\ True. But the parents made a delilberate choice to break the law. The kids did not.
"Both should be deported."
I disagree. "If" the kids have kept their noses clean, learned English, and show good character otherwise, let'em stay as permanent residents. Gangbangers, juvenile delinquents, etc....give'me the boot.
"Are you saying that all children who entered this country under the age of 18 or 21 should be allowed to stay here?"
See above.
"Can you imagine what kind of message that sends to the rest of the world?
Depends on how the law is written and enforced. The simple approach is for there to be a cutoff date/time to which the amnesty (and yes, it "is" an amnesty, and one with which I happen to agree) will not apply.
"And many of these children who would be eligible for the Dream Act could be up to age 35. Once they reach age 21, they can sponsor their parents, grandparents, siblings, wives, etc. as legal immigrants under chain migration, i.e., family reunification."
I'm not talking about the "Dream Act". Again, the simple approach is that all of those goodies DO NOT APPLY to those who will get permanent residency (OR citizenship in the case of military service).
"Free education, health care, and life in a developed country all at the US taxpayer expense.
See my point about "getting an education",etc. Prospective GOOD citizens/residents will have jobs and pay their way.
"There is no reason that a "child" who was brought here at 15 can't go back to his/her home country."
I think I can agree with that. But again, the simple approach is to set a maximum age above which the law does not apply. I think a good cutoff would be "pre-school" age.
As to the rest of your diatribe, I can only say that I'm NOT talking about the "Dream Act", but a hypothetical different piece of legislation that avoids the problems of same and still allows a degree of compassion for honest, hardworking kids brought here without their consent.
But the editorial, the subject of this thread is talking about the Dream Act legislation. You live in a fantasy world.
Depends on how the law is written and enforced. The simple approach is for there to be a cutoff date/time to which the amnesty (and yes, it "is" an amnesty, and one with which I happen to agree) will not apply.
We had an amnesty in 1986. The proponents said it was a one-time amnesty, the last one we would ever have. At the time, the USG estimated 1 million would apply. The true number turned out to be 2.7 million. And now just 25 years later, we have to 12 to 20 million illegal aliens and the pro-amnesty crowd calling for their legalization. This is just more insanity couched in concern for the "children."
We bring in 1.2 million LEGAL immigrants every year and that doesn't count the 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies born to illegal aliens each year. Add another 500,000 to 1 million illegal aliens entering annually and you wind up with the USA being colonized by the Third World. You need to get into the real world and deal with the actual legislation that is being proposed, not what you would like to see. The idea that the other side will be satisfied with cutoff dates is just part of the deluded thinking that led to the last amnesty. The Left never takes no for an answer. They will continue to push until they achieve their objective.