When the article says he lost his place when voters pulled scholarship money from "people in the country illegally", I read that and think, well I'm not surprised - surely if the university is aware that somebody is in the country illegally then they have a duty to report it to the authorities, and certainly not offer them studentship - nevermind a scholarship?!
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/dmv-698896-licenses-undoc...
The relationship to illegals in the US is rather schizophrenic.
Also, you are trying to apply a psychiatric diagnosis of an individual to a population of people, which is nonsensical.
See, you can make the argument that "this is how it's organized" all you want, but when the outcomes don't make sense it just morphs into "why is it organized like this".
> or, you are under 18, and not to blame for your illegal residency
Also, unless there's a law specifically against it, there's nothing to prevent colleges from admitting or giving scholarships to people who have broken laws. You generally have to go out of your way to find out what someone has done. A college that only accepted people who hadn't broken any laws wouldn't be admitting most high school students.
Excluding people doesn't happen automatically - you have to actually make an effort to do it.
"Just executing the law, bro"
Legal terms (like "country of origin") are abstractions that often hide what that consequences of a decision actually are.
The child of an illegal immigrant is there illegally, they're not to blame, but they're illegal residency surely shouldn't be supported.
An analogy might be distributing inheritance evenly, because "children shouldn't be blamed for what their parents did [and how much they made doing it]".
Some people might argue we should do that... but even they'd surely agree it's pretty extreme.
Just seems like a rather ambivalent relationship with immigration law to me. But hey, that's just my outsider's point of view!
Kicking a person out of the only country they've ever known is pretty harsh when they've done nothing wrong. The inheritance analogy falls pretty flat for this. Consider instead if the law said that children of murderers must be imprisoned along with their parents. If you came across the child of a murderer who had yet to be apprehended, would you report them?
Then provide 0 medical services, CPS services, police services, or legal system services. If you have someone here illegally, especially a child, being targeted by a predator, it sucks. Really bad. But to offer them any services paid for by the American people is supporting their illegal residency.
I find that most people who push for the view of not supporting legal residency in cases such as school care or even medical care are still willing to do so when you talk about the illegal resident being the target of a predator. This makes me think that either they don't fully accept their own logic or that there is something else at play that they didn't expand upon.