day one, I was given one thing to keep in mind: retention rates for these groups in college were terrifyingly low, and consequently, dropout rates were disconcertingly high. (For anyone unfamiliar with the jargon, retention rates are simply the rates at which students are retained and complete their stated goals in college). This is not a matter of immigration, per se. It was not about residency or status.

It was about infrastructure.

Putting immigration aside for a moment, our postsecondary education system does not operate in a way that fosters success at large, even in community colleges which are supposed to be the most accessible option to “marginalized groups” of students. Specifically, one should look at the placement and testing process for English and Mathematics classes - for those who have not been subjected to the process, placement tests dictate a level at which a student must begin their classes in these areas, and they must work their way up. The low-placers are placed at the very beginning of a track where they must start a chain of classes, up to four or five which have to be taken one by one, not concurrently, and are largely non-transferable to four-year institutions because they are too remedial. Finishing these string of classes will get them enough Math and English to begin the sequence of classes needed to transfer to a university.

Moreover, even if the classes were designed to foster success, there are not enough of them. A student may enter the system highly motivated, highly intelligent, fully prepared -- and still, through no fault of their on, not get a single class that they need for an entire year or more.

Now, back to the DREAM Act.

I am not making a value judgment as to who is entitled to an education and who is not. I am taking a step back and attempting to make a pragmatic judgment of whether or not the educational system can sustain such an influx of new students as would be caused by the passage of the DREAM Act. Can a system that is already overburdened and leaving thousands of students to fail realistically handle an increase to that burden?

When the Titanic hit an iceberg and was starting to sink, should it have picked up more passengers?

This is not to say that undocumented students are inherently any less capable, but it is to pose the question: do supporters of the DREAM Act think that undocumented students will be more capable than their documented counterparts? Will students under of the purview of the DREAM Act somehow be immune to marginalization and low retention rates that are rampant if not universal in postsecondary education.

If the DREAM Act passes, immigrant youth will indeed be given a chance. They will be given a chance to enter a fundamentally flawed educational system that generally yields more failures than successes. The DREAM Act is a move towards equality -- immigrant youth will partake in an equal share of success, and failure. However, while the failure of a citizen or legal resident in school means one more person on welfare, or one more person working minimum wage in retail or food services, the failure of a student provided for by the DREAM Act means costly deportation procedures.

From point A to point B, let’s follow the potential path of an immigrant youth who we will refer to as Juan Doe.

Juan Doe enters community college and begins at lower level Math and English classes. He is not discouraged by this, because there are a lot of people who tested at the same level as he has. However, semester after semester, Juan finds that he is staying in school much longer than he would have liked, because all of the people who tested into the same level as he had are trying to get into a handful of class sections - some semesters, he is lucky if there’s more than one section of the Math class he needs. As he continues through school, the government continues to invest its money and resources into him as a student. Jaded, he, alongside many other non-immigrant students, drop out. The system simply cannot sustain all of them, regardless of their immigration status. The difference with Juan Doe, however, is that now the government must again invest money and resources into him in the form of his deportation proceedings.

DREAM Act proponents place the burden of their argument on the successes of immigrant youthm of which I am sure there will be many. However, there will also be failures, many of which will not be the fault of the students, but nonetheless, these failures will be doubly costly.

If I can D.R.E.A.M...

The DREAM Act is something that I have been thinking about a lot, after first hearing about it pre-news hype. While I feel that anything that encourages pursuing an education is a step in the right direction, I have come to the conclusion that the DREAM Act is not what we need.

In essence, the DREAM Act will allow undocumented immigrants the ability to pursue an education or military service as an avenue towards citizenship. The highly politicized name in and of itself makes me feel wary - while the intentions are admirable, the manipulative aspect of the name makes me cringe. It automatically wants to attribute stigma to anyone who disagrees with it:

"You're against the DREAM Act?"

"You want to kill the DREAM?!"

It's a little bit hypocritical to tout adages about freedom and equality, and at the same time try to stigmatize anyone who disgrees with you.

I also think the wording of the legislation itself is somewhat vague, and leaves a lot of room for corruption in its enforcement. There's a lot of room for paperwork to be lost or unaccounted for. Even if the intention is right, enforcing the DREAM Act could get messy, because something like this is unprecendented, and leaving it up to the states instead of creating federal regulation does not seem to be realistic.

My biggest peeve with the legislation, however, is the fact that while the United States does need to improve its educational system, there is something about the DREAM Act that our economy does not need: further concentrating the population of individuals with postsecondary education within the United States.

I don't think that it has evaded anyone's notice that the American economy and job market are going through a low point - and a great deal of this is due to the outsourcing of menial labor and manufacturing jobs to less developed nations where the labor can be contracted for cheap. Meanwhile, "underemployment" is becoming widespread in the United States, a circumstance which requires educated individuals to take jobs that require less than their education level in order to have jobs at all.

Allowing more people to be educated in the United States and to stay here will only exacerbate this conditon - more educated individuals becomind citizens and staying in the United States means more people competing for jobs which are already few and far between. Passage of the DREAM Act will discourage immigrants from pursuing an education in their home countries and these countries, especially in the developing world, will continue to be looked to as simply sources of cheap labor.

What is needed for a worldwide economic recovery is a worldwide effort to improve educational standards, not merely shepherding all of the educated individuals into the United States. If the Asian nations where American companies outsource the majority of their labor were to transition to countries in which more individuals were more educated, that labor would not be as cheap, and those jobs could be brought back to the United States. Concentrating postsecondary degrees in the United States as the DREAM Act would do, however, would have the opposite effect.

While I recognize that the DREAM Act is a valuable contribution to the people to whom it applies, I also feel that it only puts a bandaid over the problem the world economy faces. If we want to keep up this system of having a global economy, we have to think on a global scale.