|
* Click on the "+" sign to view Position Statement details.
|
Focus Question: Should the Illinois General Assembly enact a law committing the State to fund fully public education before all other state programs?
|
|
Total Number of Position Statements: 15 statements
|
Support / Oppose:
|
11 / 4
|
04/15/2010 Support Maine West High School
"We believe that all schools in the state of Illinois should be more equally funded. The state legislature should enact a law funding education in Illinois before any other programs. All schools in the state of Illinois should be equally funded because all children deserve an equal opportunity to become a successful productive member of society. Another reason is because if we don't pay for the children in lower income communities now we will end up paying for them in the long run. In addition to those two reasons, there is unfair treatment of students based on the area they live in, their ethnicity, race, and the socioeconomic status of their parents. “We have roughly doubled per-pupil spending (after inflation) in schools since 1965... yet dropout rates remain distressingly high... Overall, high school students today are posting lower SAT scores than a generation ago. The nation's investment in educational improvement has produced very little in return.” (http://www.wested.org) This quote is saying that even after the Illinois government is spending more money per student, high school dropout rates are increasing and SAT scores are dropping lower than when our parents were in high school. This means that the money is being spent unequally among state schools. Furthermore, we as the citizens of Illinoi would end up paying for people in lower income communities in the long run through, jail, probation and/or rehabilitation when they get out of prison, or for crime awareness and prevention across the state of Illinois. “For instance, if the students who dropped out of the class of 2007 had graduated, the nation's economy would have benefited from an additional $329 billion in income over their lifetimes.” (http://www.all4ed.org/) On top of that, there is unfair treatment of students based on the area they live in, their ethnicity, race, and the socioeconomic status of their parents. “Chicago Urban League brought a lawsuit claiming a violation of the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003. The lawsuit asserts that the state of Illinois has, for decades, discriminated against families based on race and has deprived African American, Latino and other minority children of a high quality education.” (Roderick Hawkins) The Chicago Urban League feels that the state of Illinois and the school board are discriminating against children of ethnic groups other than Caucasian, and that the children being discriminated against are not getting the same quality as Caucasian children. Therefore, we believe that the state of Illinois should be more equally funded. The state legislature should enact a law funding education in Illinois before all other programs."
|
04/15/2010 Support Downers Grove North High School
"Illinois has an unfortunately old and outdated school funding system that must be reformed. Illinois is currently 49th out of 50 in equality in school funding from district from district. this is an outrage. I will not stand for my state to rank so low. According to San Antonio v. Rodriguez, education is the responsibilty of the state. Therefore, the Illinois government needs to step up and take care of it's youth. We cannot proceed with our current system which relys so heavily on local funding. This system is inherently unequal and is creating a vicious circlewhere the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is because of the need for such a high amount of education these days to be able to succeed in America. This system is deeply enrooted in the problem of equality of race, chiefly dealilng with de facto segregation. Much of Chicago is and was separated, not by law, but by social norms and unspoken coercion. As a result of this, many minorities are in the same neighborhoods with lower paying jobs and lower valued houses paying their money to less well kept schools. This is a notorious circle that keeps repeating itself and will keep repeating itself until we change the system. Illinois schools on average rely 53% on local taxes and only 36% on state funding. This is the second worst state percentage in the United States. The nice neighborhoods with wealthy families and more expensive homes are (over) funding nice schools. This problem cannot continue. I believe the answer to this problem is to have a lockbox economic system in Illinois. Illinois needs to pay for education first because this is the only promise of the survival of the economy. On top of this, Illinois should raise the income tax, therefore lowering property taxes. I am not demanding completely equally funded schools, because some schools would fall apart from the funding cut. But, it needs to be a lot more equal."
|
04/09/2010 Support Glenbard East High School
"The Illinois General Assembly should enact a law committing the State to fund fully public education before all other state programs because our future lies in the hands of our youth."The future of our country is not found in our boardrooms, but in our classrooms."-Michael Milken. How can we feel safe putting the future of our society in the hands of leaders who are not fully educated? If we do not properly provide our future with basic tools for mathematics, science, and history where will our accountants and doctors come from? With Illinois majorly lacking in the funding of education, those who have been educated here will fall short to competitors educated elsewhere when competing for jobs. It will suppress the idea of moving up economic classes. As unemployment rates prove finding a job today is hard, why not help our future get ahead? Along with unemployment, the percentage of those seeking welfare benefits will also increase because we will not be able to provide for our families. So ultimately, proper education should be seen as a mean of prevention, in preventing an economic and sociological downfall of tomorrow's society."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"The Illinois General Assembly should enact a law committing the state to fund public education above all other programs. The money should be split among the poorest schools that receive little to no district and/or local funding. Those schools most likely need the most help from the government. Other programs that get government funding are healthcare, public safety, human services, and government services. All of these programs are important but education is making sure our future is secure.
A lot of schools in Illinois are underfunded. The kids at those schools are missing a lot, such as sufficient math and science departments. If our schools lose funding, they end up cutting programs, which has a negative impact on the kids. These kids are the country’s and the world’s future. By not giving these kids the resources they need to be successful we are not letting them be as successful as they could be. This is letting down the children and the future. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decided that funding should be equal for all schools.
Some may think that education should not be funded above all other programs. Education is the single most important investment because it insures our future and the advancement of our society. For this reason, the General Assembly should pass a law that commits the state to fund public education above other programs."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"Funding in public schools has become a major problem. The way schools are funded has caused certain schools to receive more funding then other schools. If a school receives more than half of its funding from local taxes, then these schools in well to do communities receive more funding, while schools in low income communities receive very little for funding. The federal government can only give so much money to the schools that need it because they would have to give funding for every other school also, even if the schools are in wealthy communities. The problem is the same for the state government. They cannot just give funding to one school district and not another. Everyone pays their taxes so it would be unfair if one school receives funding and another does not.
One way to solve this problem is instead of schools receiving funding from their own community, the funding would go to the head of the school district and to be distributed to the varies of schools. This would work for bigger school districts. This would give schools in lower income communities the opportunity to give their students the education they deserve. It would give everyone the same opportunity.
Students deserve the opportunity as everyone else. It should not matter where a student lives because they could want to do something with their lives and the only way is to receive a proper education. In many communities, education is the only way to get out of the vicious cycle of poverty. And if students do not get a good education, they are more likely to stay in that cycle. They would hurt the community instead of improving it.
Schools are a gift that everyone should be able to get. And if it requires a law to give the same opportunity for everyone, then there should be a law."
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"We believe that the Illinois General Assembly should enact a law committing the State to fully fund public education before all other state programs. We also believe that all schools should have equal funding. For example, comparing a Chicago Public High School to a high school in the suburbs, we saw that the school in the suburbs was given more funding which gave them more resources. For example, The Chicago Public High school had a roof that was falling apart and the pool had not been filled in ten years. But, the school in the suburbs had brand new computer labs and an Olympic sized swimming pool. It wasn’t fair that the kids that lived in poorer communities got less resources and less advanced placement classes because they had less of a chance to succeed in life. We believe that all the students in Illinois should equal opportunity at getting a good education and being able to go to a university.
In addition to both of our beliefs, the majority of our class and everyone we interviewed in our surveys agreed as well. We came to the conclusion that most of the people said that school funding comes first compared to other state funding. Although we think other state funding is important, we believe the schools should come first. Schools should receive the money they need to offer a good education to its students. Not all the state funding will even go to the schools because the federal government also supplies money. This means that there will still be money left to go to the other state programs that don’t need as much funding as schools do.
There will be equal funding between all the state funded programs but schooling should come first. As is the famous quote “children are the future” kids need a good education to succeed in life. By giving schools more funding first, it creates a safe environment for kids to learn and better themselves. An example from the reading, the kids in Kenilworth were given about 18,000 dollars per student but the Chicago Public High schools were given about 2,000 per student In addition this could higher their chances of graduation and attending college. In the Oprah show the graduation rates in the suburbs were a lot higher than the graduation rates in the Chicago Public High School. Kids will get a better education if they have better funding for the schools it will be noticeable through the school’s graduation rates."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose East Leyden High School
"No, the Illinois general Assembly should not enact a law committing the state to fund fully public education before all other state programs. Funding for public schools should continue to come from the combination of local property taxes and state funding (CRFC 6). How much a school receives in funding is highly dependent on property taxes which determine how rich a community is, which results inequality for some schools. Which creates the controversy with this issue, should all students be set to an equal opportunity for education while setting aside the needs for the community?
There are rivals against the policy like people without children, people that rely on other services, poor,
, and government workers. The rivals can make the fully funding harder to make change because everyone is supposed to be equal. There are supporters such as people with children, teachers, wealthy communities, and parent. They can make a big advantage over making this goal happen. The advantage is that there would be an equal opportunity in school. Everyone can get the same teaching, equipment; everything would be for the benefit of the students and the teachers. Another advantage is that school would get more money which would likely increase the academic educational opportunity.
Even though having public education funded first will help school provide an opportunity for education to all students, funding schools first can also have some negative effects. One of the main concerns is other public programs are equally important, they provide the community with all that is needed. By putting the community programs aside it can result in workers losing their jobs, and the community to lack their needs. Also, parents without children will not be happy with the fact of paying their taxes to school. In addition, the “zero- sum game” states a good point that money will be taken away from good schools to support the poorer schools. (CRFC 9) Consequently, if
In conclusion, funding school first can have its advantages and disadvantages. Indeed students will all get a chance for equal education, but other factors will negatively result from this. Perhaps a new alternative can be made, such as instead of fully funding, schools should save the funds and place it into public education. Overall, schools coming first before state programs could lead to other problems when there can be other solutions on this issue."
|
04/07/2010 Support Corliss High School
"The Illinois Gerenal Assembly should enact a law committing the state to fund public education before all other state programs, since a better education leads to a better future. Without a proper education and skills our way of thought becomes corrupted and we may become ignorant and not think of the consequences. One becomes selfless and a poor education does not benefit one well being or society as a whole. Education is the bedrock of our society. Not only is an educated society a more prosperous one, it is one with greater tolerance amongst it’s citizens. It becomes an equalizer to crime and prejudice. Yet, our elected leaders refuse to pass intelligent legislation that would guarantee all students an equal education. We cannot continue to go this path of inequity. It is unsustainable, as we have seen by the record deficits, but it is also discriminatory to our entire citizenry. Public schooling in Illinois is virtually locally funded with a very low flat grant per pupil from the state. Since 1927 many “foundation” was set up to maintain an equal fair rate of funding”. In the State of Illinois , approximately 65% of all education funding comes via property taxes. The state, meanwhile, contributes a measly 28%. Illinois ' contribution ranks one of the lowest rates in the nation. Property Tax funding of school districts has long been a controversial issue. The biggest argument against this method of funding, is that poorer communities must pay higher property taxes in order to meet the minimum cost of educating a student than the prosperous ones. Each year, the state must establish a funding "foundation level". From that baseline and depending on property values, communities rely on different tax rates, along with expected state aid to arrive at the minimum cost of educating a student. This method creates serious inequities from district to district. Homeowners in property value poor districts must pay a higher property tax rate than the more well off districts. That disparity would seem to put this funding method at odds with our State Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Poorer communities could effectively double or even triple their tax rates and never catch up with the wealthier communities. That puts our children behind and it is not right on any level. With a proper education one can find many ways to make society flow well. All in all, the Total State Aid districts receive consists of their General State Aid (i.e. determined by foundation formula unless Held Harmless) plus their Poverty Grant. Additional state funds are variously distributed for special programs, but this money is relatively minor and less certain. A better education a better mind set for humankind, society and the future. The Illinois General Assembly should enact a law committing the state to fund public education before all other state programs."
|
04/07/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"“As you look around the country there are still a significant number of states where their whole school debate is over school funding and we've been focused on the quality debate for most of the '90s.” – John Engler (American politician and a member of the Republican Party). The positions on school funding are very much spread out, but we strongly believe that education should be first on the list to fund, above all other categories. Some people say that having education funded first would cause other departments to start to fail and become poor. Right now, our only problem is education. Building a strong education gives us a better looking future, because of better students in school. In the present day, some school financial advisors say that physical education, one of the only barriers between child obesity and normality, are just too costly and should be taken out of the curriculum. School funding is nothing that should be tampered with, it should be a set level for all schools and it should be based not off of the quality of the school or the quality of the community, but on the quantity of students. They should have a regulated amount of funding per child in the school, and equal pay for teachers. Many other tax payers think that we should not fund schools with our property tax, and it should be taken off of the national budget, because education is a national project.
Based off of the Youth Summit survey results we collected from fellow students and teachers, just about 99% of the voters say that education should be funded first before all other governmental projects. Due to the fact that government funds streets and roads, one teacher said that I surveyed would rather hit a pothole in the street than have to go teach at a school that has little to no governmental funding. In the years of 2007 and 2008, federal money and construction dollars, the per capita funding of each student in a US Public School student, it was about 6,000 dollars per student. It may seem like a lot, but looking at the average pay of teachers, which is around 45,000 dollars and having an average 25:1 student teacher ratio, at a school of 2,000 students, 3,600,000 dollars would go to paying just teacher salaries. This calculation does not even put in the consideration of school facilities and retirement funds.
Some public schools in Chicago report that they get much less than the average amount per student. Some years, public schools do not have enough facilities or faculty to support students, so they have to decline new registration just to pay for the students already there! Some schools don’t have enough money for any elective classes, only having the base classes. A few miles away, a school has excess money building up, expanding and expanding its horizons across the land, just about crushing the hopes of the nearby schools of having a high college acceptance rate. Today is the time where we must build our tomorrow, and students of today are the key."
|
04/07/2010 Oppose Corliss High School
"We disagree about the state fully funding education before all other state programs. Yes, education is very important and everyone needs it to survive, but there are also other necessities of life, including health care, human services, and public safety. Without these supports the world--and Illinois in particular--would be a complet mess. The problems lies not with the government, but with the way education is funded in Illinois based on a community's property taxes. Schools in many areas of the state need other ways to fund education. Education does not need to be funded fully before other programs because these other programs also provide important services for the residents of Illinois. With public safety who will protect individuals and their property? Without infrastructure who will fix the potholes and keep the streets clean? As you can see, funding should be spent on a diverse amount of programs that can make the lives of all citizens better. The federal government needs to do more to fund education across the nation. The state of Illinois has other issues to take care of in addition to education. In conclusion, the state funds should not be just focused on education, but also respect other programs as necessities as well."
|
04/07/2010 Support Corliss High School
"We think that an education is the most important thing in life, and without it no one can succeed. With all the funds the government has to give, why can't education be a top priority? Most of our country's money is spent funding war and other irrelevant programs. The student drop-out rate in Illinois has risen to an all-time high. One main reason is that students are not interested in school and feel that they have little that they want to participate in. Our high school, for example, will lose a large part of its funding, and programs, due to the cut in state government support projected. In particular, the cheerleading squad will not get new uniforms and the wrestling team cannot have any home matches because the school lacks funds for new mats. We also have outdated textbooks and lack adequate technology--including computers, printers, video equipment, and LCD projectors--in our Media Center and classrooms. Many students rely on school to complete their homework because their family cannot afford a computer. Lastly, it is anticipated that class sizes will be raised next year so that my school district can save money by not hiring as many teachers. Article X of the Constitution of the State of Illinois states that a fundamental goal of the people of the state is the educational development of ALL persons to the limits of their capacities. The STATE shall provide for an efficient system of high quality public educational institutions and services. It later states that the state has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education. The Illinois Youth Summit curriculum asserts: "The foundation level for 2009-10 has been set at $6,119." Schools in poorer communities do not have a lot of resources (both in urban and rural settings). Since property taxes are used to fund schools, some in wealthy communities can spend as much as $18,600 per student. Since the federal government cannot fully fund each state's school system, then the state of Illinois should step up to finish the job."
|
04/06/2010 Oppose Corliss High School
"We believe that the state of Illinois should NOT fully fund public education before all other state programs. The main reason is that other state programs are equally as important. The second reason is that there is too much money spent on schools as it is. Thirdly, public education is proving to be ineffective for helping students achieve and be successful.
If you fund public education before other programs, what would happen to hospitals that need funding as well? Hospitals need just as much money as schools. People die everyday due to lack of adequate health care. In public education, students drop out every day. Some of my peers and I also considered dropping out because the schools do not support us. With that being said, why would you fund public schools if the students do not take them serious and regularly attend them?
There are other programs that also need state funding. If you invest most funds in education, what would happen to small business owners that need government aid? They would not be able to get a loan because all of the money is in the schools. Since the dropout rate is so high, we believe that fully funding public edcuation before all other programs is a bad idea and waste of resources that could benefit other areas."
|
04/06/2010 Support Corliss High School
"We agree that education is very important and should be fully funded before any other state program. Education IS the key to our future! Without an education children will not be able to further and better themselves. Education IS the key to success! In order to make something out of yourself--and achieve your goals in life--you need schooling. In today's society, schools lack enough books, desks, and technology that could contribute greatly to our preparation for the future. There should be MORE funding in EVERY school so that we will be successful in our lives.
It is the state's responsibility to provide every resident a quality education through high school. We should not rely on the federal government to fund this public good. If we want to create educated, productive citizens then we have to give the schools more than what they currently have. While there are also other important services that government provides--including police, roads, and libraries--education is key for reducing the crime rate and assuring that people work together, and not against each other."
|
04/06/2010 Oppose Corliss High School
"No, the state should not fund public education before all other state programs. Our safety comes first, and if something was to happen in school we should have security of hospitals and police to help out in emergencies. Sanitation is an important part of the state's role as well. We need to ensure that everyone--students included--stay healthy, inside and outside our schools. If we sacrifice sanitation and safety for education, it will increase health risks for students while also increasing crime rates.
We propose that basing school funding on property taxes needs to be changed in Illinois. Districts with less property tax values can raise less money than richer or wealthier districts. This means that lower-income families send their children to lower-funded schools, while more affluent families send their children to higher-funded schools. For example, the Posen-Robbins school district in southern Cook County spends less than $2,000 per student, while Kenilworth in northern Cook County uses its property taxes to spend more than $15,000 per student.
This disparity can be solved by increasing income for low-funded schools or equalizing the income for both low-funded and high-funded districts. The school funding formula needs to be changed so that those children of low-income families who need more support for education will get it. As it stands now, the current funding formula using property taxes seriously short-changes low-income individuals, which further increases the gap between the rich and poor in Illinois."
|
04/05/2010 Support Corliss High School
"Public education should be fully funded before other state programs so that schools will not have less money than they need. Education is important because one will not get far in life without a decent education. Most jobs require that candidates have at least a high school diploma. Without education most people will end up on government assistance.
A lack of education could be the reason for high unemploymeny rates and poverty. Provinding schools with the right ammount of materials will ensure that students are getting the right education and prepare them for post secondary learning.
Funding public schools first will also help schools who are not receiving the same ammount of funding from property taxes like other schools in different areas.
Illinois only provides 36% of funding for schools. This is below the national average which is 47%. Funding schools will help decrease the gap between the wealthy and the poor. Schools in poorer neighborhoods provide less money because of higher income state funding could make a difference for schools in poorer neighborhoods."
|
|
|
Focus Question: Should students be subject to school punishments - including suspension and expulsion - for posting material on their personal web sites that does not violate the First Amendment?
|
|
Total Number of Position Statements: 41 statements
|
Support / Oppose:
|
2 / 39
|
04/09/2010 Oppose Glenbard East High School
"Students should not be subject to school punishments - including suspension and expulsion- for posting material on their personal web sites that does not violate the First Amendment because it should be in the hands of the police not the school. Monitoring what students say on the internet should be the parents rules not the schools rules. If it is done on their own time on their own computer, the school should have no authority to punish the student for free speech. If the school feels that something needs to be done, the police force should be contacted and they should take initiative. To resolve this issue of unfair punishment, schools at the most, should contact parents to warn them about what their child is saying about their school or people in the administration. On a more personal note, I don't feel comfortable with the school monitoring my every move I make on the internet. I know that you do give up some rights when you walk in the school and I understand why because they care about your safety. But, suspension for saying that you think something about a teacher is not a threat to the school or yourself so this unfair punishment must stop. In conclusion, punishment of students for posting information on the internet is a violation of the First Amendment and should not be taken lightly."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose King College Prep
"Almost every student has some sort of personal webpage which they use to unwind from a day of school by writing down their personal thoughts. Although many students do not know it, what they write on these webpages could be used as grounds for suspension from school, even if the material was written on a computer off school grounds. King College Prep’s delegates feel that this possibility would be an infringement on their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. A caveat to this sentiment is that if an online posting significantly disrupts a school’s ability to provide its students with a safe learning environment (meaning a substantial disturbance subsequently occurs), then action is justified. Yet we feel that for a posting to be of this nature, it will most likely involve a threat of violence; thus, it would be more appropriate for the police to handle the situation. Schools would be involved in the process to a degree as they would need to document why the specific situation triggered a substantial disturbance and what degree of punish is considered by the school to be fitting (suspension, expulsion, etc.). The police would operate in their normal capacity, by which we mean handling all investigation of the incident, using the evidence provided by the school, and applying the law to decide upon the feasibility of an arrest. Punishment can be handled in juvenile court if there is any validity to the school’s claim.
One of the main reasons that student webpages pose a problem is that many students are unaware of the power schools possess to punish them for online posts. We plan to spread awareness of this issue to the members of our school community by presenting a video designed to teach the student body the ins and outs of this issue. We intend to explain how schools act in loco parentis, in place of a parent, when students are in school. We will also explain that if a school intrudes into matters that arise as a consequence of personal writings created outside of school grounds, the Constitutional rights of students are being infringed. However, instead of the police handling any substantial issues at this time, schools are still taking on the responsibility of settling these matters. We will place a link on our school’s website that will connect to a page which includes the video and a list of unacceptable phrases that could potentially get students into trouble with the school and/or with law enforcement. Hopefully, this will allow students to stay out of trouble and to better understand the contract they enter into when they enroll in school."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose Mather High School
"The Student Press Law Center advises students to avoid posting the following types of content on their personal websites: (1) material that disrupts school, such as calls for illegal conduct or to stage school walkouts, (2) libelous material, (3) obscene material, (4) serious physical threats, (5) copyrighted material, and (6) material that invades another person’s privacy, such as information about their medical history or grades. What the student press law center does not advise students against, is posting their opinion. One’s freedom of speech is covered in the first amendment of the constitution and is fully applicable to a student if they are outside of school, and it does not infringe upon another’s freedom of speech. If this is to be considered so, then why are schools attempting to overstep their bounds and intrude into the student’s household and punish for what the students post online? A student’s words and opinions on the internet are not to be controlled by the school they attend, but rather by their parent and in their own home. Were it to be a highly important matter concerning the law, then the police should handle it.
The opposition would attempt to argue the emotional toll this may take on students. With one student speaking badly of another, and the school not being able to do anything about it, feelings will be hurt. This is most certainly not the school’s concern. The school is an institute of learning and with that they provide a safe, comfortable learning environment. Unless it caused a significant disruption at school, it is not punishable. The staff and administrators of the school also apply to this generalization. If a student were to post a parody of a teacher, but it did not cause disruption within the school, the school has no right to punish for it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The United States Constitution protects the students of these schools in questions, and the words, ideas, and opinions they post online."
|
04/09/2010 Support Lakes Community High School
"Since the founding of our nation, the freedom of speech has been one of the most important rights, but that freedom is not without limits. In the past, courts have ruled against the right of free speech in cases involving slander and words that could cause an immediate threat to surrounding citizens. The controversial topic of student speech rights, especially their rights online has been an extremely subjective issue. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the courts ruled that free speech in schools could not be censored, as long as it did not create a significant disturbance to the education of the surrounding students. Although students may be at home, the effect of words and images through virtual mediums is still evident. Critics may argue that any limitation placed upon free speech is an infringement on the basic rights of citizens, but there will always be consequences due to free speech. If a student’s online posts create a disturbance within the school and those posts interfere with the education or well being of other students, then the school has the right to punish the individual because it is the school’s responsibility to provide a safe, productive environment for students."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"I believe that students should not be subject to school punishments, such as suspension and expulsion, for posting material on their personal websites that does not violate their first amendment rights. Most school’s authority is clear when it comes to the internet, and there are many specific reasons for limiting student speech. That being said, the only way student should be subject to punishment is if the materials posted violate any school rule or policy, are extremely disruptive, or pose a direct threat to any student or teacher.
In the recent case Reno vs. ACLU, the court struck down the communications decency act that wanted to restrict internet content. They denied the law on the grounds that restricting internet content would interfere with free exchange of ideas rather than encourage it. Though following Hazelwood, students do not have unlimited rights to underground websites and such. They are allowed to say what they want as long as it doesn’t violate school rules or pose a threat.
Tinker vs. Des Moines set the precedent that “student s don’t shed their rights at the school house gates.” When two children wore black armbands to school to protest the war, it didn’t create a disruption or pose a threat, until it was addressed. Even then, the disruption was over them being forced to remove their armbands, not the fact that they were wearing them in the first place. What they were doing shouldn’t be banned because someone had a problem with it. It didn’t pose a threat or cause a disruption, and as long as a student’s website can do that without violating school rules, then it shouldn’t be banned because someone doesn’t like it.
The main reason I am in opposition to this law is because students speech shouldn’t be limited if a teacher doesn’t like or agree with it, only if it’s illegal. Students should not be subject to punishments just because the school administration may not agree with what was posted. They should only be punished if the material will lead to disruption in the classroom, is illegal, or is threatening or harassing to any students or teachers."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose Downers Grove South High School
"“Freedom of thought and freedom of speech in our great institutions are absolutely necessary for the preservation of our country. The moment either is restricted, liberty begins to wither and die (John Peter Altgeld,).” It is the building blocks of our great nation that holds freedom and rights of the people in the highest regard. For years soldiers fought endlessly for rights and freedoms stated in the constitution. Indisputably, the first amendment is the most controversial and hardest to set limits on. Several cases have reached the Supreme Court in order to specifically define the parameters of the vague guidelines set in the first amendment. Most recently has the issue of student personal websites and punishments surfaced on the Supreme Court forefront. Schools are taking it upon themselves to restrict student’s freedom of speech on the internet. The actions taken by these schools to punish students based on out of school internet activities are not only unfair but unconstitutional.
For example, in the case of Hazlewood School district v Kuhlmeier students who participated in the school newspaper decided to write an article about pregnant teens and divorced parents. The principal felt these articles were inappropriate and told the journalism class they could not print this weeks paper. The students filed suit in federal court, claiming the school had violated their first amendment rights. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided in favor of the school. However, this case was about in-school activities and school sponsored events. Courts have clearly stated that in any case regarding student rights in school the school will always win.
As for now, courts are faced with the grueling decision of whether or not schools should be able to punish students for posting things on their personal websites. One such case, T.V and M.K v Smith-Green Community School Corp was granted certiorari in 2009. This case was about two girls who attended a sleepover and were photographed in suggestive poses. The principal was informed of these pictures and directed the girls to be suspended for 3 school days and from school activities. They also had to apologize to their coaches. The students claimed that their first amendment rights were violated. This case has not yet been decided and based on the past cases revolving around the first amendment; the court would be in favor of the school. On the contrary, as times have changed so have the descriptions of disruptive behaviors and appropriate school discipline, the court may change their opinion.
Furthermore, schools should not be allowed to discipline students outside of school because of how prevalent the use of internet is currently. A poll from parent and teen internet use, 2007, found that 93% of those aged 12-17 use the internet. If so many teens are using the internet, it would be impossible to regulate what is considered to be okay and not disruptive for school officials."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"Today the internet is a big part of life. We shop, learn, and communicate through it. Whether or not students can say whatever they want on it without school consequence is under controversy. When a student enters a classroom his or her rights become limited, but when that student is outside of school, doing something on his or her own time the school has no place limiting that student’s rights. Unless that student violates the first amendment they should not be punished in school or at all. What a student says or does on his or her own time is his or her business, not the business of the school which they attend. Schools argue that they should be able to punish students for posting things online that become a distraction in school, but the reality is that things on the internet that do not violate the first amendment do not become a distraction in school unless the school goes to punish the student for whatever it was they disapproved of. The government does not intervene in speech unless it is threatening or creates a violent atmosphere. This is the same way schools should handle the speech of their students online."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"Over the years, schools have censored students in many different ways. Censoring is necessary part of a school’s functions. The school can only censor in two major ways: if the material is vulgar or if it will disrupt the learning environment. The same rule should apply to all mediums of speech. The newest medium is the internet. Students posting on Facebook pages or their own personal websites have been punished by the school. There have been several cases that have reached high level courts, including the Supreme Court. Their decision generally reflects the two previous rules. Unless explicitly vulgar or disrupting, schools have no right punishing students, for internet activity, done from home, on a student’s own time.
An internet page or website is very similar to an underground newspaper. In previous cases, schools have been unable to censor underground newspapers that do not break the two rules. The rules should apply to the internet in the same way. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines School District, the court ruled that students don’t “shed their rights” at the schoolhouse gate. Again the same rules should apply to the internet. Simply by going to the school, students shouldn’t be punished for actions online that don’t violate school policy.
The last reason that schools have no right to punish is the simplest. A student that is outside of the school on their own website has no reason to be censored. As long as it’s not offensive or violent, students are free to express themselves. It’s no difference than writing a note to another person outside of school. As long as the note wasn’t written in school and won’t cause a problem in school, then the school should stay out. The reason that schools can even punish students is that, in school, the teachers, and administration members, take the place of the parents in the legal idea of in loco parentis. The idea that the school is a student’s parent is not valid when the student is not in school.
Schools have always been expanding their powers to punish and censor students. This is simply another way that school administrators are trying to expand; however, this one has been over ruled by the courts on several different occasions: schools cannot punish a student if the speech is nonviolent or not disruptive, and otherwise inoffensive; the student is operating outside of school, on their own time; and the school cannot ban speech that it disagrees with. If this trend of schools going after students continues, student’s free speech rights will be threatened. If a school can monitor student’s internet access outside school, then what is stopping them from tapping phones. This problem has gotten to a point where schools are stepping on student’s First Amendment Rights, and that is immoral, illogical, and unconstitutional."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose Downers Grove South High School
"Freedom of speech is a right that every American Citizen is entitled to. Why is it then that students can be punished in schools for saying things that are within their rights? Students of public schools, funded by the government, must have the right to freedom of speech. However, students of private schools can be disciplined at the school’s discretion.
The Bill of Rights provides each citizen of the United States a set of undeniable rights. These rights are important to preserving our democracy and cannot be taken away. Students with personal websites and blogs made on their own time and on their own computers should not be punished by their schools. They do not use any of school resources to create or maintain their online presence. In addition to this, schools explicitly trying to view student blogs and personal web pages are intruding on students’ right to privacy. A recent case, T.V. and M.K. vs. Smith-Green Community School, was due to the school punishing these girls for posting suggestive pictures on their MySpace. The school claims that their pictures discredited the school and disrupted the educational environment at the school. The school is violating the students’ right to privacy by viewing their personal pages and by punishing them for these pictures, of which had nothing to do with the school.
The debate between a student’s right online and a school’s right to punish said student is important to our technological society today. A survey in 2006 found that 22% of all teenagers have their own personal web page. This number has grown rapidly, with sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter becoming much more popular and accessible to teenagers today. These students need to be ensured that they have their freedom of speech online and will not be punished by their schools for having an unpopular opinion.
As more people start to use the internet and become connected with one another, our rights must be protected. Students need to be able to say what they wish to express as long as it does not violate the first amendment it must be allowed. Our society cannot grow and prosper with these restrictions on our people, especially our young students."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"Students should not be subject to school punishments for posting material on their personal websites if it is on a personal computer not during school hours, does not create a substantial disruption, does not contain threats that could be carried out at school, and does not contain libel or other fallacies that could harm a person's reputation. In a recent Supreme Court case, a student created a cartoon making fun of his principal off of school property on his own computer. His school tried to claim it caused a substantial disruption to the learning environment, when in reality the disruption was caused after the student was suspended. The Court decided in the student's favor, seeing as he did not do anything at school and formally apologized and took down the cartoon before he was suspended.
Tinker v. Des Moines School District set a precedent that student's don't shed their constitutional rights "at the school house gate." Even though a student is under the jurisdiction of the school and the educational environment, the school should not go so far as to make students afraid to speak their mind. A student has the right to express dissatisfaction with a teacher, other students or something that is happening at school on his or her personal blog or website. However, if that student goes as far as to make false statements about a teacher's reputation or incites violence towards another, the school needs to take action.
The topic of student speech rights online should be considered with a case by case standard. Very little legislation has been passed to deal with free speech in relation to technological advances like Facebook and Myspace, so there is no set way to determine whether a student should be punished or not. I believe unless a student is threatening to harm another student or faculty member physically or emotionally, the school does not have to right to be involved in his or her private posts online."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"When it comes to kids and their freedom of speech on the internet, I believe they should be allowed to say what they want as long as they are not violating anyone else’s rights. This should be allowed because as Americans, we have the freedom of speech granted to us in our first amendment rights, along with press, assembly, petition and religion. Another thing is, if a student makes a website or a social networking profile on their own time, and not threatening or violating anyone, their school should not be allowed to punish them because they didn’t like what was said.
An example of this right being violated is Scenario 5 in our 2010 Illinois Youth Summit Book on page 28. This scenario describes how one student on his own time, on a personal computer, made a website that mocked his schools website and his principal. Although this student did not harass anyone or threaten them in any way, because the principal did not like it he “suspended the student, banning him from school activities, and then placing him in alternative education.”
However, if there are cases like Scenario 2 in our booklet, in which a student mocked his principal and math teacher; saying the math teacher “should die… give me $20 to help pay for a hit man”, students such as himself should get expelled. He deserved the punishment that he got because he was threatening a teachers life, even though the site was made on personal time. This, again, is why I believe that as long as you are doing no harm or not threatening anyone, you should have all the freedoms you deserve."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"All of us get frustrated all the time. It’s just a thing of life. Whether someone told you something at school or a teacher told you something bad, we find a need to retaliate against it. But there are also those people who post a face book status about their teacher or their principal or just their school in general. Then the next day, they get called down to the principal’s office and get suspended or expelled.
To me, students should not get suspended or expelled for stating his or her opinion about someone on the internet. They were doing it on their own time and their own computer, not the school’s computer. I agree that some people actually take it too far and start saying things that are out of the norm, but that’s because that person is too mad to think about what their saying. The next day they finally realize it.
If a person does make a mistake like that, they should not get an automatic suspension or expulsion; they should get a second chance and think about what they have said."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"There has been a large controversy recently about whether students should be punished at school if they post material on their own website at their own time. Some say this is a violation of the First Amendment, others believe it is the right of the school to protect the students from inappropriate things. I believe students should not be punished for this unless it is threatening or causing a school disruption.
First off, what a student wants to do on his own time away from school property is his business, not the schools. If the school got involved with a student’s own personal website is an intrusion on the student’s privacy and rights. The school should not get involved unless it is threatening or causing a disruption. For example, if a student posts on Facebook that he is going to kill his teacher, then the school can interfere. Although, if a student posts that his principal is stupid or a loser, then the school cannot get involved because it is not threatening nor a disruption. Some may say that that is a disruption, but like in Tinker v. Des Moines, it was not a disruption till the school made it a disruption.
All in all, our democracy should not allow schools to limit student’s freedom of expression right on the internet. It intrudeson their privacy and is completely unfair. It would be a violation of their First Amendment right if Congress created a law allowing schools to censor what student’s post on the internet on their own time."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"I think that students shouldn’t be subject to punishments for posting material on their personal website. That does not violate the first amendment. They shouldn’t be punished for doing this outside of school because the students don’t have limited rights as if they were in school the schools would have too much power over their students.
In the case of Reno v. ACLU (1999) the court struck the Communications Decency Act which sought to restrict internet content. This shows that the court knows that this will limit the free speech of everyone. This also applies with schools trying to control on what students do in their personal site. And even though students may post offensive things about a teacher, or mock a teacher the school shouldn’t be allowed to punish the students because they don’t like what the student has posted. Not all students will post offensive stuff; some students will use their website for mobilizing political campaigns, raise funds, or other worthy causes. Others use it to express themselves and share thoughts with others.
Schools shouldn’t be allowed to punish students for expressing themselves because then students would also have limited rights at home for no being able to express themselves, or chat with people online because the school will be checking what they say or do on the internet.
I also don’t agree with the argument of punishing a student for posting something online that can cause a distraction in school because there are a lot of distractions in school such as friends, computers, or a teacher. They are more distracting in school than something another students posted to express themselves online. I think the schools want to punish students that do this because they don’t like what they are doing, or don’t like something because a student talks bad about the school or a teacher. I think the schools need to respect students when they want to express themselves because they don’t have the same limited rights outside of school."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"Over 30 years ago, the Supreme Court declared that students do not shed their first amendment rights to freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gate. In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the Court said that a student’s speech rights cannot be limited, unless it is likely or sure to cause a disruption to the school environment. Then, in the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case, the Supreme Court ruled that a student's speech can be limited if it uses school resources or is a school sponsored activity. They added that the restrictions must be based on reasonable grounds. These rights extend to the relatively new internet, and many students use it every day. Therefore, when a school sees a violation of school policy on the internet, they sometimes take action. This is not fair. A student, outside of school, is a citizen, with every right that was given to him or her with his or her citizenship, and school administration has no right to punish students for their actions online.
Firstly, the very purpose of the freedom of expression, I believe, is to protect people from the government punishing those who disagree with government ideas. Therefore, if a student is acting lawfully, the schools should have no control over what they say outside the academic environment. Even if a student speaks directly against the school administration, it is his or her natural born right as a citizen to speak against what he or she disagrees with. The Supreme Court has already stated that first amendment rights extend to the internet. While it is more accessible and easier to be seen by more and more people, it is still another medium for expression. Schools can limit student speech, of course, if it is school sponsored or uses school resources. As private citizens using personal resources, though, these students are nowhere within the academic environment. Previously, the Court has also said that schools cannot necessarily take action against non-school sponsored, student newspapers. While it may not directly extend to the internet, the fact that the internet is often accessed through non-school related methods, says that many of the same principles apply.
Also, though opponents argue that student speech outside of school can still disrupt the school environment, it is important to remember that it places basic civil liberties at risk. In fact, the court has already stated in the Reno v. ACLU case, “...freedom of expression...outweighs...unproven benefit of censorship.” Furthermore, while many students are punished legally in school for engaging in illegal activities outside the school environment, expression is not a crime under United States law, so school should not interfere with speech.
In summary, while punishing students for speech on the internet is done with good intentions and may save some disruptions among the school environment, it is necessary that the civil liberties of United States citizens are protected, even at the cost of some theoretical disruptions."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"I believe that students should not be subjected to school punishments for posting material on their personal websites that do not violate the first amendment. When no direct harm is being threatened, there is no liable cause for punishment. If the student uses their own resources, on their own personal website that is in no way affiliated with their school, then the school should not feel the need to nor be obligated to take disciplinary action against the student.
When circumstances like these prove to be disruptive in the learning environment, that, I believe, is the appropriate time for the school to take it upon itself to step in. Schools should not try to take these ridiculous preventative actions such as trying to limit free speech of individuals out of their domain, attempting to keep theirs a civil and courteous learning environment.
We are all entitled to our free speech, and we are entitled to express it through any outlet we choose to. When choosing to express it to the online public, it should not be unnecessarily limited by rules of an institution that has no other power over you in that circumstance. The school is allowed to force you to abide by their rules when you are on their property, but when a student is not associated with the school in any way, whether physically in the building or on their site, their authority should cease completely."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"Students should not be subject to school punishments if they post materials on their personal websites that do not violate the first amendment. According to the first amendment everyone has the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. Although schools have adapted the ways of John Locke’ ‘Social Contract’ in which students must give up some of their freedoms in order to receive protection, the school has limitations.
It seems as though schools are taking advantage of student rights. Why should they be able to control and monitor what students do on their own personal time away from school? It is a parent’s job to make sure that their child behaves and abides by rules. If the parents are not doing their job then they should be able to deal with whatever consequences are brought forth.
Schools should mind their own business when it comes to the lives of students outside of the school building. The only way this should not be permitted is if the students do something that is posed as a threat. I believe that students should be able post materials on their personal websites as long as it does not violate the first amendment."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose Evanston Township High School
"Sara Usman
Business Law
P.2
4/9/10
Students should not be punished by the school for posting material on their personal websites that does not violate the First Amendment. Students have the right to say anything they wish on their blogs.
Students should be responsible for what they are posting on the internet. However, students should not be punished by the school for something they wrote on their websites during non-school hours. Students who post things that are irresponsible and careless are responsible for their own actions. They should be punished by the police and not the school.
Students shouldn’t be punished by their schools if they write something that the school doesn’t approve of. Students use their websites for many other reasons such as to raise awareness or raise funds for their schools and the community. The school only has a responsibility to stop anything that disrupts class work or other students. If a student says something that’s has an affect on someone in the classroom, then the teacher has the right to stop the student."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"Being punished for placing inappropriate material or material that is disagreed upon is completely unethical. If there are no threats that are being posed and if the material doesn’t encourage violent acts; then there is no for the student to be punished. There are cases in which students get suspended or punished simply because offensive material about a certain school official or teacher is placed on their “personal” website. It is a natural born right that we all have freedom of speech under the 1st amendment and because of this we all have the right to state our opinions. The school should not be able to extend their jurisdiction outside the schools walls. The schools should not have the right to extend their disciplinary powers into the homes of their students. A student should be able to express themselves at home without having to be afraid of what other people will think. Students go through a whole school day of having their right oppressed and stepped on, and because of this, they should be able to freely express themselves once they away from clutches of the school."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose East Leyden High School
"As students, we believe we shouldn’t be subjected for school punishments for posting material on our personal websites that doesn’t violate the First Amendment. Reason being, there are many negatives to allowing the school to punish students for expressing themselves online. For example, many students wouldn’t be able to express themselves as freely. Also, with the one scenario a student created a mock website of the school (stating that it was a mock website) for entertainment. The principle of the school considered it offensive and suspended the student for ten days. This is an example of restriction on creativity and freedom of speech. There are websites posted online that are mocking the government and the government does not take any action or responsibility for those individuals. This is essentially giving the schools more power of over student bodies than the government and their parents (communism). Another scenario, a student had created a website containing a list of those he wished to kill and yet again the school suspended that student as well. This could have been therapeutic for the student allowing him to relieve stress or vent out his anger. Although it seems awkward and disturbing this could have been helping the student. This brings up another issue what if a student is having difficulties with his or her life if the school suspends them then the issue isn't solved and greater issues can be provoked. The school is essentially playing the role of a distant parent with little understanding and too much power. Allowing the schools to rule over students over the internet within their own homes is pushing their authority to the limit and is unnecessary. If the students are abusing the internet it is up to the parents not the schools to teach their children. If the schools are allowed to control what students put on the internet then when will people be free to speak? Many students are now going to college to continue their education and some stay in school for several years so what will become of our free speech for future generations?"
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"It is a ridiculous idea for a school to punish a student for something they post on their own social networking site, but only to an extent. There are some rare situations where the school should be allowed to intervene and punish a student for something they post online.
For most cases, students should not be punished for things they post online. The website is theirs and has no affiliation with their school. A teacher or administrator should not punish a student for saying something online about their thoughts on a school, teacher, or situation. This is protected by our first amendment: Freedom of Speech. But even freedom of speech has an extent in the constitution. Speech in America can’t be censored someone says the government for example, is evil and corrupt. However, if someone were to go out and say they plan on destroying the government or killing a politician, then the government can intervene because such speech creates a dangerous and/or violent atmosphere. The same rule should apply in a student speech rights online. A student should be able to express their opinion online. That is protected. But if a student encourages an action to happen against a teacher or a negative or dangerous environment in school, the school may have the power to censor and punish the student accordingly. This is exactly how schools should handle student speech online."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose East Leyden High School
"Students, though responsible for their wrongful actions within school-sponsored events and activities, should not be liable to direct administrative punishment from their school if they so choose to publish personal material online as long as the content of their material remains without ill will. As long as the selected material does not violate the First Amendment, then any school-imposed restrictions are null and void.
As long as any published work a student is responsible for is not disruptive within a classroom environment, he or she should be free from the threat of punishment. Should such material warrant complaint, such as the implication of threat to another student, teacher, school administrator, or the school itself, then a further investigation by police or government officials of the matter may be put into effect.
Following the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and Morse v. Frederick cases, a school administration only has authority under their own “school-sponsored expressive activities,” such as school newspapers and blogs or websites tied to school-work issued by a teacher."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"I am against students being subject to school punishments for posting material on their personal websites that does not violate the First Amendment. Students should have the right to do and say what they want on their own time and not get in trouble by the school for it. Some people might think that some things posted on the internet could cause a disruption in school, and in some cases it does happen, but most of the time the disruption is started by the school. There might be something mean about a teacher on the internet and a teacher might be offended but chances are the students wouldn’t do anything during school, so the disruption would be from the school. In some schools it is against the rules to even have a Facebook or Myspace account which is wrong and unlawful. Schools should not be allowed to punish students for what they do outside of school. Students should have the right to do what they want on the internet when they want and on their own computer and not get in trouble by the school for it."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose East Leyden High School
"A big issue going around schools these days is whether or not to punish students for posting material on their personal websites. I do not believe that students should be punished for that. I think that if you do something on your own time, and it doesn’t cause any disruption among the students work, then you shouldn’t be punished. What you do outside of school have no affect on the way the school treats you. For class we did a poll asking four students and six adults their opinion on this topic. Everyone but one person, who was undecided, answered no. I think this topic is popular among students because it could possibly affect us. I have heard stories from the radio and in the local newspaper about students not being able to graduate, or being kicked off a sports team because of something they posted on their website. I don’t understand how they can be punished because they are doing this at home, away from school grounds, and on their own time.
Besides just posting words on their website, students have been punished for posting certain pictures on their sites. I don’t feel that it is the schools responsibility to step in and parent the students. If something happens outside of school then the punishments should come from their parents, not their principal. I would like to know how the schools see these things. If you go out looking for something, you can’t punish them for finding it. I understand why the school may feel like it’s their responsibility to punish these students, but in the end I don’t think that that would be fair. I think that the only time a school should be able to punish a student is if it happens on school grounds.
It is our first amendment right to have free speech. Schools already set limits on what we can and can’t say while we are in school, but now they are trying to limit what we say online on our own time? School should exist Monday through Friday from 8-3, anything else should be your own time. The only exception may be if as student you sign a contract stating that you will be drug and alcohol free, and you get caught by posting pictures on your website, then you should be punished because you gave written consent that you would not do something."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"Yarasel Almaraz
Political Science
Period 3
March 7, 2010
Position Statement
Students should not be subject to school punishment for posting material on their personal websites that does not violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that “congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. This right also extends to students in public schools run by the government. Another thing mentioned in the reading was that students and teachers “did not shed their constitutional rights freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate”. While schools can take steps to protect their students from something that might be potentially distracting, something that is done outside of school and on their own time should not be subject to school rules.
Schools do have some clear authority over what they can sensor, like anything written and sponsored for the school Examples of this would be a student newspaper or a website for a class. In our own political science class we sometimes do blog-posts and our teacher has complete authority to look over what we write and give us limitations. However teachers or school administration do not have the right to log onto a student’s personal website and use that against them if they are not harming anyone. According to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir case schools cannot automatically edit “underground” newspapers that are printed without the school looking over them. People who have analyzed this precedent say that it extends to independent student blogs and web pages, but others point to athletes who have been punished for attending off campus parties where alcohol and drugs were present. However, this example is not relevant in deciding student speech rights in cyberspace.
While some people may argue that students use their personal web pages irresponsibly, which some do, they use the internet much like adults do. They might make a few slips here and there, but in the end everyone is human. We all make mistakes and certainly we should not be punished in school for things we do outside on our time. As long as the things posted online do not in any way harm somebody or suggest harm to somebody the school should not step in and punish children for things posted on their own personal websites."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose East Leyden High School
"Should students be subject to school punishments-including suspension and expulsion-for posting material on their personal websites that does not violate the First Amendment?
Students who publish their personal opinions on their own websites should not be punished by their schools for many different reasons. If schools punish students for posting material that does not violate the First Amendment then they would have to punish students for every act of freedom of speech. For example, in the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines, the students wore arm bands to protest against the war. The school felt that it was a violation of the school dress code and they suspended them until they no longer wore the arm bands. The case went to the Supreme Court and they ended up ruling in favor of the students. The students are not violating any laws or rights.
In a classroom discussion, most students agreed that students who publish their personal opinions on their own websites should not be punished because if they are not violating any rights then there is no reason to punish them. If they were publishing things such as threats or other major concerns to the school, then yes they should be punished because that is violating school rules and is putting people in danger. In this case though, the students are publishing things that do not violate any rules or puts anyone in any sort of danger. With this said, students would have to undergo punishment for almost about everything they did, if they were to do it in the same way as they did the websites. The students who publish their personal opinion on their own websites are simply speaking their minds and can actually be able to say what they feel due to their first amendment rights. If they are to be cut down in school by being limited on speech, then why are they to be limited on their own websites? These are the places where students and tell how they feel without the interruption of an authority figure that they get at school. With a limitation outside of school, on speech, is against everyone’s first amendment rights. These limitations could be “limited” simply by the fact of an authority figure.
On the contrary, some people believe that students should be punished by schools for publishing material on their personal websites that does not violate the first amendment. For example, in the court case “Bethel School District v. Fraser”, Matthew Fraser was a senior who was giving a speech at an assembly. Almost the whole school attended the assembly and listened to him speak. In his speech he referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphors; however, he did not use obscenities. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the school, ruling that the speech was disruptive and inappropriate to the school. The goal of the policy is to keep students from talking about school and the administration which could possibly ruin their reputation and"
|
04/09/2010 Oppose East Leyden High School
"One of the policies presented was whether schools should or shouldn’t have the authority to punish students for material that they post on their personal websites outside of school. As a high school student, I personally believe schools should not be able to punish their student for material that they post on personal websites outside of school. The reason I feel this way is because not only is it a direct violation to one’s First Amendment, but it also has no relation to school itself. Sometimes, students post subjects on their website as a way to express themselves, and with schools being allowed to monitor and even punish students for what they post, students lose one of the most fundamental rights – the freedom of expression. Although many believe some of the material being posted on their personal websites may be disrespectful to school officials or other students, as long as it doesn’t cause a disruption during school, it should be allowed. The people that should be able to determine whether the material is disruptive or not should include a combination of both students and the school board to assure a fair decision. Take the Tinker v. Des Moines case for an example. In the case, the two students wore black armbands to school as a way to protest the Vietnam War. When they refused to remove the armbands when asked by school officials, they were suspended. The students sued the school because they felt their First Amendment right was taken away from them. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinkers because the armbands were not a noticeable disruption to the school. I believe the same should hold true for online material. If the material, in no way, disrupts school then schools should not have the right to punish students for it. One more case that provides support that schools shouldn’t be allowed to punish their students for online material is the Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier case. In the case, material about divorce and teen pregnancy in the school newspaper was censored by the school because it was considered inappropriate for school and could cause a disruption. The students sued regarding their First Amendment of freedom of expression, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district because it was material that was being distributed during school. In my opinion, that shows schools shouldn’t have the right to punish their students for material on personal websites because it’s not being posted from school or on school related websites. Overall, schools should not be able to punish students for what they post on their personal websites because of the fact that is a direct violation to our First Amendment – freedom of speech. With the schools being allowed to punish, students wouldn’t not have the ability to express themselves as individuals and say what they feel, which is a fundamental right of any American citizen."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose East Leyden High School
"Students should not be subject to school punishments due to what they post on their personal web sites if no violation of the First Amendment is being made. The goal of this would be to limit school involvement on personal websites. The reasons that there should be no punishment revolve around the views of the parents, community, and First Amendment rights. However, schools favor being able to punish students because they feel the need to protect them. The other side of this argument, which we agree with, is that under the First Amendment students should have the right to say stupid things on their personal websites- just like adults do. Age shouldn’t be the deciding factor in whether or not punishments are made. Also, students are only in school eight of the twenty-four hours in a day; therefore, parents have the most responsibility for watching what their kids are doing. According to the precedent from Tinker v. Des Moines, if no substantial disruption to a normal school day is made, no consequences should be given to these students. However, in the Hazelwood School District v. Kulhmeier case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school because it was a school sponsored activity. The only time punishments should be made is if what is posted by the students can be traced back to the school; personal websites do not relate back to specific school-related activities. The First Amendment right, Freedom of Speech, doesn’t just apply to certain people, it applies to everyone. Students should have the right to express themselves as much as their parents allow. Threats, that put people at risk, will be looked over by the police anyways, so the school shouldn’t be playing a part in watching over the student after school hours. The parents aren’t able to guard their children during school hours and the school shouldn’t be able to guard them after school hours. If they did this, the parents would never actually be responsible for their children at all. In conclusion, the parents should be the people deciding what their children are allowed to post and if they violate these rules, the parents should be the ones deciding the punishment."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose Evanston Township High School
"Opinion for Protection of Student Speech On-line
by Shakita Collins and Sara Usman
Evanston Township High School
Students should not be subjected to school punishment for posting material on their personal websites or any other non-related school website for that matter, due to the simple fact that it not only violates the students first amendment rights, but it also says that the school has reached far beyond its position of being an institution/establishment of education and into an institution/establishment set on having complete control.
The First Amendment protects our right of Free Speech. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the court reaffirmed this right by stating: "students do not shed ther constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
Students, or people actively learning have changed over the years along with technology. They have adapted to different learning techniques and strategies. In this day and age with technology advancing everyday, it should be no surprise that students, people actively learning have developed a sort of dependency on technology and the things it may bring, i.e. PC’s, and laptops bring us the world wide web, or more commonly known as the internet, where almost anything is possible, and when I say anything, I literally mean anything.
People using the internct are talking about blowing stuff up and overthrowing the government and killing people and face no consequences. So for heaven sakes if I or the person next to you or even the person a year ahead or behind you decides to vent a little by saying something as stupid as “this school sucks” or create a cartoon or caricature of the principle or any other teacher with let’s say a big head and a little body or even tripping over a ball, it shouldn’t matter. Nothing that was done in these particular acts of transcribing resulted in any type of damage or damages.
So if punishing a person for actively learning, is all a school is looking to do than they need to re-educate themselves on exactly what their positions are in society as teachers and educators. Their jobs are to teach students, however they see fit but as well as teach with the best interests of his or her students."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose Downers Grove South High School
"Students who post content on their personal websites outside of school, should not be subject to school punishments as long as it does not violate the first amendment. There are many meaningful arguments proposed by those who oppose student rights, but when you analyze the laws that are currently set in place, it is easy to see that students should have their rights to express themselves when they are not in school. There have been many court cases which have ruled in favor of the school system in regards to student speech rights, and because of this many feel that schools should have the authority to hand out punishments to students who violate their code of conduct. But the fact of the matter is that there have been cases where the court has ruled that there hasn’t been a significant disruption or that what the student had written was not obscene enough.
The job of the school is to protect students while at school under the law “en loco parentis”, but as soon as students get home from school and access their own personal website from their own personal computer, this law is not in effect which means they should not be able to punish the students for what they write. Schools have a responsibility to protect their students in school but out of school is a different story. If schools are allowed to access and punish students for things that occur completely out of school than what the school is doing is essentially becoming a second parent. And this it is not right to allow schools to have this complete power of being a second parent. Schools should know when not to get involved and the situation of personal websites is definitely an instance when schools should back off and adhere to the first amendment.
Every American citizen is granted freedom of speech which is one of the main fundamentally strong values in America's judicial system. But if schools are allowed to interfere with students personal lives outside of school than the first amendment is most certainly being broken. The first amendment should defer schools not encourage them from becoming to powerful. That is why students should not be subject to school punishments when they post content that is not harmful to students or does not break the law."
|
04/08/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"The first amendment of our U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” With the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment, it has, since then, been extended to apply to any government funded institution at the stare or local level, including public schools. However, within today’s society, there had been a large increase of the usages of technology over the last few years. Sources of technology are constantly being used just about everywhere, every single day. The issue of this topic comes down to the use of computers with students’ online speeches and to what extent are they protected under the first amendment. The main focus has been whether or not students should be subject to school punishment- including suspension and expulsion- for posting material on personal websites that do not violate the first amendment of the Constitution.
Overall, I believe that all student speech protected by the first amendment should not be subject to school punishments. Although, if a speech is found to suggest a serious threat of harm or danger, contains any terms of hate speech, or has obscene language, then I believe that school punishments may possibly be considered. In these terms, I do strongly believe that a consideration should be taken to whether or not the speech was, in fact, disrupting school learning and activities or if the speech was specifically brought into the school by teachers or administrators. This issue of student speech rights online has become a serious manner and a line does need to be thickly drawn for all public schools in which will set limits and state in detail the guide lines that are to be followed. In the case of Reno v. ACLU, the court stated that, “the right of bloggers and those who have personal websites are much like traditional free speech rights- with some exceptions, people can say what they wish.” If it’s protected by the first amendment and cause no threats or major conflicts among or within school grounds, the speech should not be subject to any school punishments. It’s our freedom of speech, rightfully given to us by our U.S. Constitution."
|
04/08/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"The first amendment protects all forms of speech, and although schools have the right to limit our first amendment rights in certain circumstances. Their censorship of their students shouldn’t be extended to the household. It is a tragedy, and a violation of the first amendment if schools continue to punish a student for something they posted on a home computer, on their own time, at their own house. This is a serious problem and as a student I am personally against the punishment of students for things they post on their own time on their own computer. I understand that it could be seen as a potential distraction in the school day, but, as I believe, the issue wouldn’t be an issue if the school administration didn’t shed a light upon it in the first place. I also understand that it is the school official’s job to ensure that potential distractions aren’t allowed in to the school such was the case in Morse v. Frederick. But when a student posts something in his own house it is ridiculous to think that this student will be punished for their actions. Schools have the purpose of educating and preparing students for the future, but if they are busy monitoring and restricting a student’s first amendment rights, then what type of a future are they preparing that student for. The first amendment is one of the fundamental pillars of America to restrict it further would be a crime against humanity and a crime against expression. Students have their rights too and it would be unethical for a school to try and limit these rights when the students aren’t in school."
|
04/08/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"Technology plays a huge role in today’s society, especially in students ages 14-23. Many students have personal websites such as blogs, myspace, and facebook. Recently multiple problems have occurred with students posting comments, cartoons and statuses on their personal websites. The problem with this is that what they post is against school rules. So, the question at hand is, should speech protected by the first amendment be punishable by schools?
In my opinion schools shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions that contradict amendments. I believe that the amendments were greatly thought out by our Founding Fathers and schools should not be able to change or deny them. The first amendment protects all speech except for hate speech and death threats. The precedent, Tinker v. Des Moines can be used to shed light on speech rights at school. As stated in Tinker v. Des Moines School District, students should not have to give up their rights when they enter school. In other words students speech is protected in school, so why should it not be protected online while at home? Administrators should not be able to change amendments just because they involve their school. Also, a precedent was set by Reno v. ACLU where the main point is that blogs and personal websites are protected the same as verbal speech. Based on a study conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, “33 percent of teens share their creative content online such as artwork, photos, stories or videos”. Personal websites are a great way for students to make their name known in order to get a job, and to overall better their skills. If students are constantly in fear of being suspended for what they post online, they will never post anything, therefore leading to less developed skills and less job opportunities. Moving on, many students use websites such as facebook to support and raise money for causes that are important to them. Some causes include breast cancer awareness, Relay for Life, and heart disease. If students are afraid to post on a website, this will lead to a decrease in many worthy causes. However, if student speech is protected, there will be a greater awareness of these causes.
With all precedents taken in to consideration, the question, “should speech protected by the first amendment be punishable by schools” is still brought up. There are many positive effects of student speech online. For example, if student speech is protected online then students will feel safer when posting, therefore leading to greater skills and more job opportunities. Also, many students are involved in spreading awareness about causes that are important to them. So, if student speech is protected, there will be more awareness of worthy causes, improved skills of individuals, and more job opportunities. Over all I believe that student speech should be protected online just as much as it is at home, or on the street."
|
04/08/2010 Oppose Waubonsie Valley High School
"No where in the current laws of the United States of America does it say that we as students shed our constitutional rights at the school house door. Since we are not losing our First Amendment rights in school why should we be able to be punished by the school for something that we do outside of school. If a student chooses to write something on his or her personal webpage outside fo school on his/her own time and his/her own computer, and what they post is not a valid threat to the school or does not contain slander, therefore not violating the first amendment they can not be punished by the laws that are set in place by the federal government, then what gives the school the right to punish them for the same thing. The fact that this is even in argument in todays society means that students, such as myself, are being targeted for, possibly, the simple fact that we do not know any better. Just because we are the young generation they feel that they can get away with stripping us of our rights and punishing us for something that we are protected from punishment for."
|
04/08/2010 Oppose Corliss High School
"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes freedom of speech. We believe that everyone should be able to say whatever they want but I do understand there will be some consequences. Whatever students do on their spare time is their business and not schools or government's business. It’s all about the students and their parents. Therfore, students should not be punished by schools for posting material on their personal website. First off, there is no rule in the school policy book that says students can’t post whatever they want on their personal websites. Not only are the students on personal websites such as facebook, MySpace and twitter, but teachers are too. So what should they do to teachers who post things on their website? “Under the First Amendment, students should have the right to say stupid things on their personal websites –just like adults do.” (2010 Illinois Youth Summit Book) Second off, why should students get punished? Everybody has their own opinions about something. Look at these different billboards or even in the newspapers things are being said that people disagree on, and yet they are not being punished. We think they should be allowed to control what students do online only when they are on school property and accessing the Internet using school resources.
Third off, the parents should be handling what their child is doing on these websites instead of the school. The school should not be punishing the students, but the parents could if they know what their child is doing. The school's major concern is education. If we are so focusing on what people say when they are not in school, then this will take away a child's learning time because the school will want to suspend or exclude them. Are comments on a blog or a student’s personal page more important than a education? Definitely not. To conclude, We agree that educators are focusing way too much currently on issues that have nothing to do with educating children. The First Amendment clearly states that “Freedom of Speech.” If the schools don’t obey this rule then maybe we should punish them instead of our students. Let’s look into the future instead of what students say online. Taking away a child's future now will not help them at all in life. Help the children--and don’t exclude them or suspend them from their education."
|
04/06/2010 Support Corliss High School
"Students should be punished for what they post on websites. The main reason is that anything they post on the internet that's of a negative topic can escalate to school grounds and start up more trouble. It shouldn't go as far as the students being suspended, they should just notify the parents about their children's actions. Hopefully that will work, because if it doesn't then eventually the law will be notified. There is a disadvantage of students being suspended by making them miss out on school work, and also give them a chance to post more about the situation on the internet.
Many situations like this occur all the time over websites like myspace and facebook. What happens is people view these negative thoughts and it gives outsiders of the situation the opportunity to post their opinion. This draws lots of attention to the conflict and make it worse. This causes students to go back to school and gossip about the information they gained, which eventually could lead to a fight or worse.
To conclude, students should think and try to resolve conflicts amongst each other. Rather than take it too far and post it to the internet, where everyone could see it and add to the negativity. If they choose to take the positive way out, they would have a more proactive outcome. So the schools need to take action, to send a message to students that anything they do outside of school that affects learning inside school will have consequences. This should help teach students to respect others and not post things on websites that can casue conflict with their classmates."
|
04/06/2010 Oppose Corliss High School
"At many schools students are being punished for posting material on their personal website that doesn’t violate the First Amendment regarding freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religious freedom, freedom of assembly, and right to petition. The First Amendment says that people have the right to speak freely without government interference. Some student free-expression advocates say that it is an alarming trend where students at both public and private schools are being punished for Internet postings made off school grounds on Web sites not affiliated with the schools. Only private schools have the right to regulate students’ behavior outside of school. Public schools do not have the right to regulate children's behavior outside the classroom, but it's sad that this is an issue when kids are in gangs, shootings, fights, and use drugs. We believe that you can not legally punish a child for opinions or content that they may post online while not in school. It should be punishable when the content is used to further harass a child or teacher in school and then you have a punishable offense and depends on what is posted, especially if it is offensive or interferes with the safety, or welfare of another student. Then the school would have a moral obligation and maybe even a legal one to remove the offender from regular classes. There are laws against harassment and threatening. For instance, there was a incident where a student was punished for posting material about a teacher and was suspended for 5 days. If the student named the teacher it comes down to slandering a person's name in public and that is against the law. Yet schools should not be able to control what you do or say outside of them. Schools do not have the authority to discipline children for what they do on their own time and away from school. This case is definitely a stretch for the respective school and school district. The school and school district's stance on this issue is ludicrous. Many may say, the choice to express yourself in an open forum like Facebook may show immaturity and bad judgment, this matter should be an issue for a family to address. Facebook, in particular, is a place where you may vent about your day to many friends and family members. No way should a kid be suspended from school for statements he made about a teacher if these comments were made on his own time. In this respect then the school is out of line. Schools should have no control over students when they are not involved in school activities or on school property. The schools need to know their boundaries."
|
04/06/2010 Oppose Corliss High School
"Most students in high school and college have a personal website that allows them to connect and share things with people in their life. Even though their personal website is public, it is still a part of their private life outside of school. No matter what one decides to post on this website it should not ever follow them back to school. This is why we strongly believe that students should not be subject to school punishments consisting of suspension or expulsion. Nowadays many people use these personal websites to keep in contact with friends and family. People that live miles away from each other use this website to post recent updates on how their life is going for friends and family can see. Even students away at college keep in contact with family back home this way. And no matter what is posted shouldn’t follow them to school. It’s not a bad thing to have a website. Even though one should take responsibility for their own actions, they should not be punished for how they feel at the moment no matter what is said. For example, a girl from a local high school posted “I can’t wait to get out of Mr. Browns boring science class, who gave him his teacher license?” Mutual friends on her personal website saw this post and told other classmates, which somehow got back to the teacher. One student even decided to show Mr. Brown for his own eyes, because he couldn’t believe it was true. The young lady (Jordan McDonalds) was a straight A student who was suspended and almost expelled because of her post on her personal website.
McDonalds should have just been warned about things she posts before other action was taken. A harmless post, that was really just supposed to be a joke, was taken as an offense. McDonalds did not mean to offend her teacher, and she is entitled to her own opinion about how she feels. It should never have gone as far as suspension and McDonalds having to go through things such as being looked at different by Mr. Brown.
It is okay for someone to post a status update like “I Love Jesus” and other mutual friends who are not Christians don’t get offended by it. This represents Freedom of Religion, but it also can be just as offensive as McDonalds case. It could turn into a situation where the non-Christian believers feel uncomfortable because they don’t worship Jesus. In Conclusion, we strongly disagree with students being punished for things they post on personal websites. True enough it’s public and they should be careful what is posted could be disturbing or offend someone. The person should be warned first about their actions and then other consequences should be taken if it continues. Suspension and expulsion should be the last thing to happen because a personal website is ones Freedom of Speech, and a part of their personal life outside of school."
|
04/06/2010 Oppose Corliss High School
"Students should NOT be subject to punishment by the school for posting material on their personal websites. First and foremost, personal websites do not have anything to do with school. Teachers and other adults have web pages, and they sometimes post derogatory comments on them without consequence, so it would be unfair to have different standards for students. If it is not breaking the law, then schools should not be allowed to punish their students for comments they might make on their own websites.
To begin with, personal websites do not have anything to do with school. When students are out of school they get on their websites in their free time to express themselves, which is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The school should not punish the student for writing things that are not school related.
It is also a double standard to allow teachers to post derogatory remarks on their personal websites without punishment, while saying that students do not have the same right. It is not fair to allow teachers and other adults, because they are older than us, to say whatever they want. We want the same right to voice our opinions.
Lastly, if students are not breaking the law, then schools should not be allowed to punish them. With the right to free speech, students should be allowed to publish material on their personal websites without punishment. The schools themselves are breaking the law by punishing students for constitutional and legal activities. For these reasons we oppose the public policy giving schools the right to reprimand students for what they say on their personal websites."
|
04/05/2010 Oppose Corliss High School
"According to the First Amendment, there should be freedom of speech. No, students should not be subject to school punishments, including supsension and expulsion, for posting material on their personal websites that does not violate the First Amendment. One major reason is that it it students' personal websites, and students deserve to have privacy.
Personal websites are made for personal blogging and personal networking. It has nothing to do with school policy and school rules, unless it is done by a student in the school at school. It is a private network and if it is a problem it can be reported on that website, and not to the school. This should be the only punishment necessary, where the website prevents the person's remarks.
Privacy is important to people. Students Should have the right to have their privacy and not worry about punishment taking place by school officials. What happens in the home should stay there. Society is coming to a point where privacy does not exist anymore because every move is being monitored.
We stand in serious disagreement with the schools punishing students for personal blogging and social networking. School involvement is not needed when it comes down to us and our personal websites, and for this reason we oppose the public policy."
|
04/05/2010 Oppose Corliss High School
"Students should not be subject to school punishments due to their private websites that do not violate the First Amendment. School’s are the second to last power that should be able to override the U.S. Constitution, it is not their responsibility, and it is also possible to unjustly punish someone. Educator policing and intervention is neither necessary nor acceptable.
To begin with, a school is the second to last establishment that should be able to break the U.S. Constitution. This isn’t to say anyone should have that ability, but as far as hypotheticals go, schools sit at the bottom of the list, bested only by cops. These 2 unique organizations, schools and police, have one very common ground, that is their potential to bend laws to fit their own desires. In most cases, they can easily get away with these things because the victim will generally not speak out due to lack of knowledge of the system or money for court charges. With this said, schools should not be given a new easy opportunity to manipulate the flow of things for their liking. A student's activities in his or her private website should be his business. On the same note, if he does anything unconstitutional, the school could alert the police rather than sticking their noses where it does not belong.
Secondly, it is in no way the school’s responsibility to police what happens outside of the school (grounds.) Even physically where it's an issue, cops will sit outside of school grounds to control any problems. Why? Because it is the cop’s jobs. As far as a student on his/her personal website, nothing should change. If by any chance any student should say something that violates the first ammendment, even still, it should not be of the school’s concern. If someone robs a store, no school is going to chase and apprehend him, neither should they a child on a computer!
Lastly, it is very possible for a school to unjustly punish someone this way. When a school official decides to punish a child for off campus cyber activities, that person must assume a few things. He must assume that the student displayed on the website, is truly that student. He must assume that the student posted the offensive things. He must also assume that he is entirely within his rights. In 2005, a foreign exchange student named Vincent Levant attended West Aurora High school. He was wrongly accused and expelled for stealing computers. This conclusion was founded on facebook posts. It wasn’t until 2007 that investigations came to a cease and it was discovered that some students made a fake facebook account and said incriminating things. It is incredibly easy to create a facebook account, it less than 30 seconds. The point is, police investigations are far more thorough than anything a school could possibly conduct, and so students should not be punished for what they say out of school."
|
|
|
Focus Question: Should Congress provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces?
|
|
Total Number of Position Statements: 51 statements
|
Support / Oppose:
|
43 / 8
|
04/09/2010 Support Glenbard East High School
"I feel that undocumented high school students should gain permanent residence status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. Let's start with the armed forces, these people are trying to defend our country and most importantly the citizens. Now, I don't think it is fair that someone who wants to serve our country is denied because he didnt have the same advantages as someone else did when they were a child. They made it through high school without any charges, crimes, or anything of that nature. They are not a criminal for being an undocumented student, they just wanted an education. What they are is a scholar. On that note, the fact that they qualify to attend college says another thing about them. They just didn't come to school to cause trouble, they came and did their work so they could better themselves in life and prepare for the furture. The last time I checked that is definitley not a crime. These undocumented students are just trying to make a better life for themselves and I don't feel that we should take that away from them by saying that they can't serve our country and protect our citizens and definitley tell them that they cant get an education. People come to our country for opportunity, I say we give them some."
|
04/09/2010 Support Glenbard East High School
"I feel that undocumented high school students should gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. Lets start with the armed forces, these people are trying to defend our country and the most importantly the citizens. Now, i dont think it is fair that someone who wants to serve our country is denied because he didnt have the same advantages as someone else did when they were a child. They made it thru high school with out any charges, crimes, or anything of that nature. There not a criminal for being an undocumented student, they just wanted an education. What they are is a scholar. On that note, the fact that they qualify to attend college says another thing about them. They just didnt come to school to cause trouble, they came and did there work so they could better themselves in life and prepare for the furture. The last time i checked that is definitley not a crime. These undocumented students are just trying to make a better life for themselves and i dont feel that we should take that away from them by saying that ehy cant serve our country and protect our citizens and definitley tell them that they cant get an education. People come to our country for opportunity, i say we give them some."
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"Parents continuously claim they desire what is best for their children. Why not in the best country on the planet? Because the United States is bountiful and prosperous, many outside of the country want to live in the US. And because of this, there are immigrants who bring their children here for a better life and future. The issue here is that when the children, who lived in the US for a significant portion of their lives, become of age and want to pursue their dreams, which may include going to college and earning a degree, they cannot because they are undocumented and probably don’t have enough money, (due to little income) to attend college or serve in the armed forces.
Students should have the opportunity to gain the permanent resident status if they want to attend college, etc. because I believe there shouldn’t be a limit for those who came here from other countries, not of their own will, but from the will of their parents. America is known to equality and the right to freedom, so why can’t these students gain permanent residency if they were brought from another country to live here and to have a better education in the United States? There are possibilities to this process, but it is not easy.
When applying to a college or university, undocumented students face obstacles concerning admission, tuition, and financial aid. The one cool thing is that, “There is no federal or state law that prohibits the admission of undocumented immigrants to U.S. colleges and universities, public or private, nor does federal or state law require students to prove citizenship in order to enter U.S. institutions of higher education. However, institutional policies on admitting undocumented students vary.
The DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) was introduced in congress because of this issue of undocumented students. The act was proposed in 2004 to provide for the students so that they can have college and army opportunities. The DREAM Act only qualifies students who does not have a criminal record, entered the U.S before they were 16, lived in the country for at least 5 years, and have graduated high school or its equivalent. Supporters of this idea believe this proposal is wise and fair; to provide education for every child so that the young people will be encouraged to become full participants for a democratic lifestyle.
In conclusion, I’ve come to realize that undocumented students have it really hard if they want to go to college or join the army and to receive citizenship, but it’s not impossible. There are opportunities for them to have an education in the U.S and to have a chance to have legal status. It wasn’t their actions that lead them here, so I feel that they deserve an equal chance as everyone else, despite if they’re documented or not."
|
04/09/2010 Support Gage Park High School
"The opposing side argues that the undocumented should not be rewarded for breaking the law, stating that it will only encourage more families to enter the country illegally. They also strongly uphold that granting financial assistance to undocumented students at colleges comes at the expense of citizens who will have fewer admission spaces and fewer dollars. We find this absurd considering if they allowed them a college education, they would ultimately be receiving more tax money from higher wages. They also argue that it is unfair to those people who legally enter this country. They also state that they may and are taking jobs from citizens and legal residents. They strongly stand behind the fact that it sends the wrong message. Realistically they are the ones sending the wrong message to the immigrant youths, giving them the idea that a higher education doesn’t exist for them and encouraging millions of young people to live underground without any connection to our system of government but fear.
According to the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, officially adopted by the 192 member states in 1989, every child has the right to an education regardless of their country of origin. These 192 countries “recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, the shall, in particular: (a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all; (b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available to every child…” We have an international commitment to educating children and providing equal opportunities to go with that.
The DREAM act states that offering permanent resident status to law abiding, undocumented students is fair and in the national interest of the United States. Allowing undocumented students to gain legal permanent residency will encourage them to become full participants in American society. The legislation does not provide undocumented students any special privileges. If these persons are forced to go underground, the United States will be loosing tax payer money from millions of undocumented people. This we cannot afford as a country."
|
04/09/2010 Support Gage Park High School
"The issue we are addressing is that of undocumented students and their unequal access to education. The United States government continues to deny equal access to higher education to those brought here not by their own will. The United States continues to deny access to citizenship to all undocumented immigrants, leading to unequal rights. The government denies these children and young adults financial assistance in their education. They continue to deny talented students their future. The issue is the denial of equal protection under the law, which is in the 14th amendments; by a nation we consider “The land of the free”.
It is unreasonable to discriminate against a person solely because of their status. It is wrong to punish children who did not make the decision to enter the country and deny them citizenship. Education is a human right and an “alien” is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term. Undocumented children did not decide to enter the country by themselves, their parents made that decision. The government claims to provide the equal rights for all people but looks the other way when these rights are denied to immigrant youth. It is unfair that citizens and residents have equal access to college but someone without a number can go no further, even though many undocumented families pay the same tax rate as everyone else, but receive no benefits. The youths of our nation should not be left behind.
From our own personal experiences and stories of our community, we know the struggles that good people face everyday. We see the longing for opportunity in their faces and the hard work. All we see in our communities are ordinary people just like any other citizen. They are normal people looking for a better life, just like everyone else. We would know because most of our families immigrated here and some of them became citizens. Most of them came here as young children and had no other choice. Most of these families work hard for their money and do the jobs that other people don’t want to do. We build the structures where these laws are made, we clean the schools, and we do most of the factory work, which makes just about everything. It is unfair that some students who are citizens will have to pay for their parent’s retirement life because they do not have a number. It is unfair to see some of our friends who are in the honor roll at school, denied college access and those less talented are able to attend. It shows no order and makes no sense. It only comes to show how badly the system is broken because they have already let 12,000,000 undocumented in. The law giving the right to school until high school should extend to college, meaning an entire equal right to an education and financial assistance."
|
04/09/2010 Support Lakes Community High School
"The Dream Act is good for illegal immigrants to be given a fair chance at having a successful life as any other American citizen. Pledging to go to college or military service helps them to gain citizenship also benefits America. If they go to college and hold a job it circulates money through the economy. Taking up military service gives more troops to the army. However the Dream Act is still a bill and some of the aspects that are not finalized are good for the illegal immigrants but bad for legal immigrants and American citizens. If the illegal immigrants are given financial aid through college, it is unfair to Americans that cannot get financial aid or scholarships that the illegal immigrant has taken. The money that the immigrants are given comes from government funds which are most likely paid for by the taxes of American citizens. The money that Americans make would be going to illegal aliens. Though the process of becoming a legal citizen of the United States can be long, there are illegal immigrants that went through the proper procedures and may have issues getting supported through college. The Dream Act would encourage illegal immigration in this way showing that illegal immigrants are being rewarded for a crime."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"The United States has become a popular country for immigration, especially illegal immigration. Illegal residents who came to America before the age of sixteen and have been here for at least five years wish to gain the rights to stay here and go to college, legally, but should they have the right? Personally, I do not think they should have the right, unless they have proven themselves to be a good hardworking student who deserves the opportunities not offered in their native land.
With the new policy high school students will be granted permanent status to live in America and attend school legally with the understanding that they qualify for college or the armed forces. I agree with the good student’s, but the minimum requirements need to be set high for what is considered a good student. These students should have scored better than 75 percent of America on the ACT or SAT. They need to be “cream of the crop” students because they did not come here legally and are getting a reward for breaking the laws. Students need to be exceptional if it is going to be allowed for them to be here. In the case Pyler v. Doe (1982) the court held the Fourteenth Amendment gives any child in the United States the right to a free public education through high school, regardless of their legal status. By law it is required for them to stay and attend through high school, so the ones who don’t utilize the opportunity to its fullest should not be allowed to stay.
I do not agree with the armed forces being an escape for immigrants. If America is known for being a country of freedom and opportunities, but not achieving that freedom fairly or using those opportunities given means you shouldn’t have the right to stay especially if immigrants did not follow immigration laws. If they don’t have the dedication to do well in school then they don’t deserve to be able to join our armed forces. Yes we need people to serve in the military, but if you don’t have the will power to fight for an opportunity to stay in America by exceeding in the classroom, then why are you going to be an asset to our armed forces? Unless the student did excel in the classroom and wanted to serve our country as an asset to this country, he or she should not have the right to stay and represent America.
Oppositions to my opinion will argue everyone deserves a fair chance to excel, but if everybody deserves a fair chance then don’t they need to come here fairly, like thousands of people do every year. I understand that it might take a while, but it is your fault for not realizing what kind of an opportunities America has until now. Also, the armed forces are for people who want to risk their life and show dedication to their country, not for people who choose not to use the opportunities given to them to the fullest. Americans have already decided any child should receive a free public education, but students who don’t utilize the opportunity to the max should not have the right to stay."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"I do not believe that congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. I believe this because it would cost a lot of money, it would be unfair to American citizens, and it would take away from immigrants who come to this country legally.
The DREAM act provides illegal immigrants the opportunity to get money to go to college or go to the armed forces. Citizens of the United States would not have the same opportunity that the DREAM act would enable for illegal immigrants, and yet American citizens would be paying for it.
Education is not a “fundamental right” for American citizens, so it should not be a right for illegal immigrants. The DREAM act would provide illegal immigrants the opportunity to further their education, and would be paid for with American tax dollars. This is unfair to American citizens, because we would not get the same benefits. Legal American citizens do not get money just because they want to go to college. I do not believe that illegal immigrants should be rewarded for doing something illegal.
Many people would argue that most young illegal immigrants do no choose to come here, and it is their parents who make the decisions for them. This may be true, but they are still illegal. I believe that if a person truly wants to succeed in this country, then they will try their best to become legal citizens of the United States. That is why I believe that undocumented high school students should not have the opportunity to gain resident status if they qualify for college or the armed forces."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"When it comes to immigration in America, many people think about a dream and a goal. People come to America to have a better life, have economic opportunities, and start something positive for their children. This being said, it is all well and good if the person is legal or has applied for citizenship. When it comes to illegal aliens who have not applied for citizenship, that becomes an issue when you want to use services that Americans pay for through taxes and other fees. Being citizen grants you the rights to use the public education system, rights of the constitution and other freedoms that this great country offers. Freedom comes with a small price for all of the benefits that this country has to offer.
Public education is based on funding. A major amount of this funding comes from tax dollars that only citizens pay. Since these immigrants do not pay taxes, they should not reap the benefits. In addition to the money, we don’t have space in the schools for more people. This is also a funding issue, but many people do not think of it like that. Class sizes should be kept down, not go higher and higher. The more people in the class, the less attention each student gets. If the family wants to have a great life in a great country, they need to obey the laws and be full citizens. It’s about time America starts taking a stand on immigration."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"I agree with the DREAM Act and all that it entails. Undocumented aliens should have the right to have an opportunity to have a better life for themselves and their family. They can receive an education until going off to college or into the military, but once they arrive to that point, their right to an education gets taken away. Many illegal immigrants worked hard to get to where they are today to be denied the opportunity to further their education that can further their future. If the aliens are in this country for 5 years and are going to try to make something of them, why not help them out? Yes, they aren’t citizens of the United States, but they can be great attributions to this country and will most likely be hard workers.
Many of the younger illegal immigrants did not make the decision of coming here to America, but they were brought here with their families at a very young age because their parents or guardians wanted them to have a better life and were determined to let them have every opportunity they can receive. America is supposed to be the place of opportunities and chances, so why can’t they receive the chance to become someone amazing to this country; why should they be shut out of this country and all of the opportunities it brings?
Once the DREAM Act would be passed, there would be more competition, which opponents see as a negative, but competition is what drives Americans. There is always competition anywhere you go, in the work force and in receiving state money as scholarships to college. The illegal persons can later attain legal status in the United States and then they’d be able to receive funding for school or work in the military, so what’s the problem if they’re skipping a step? They will only be one step closer to becoming an attribute to this country if the DREAM Act was enacted in America.
The United States is known as a country of immigrants. These aliens should have the opportunity to make something of their lives, and receive funding or permission to further their lives in their new country. Once this Act was passed, the illegal, but yet responsible immigrants, would have the chance to become legal. Our country needs more hard working persons that will help our country in war or ones that will be somewhat influential by making their life better and fuller. Education is the most important investment a government can provide, so why not give it to the people that have overcome many obstacles to get to where they are today?"
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"The “Developmental, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2009” is “intended to provide undocumented high school students who wish to attend college or serve in the armed forces a legal opportunity to pursue and get financial help for these goals, as well as an opportunity to attain legal status.” To qualify, students must have a clean record, entered the United States prior to turning 16, reside in the country for a minimum of five years, and have a high school diploma or something equivalent.
I believe that Congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces because an alien is surely a ‘person’ regardless if they are legal or illegal. At the United Nations General Assembly, the members created “The Convention on the Rights of the Child” which includes article 28 which states that signatories should “recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity…” Education for children should not be based on their legal status and is an “important international standard.” Also, according to the Equal Protection Clause, no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By providing hard-working undocumented students financial assistance, the government can prevent young people from staying in the margins of society and encourage them to be full participants in democratic life. If these students are given this wonderful opportunity, they will continue to strive for excellence in school since they know it is hard for immigrants to get financial aid. It is an incentive to take the path towards being a responsible, contributing, law-abiding citizen in society. This DREAM Act policy sends out a positive message and shows the humanity for the United States. Opponents of this believe that this act comes at the expense of students who are citizens because it will cause direct competition with illegal aliens. Although I do believe that it will make opportunities more competitive, it will also encourage students who are citizens to work harder. I believe that many people in America take too many privileges for granted because it is easy to attain and everything is convenient for them. By increasing competition, it might reinstate the idea that one must work hard in order to achieve their goals.
I strongly agree with the DREAM Act because many students are limited to their capabilities and full potential since they cannot afford to pay for college. I strongly disagree in limiting people to greater opportunities in life because it leaves a sense of regret and worthlessness in the future. By putting the DREAM Act in to play, we can create a stronger labor force, more active political life, and level the playing field by removing barriers that prevent students from reaching their full potential."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"I believe unauthorized aliens should receive citizenship if they choose to go to college or the armed forces. Most people feel immigrants who come here illegally should go back to where they came from, but I believe they are here for more of an idea to become someone and fulfill their dreams. In our country everyone deserves an opportunity to change whether their entry to the country was legal or not. Some people migrate to commit crimes or become threatening to people in the country, but many come for that opportunity of a new start and to become successful. Immigrants come with a purpose whether it is serving our country in the armed forces or going to college to be the person they always dreamed of. An immigrant could be that one person who could make a huge discovery like finding a cure for cancer. Those people who have a dream and believe this country can give them one should be rewarded as citizens because they will not only help themselves, but help everyone else because they can contribute to the society in many other ways. With a dedicated mind, immigrants will not only help their peers, but become a part of the country if they become a citizen."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"The DREAM Act is a policy that was presented to Congress to help undocumented college students become legal. The policy states that if a person is going through college for the army they will be authorized as legal citizens.
I personally think that this is a good idea. Many legal children are brought into the country without a choice. They deserve the right to have a good life and face responsibilities that other citizens face. Everyone comes here to earn rights, freedoms, and get away from the problems they have in their home country. Even though their parents had to come here illegally, every young adult that commits to going to college is not here to cause problems to our country.
The opposing side also has many arguments to consider. They feel it is not right to pay taxes for illegal immigrants to be able to take scholarships and financial aid away from committed citizens. They also disagree that they are illegal in the beginning and do not deserve a chance to stay in the country.
I strongly feel there is not a reason a person cannot come into the country legally. Even though their parents are the ones that made the choice to come here illegally, every person around the world deserves a right for their own future and rights."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"Should Congress provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if the qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces? Although it is true that the DREAM Act may promote a surge of illegal immigrants looking for a free opportunity, is it not also wrong to deny a hardworking student a chance to escape a future of poverty? Both sides have rational arguments that are not easily disproven. I find that some changes to the DREAM Act may be the better solution than simply going against it.
Foremost, the Supreme Court has already ruled in Plyler v. Doe that the Fourteenth Amendment protects any person under the Constitution’s jurisdiction, at least through high school. The DREAM Act would create a positive output of productive individuals for society. Also education is more important than ever in America. My mother had to take online classes for the last four years to gain a bachelor’s degree for a job she’s already qualified for because the university would have to take someone with at least a bachelor’s degree automatically. If my mother had to go back to school for a job she could do mindlessly, I would not want to subject someone of the same intellect to a lesser job.
At the same time, President Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act restricting illegal immigrant students from receiving in-state tuition to attend state universities and financial aid. It is also true that the DREAM Act would mock the immigrants who came legally, open even more competition, and take away more money from American citizens. Even worse, the DREAM Act is a reward for breaking the law.
So I propose some changes to the DREAM Act. The qualifications to obtain the financial aid seem far too easy. If the DREAM Act is suppose to produce good future citizens, the students should prove it with a GPA requirement. Like many college scholarships, the tuition should only be given if the student maintains a certain GPA. Also full tuition does not seem a fair amount since a small percentage of students receive full tuition to begin with. Students wishing to join the army should go through something similar to the Constitution test to prove they are actually patriotic among the other tests the army puts recruits through. Granted not all of the suggestions are full proof, but it is a step forward from the proposed DREAM Act qualifications."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose Lakes Community High School
"The growing problem with immigration is an issue that needs to be resolved, otherwise more issues in reagards to dealing with foreigners will arise. The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act is an attempt at fixing part of this dilemma, but it is not the best cure. It is only a temporary fix that applies to a select group of people who have been here a limited number of years. This does not help repair the broken immigration system that the country has. Immigrants will still see the difficulty in coming into the country and will continue to enter. There additionally is another part to the Dream Act that is a little fuzzy: the parents. The act states that any persons mentioned by anyone who applies for legalization under the Dream Act are not subject to deportation. This means that the United States is basically turning a blind eye to the parents and letting them stay here illegally. Additionally, the Dream Act does not grasp reality. Most persons who apply for the Dream Act come from poor families, making it difficult to pay for college. Because of this, they may not be able to last to graduation. Some may be so desperate to become legal that they will enroll in the military. The undocumented students might see it as their only option and put their life on the line for the ability to become a citizen. Overall, the Dream Act is not practical. A solid foundation for the immigration system needs to be established and the Dream Act is only a miniscule piece to the solution."
|
04/09/2010 Support Lakes Community High School
"Congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. Undocumented children did not choose to enter the country illegally and may be unfamiliar with the culture and the language of the country in which they were born; therefore, an opportunity should be provided for such children to reach their full potential in the United States.
The DREAM Act does not provide undocumented students with any special privileges, nor does it provide the opportunity to attend college to students who are not ready academically. Talented students who seek to become responsible, contributing members of society should be provided with an education and an opportunity to achieve legal status. As it is unrealistic to expect that every non-citizen will be deported from the country, young people living in the United States, regardless of their legal status, should be allowed to become full participants in American society."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"Yes, I believe that Congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent residence if they qualify for college or serve in the military.
The best way that this goal might be achieved would be through the proposed DREAM act. The official goal of this nationwide proposal would allow illegal immigrant students the ability to secure financial assistance from the state and federal government to put towards the use of college. In addition to, if illegal immigrants were enrolled in college or serving in the military they would hence be able to attain legal residence in the U.S. However, the DREAM Act would contain restrictions like having no past criminal records, graduating from a secondary school, and must have lived in the U.S. before the age of 16 for a minimum of 5 years. The DREAM Act as a whole seems to be the only proposal in Washington that clearly balances this significant issue for the best interests of the citizen and the undocumented masses. With over 12 million illegal immigrants living, and many more moving into, the states it would be implausible to deport all of these peoples. This proposed act would have the capability to take the children of these undocumented immigrants and give them the equal opportunity for higher education and finally integrate them into the American Society where they could contribute to communities countrywide.
Through proposals such as the DREAM Act, issues like these could attain a productive and efficient solution over the dilemma on illegal immigrant students and their higher education. On the other hand, opponents to proposals like this would argue that this act would first of all use the taxes of civilians and legal immigrants to aid non-citizens. However, a dissection of this argument reveals that although taxpayer money would be collected by the government and part of that money would go into the hands of undocumented students, other solutions like building bigger border walls and investing large funds to deport illegal aliens would just as well use taxpayer money. Opponents also dispute that the DREAM Act would amplify the pool of applicants to colleges and would simultaneously decrease opportunities for civilian students. This might be the initial scenario, but with a growing number of students there would be a greater need for more colleges that in turn could provide more benefits for the greater majority of students in America. Even though education is not an established right, education is becoming viewed as a basic need for all people in America. An unequal opportunity to attend college and thus and an unequal education and opportunity in life completely undermines the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the American ideal of equality."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"In order for the United States to move on it must get past one of its biggest obstacles “Immigration”. Immigration cannot be fixed over night. So the government must take small steps in order to fix this problem. A small action but effective is the Dream Act.
The Dream Act was introduced by Senator Richard Durbin and Richard Lugar. The basis of the Dream Act is relief and education for alien minors. This act would give high school students a chance to keep pursuing an education. The Dream Act wont be given to all only those who meet the requirements which are: no criminal record, must have been living in the U.S since the age of 16, has lived in the country for 5 years and have graduated from their high school. The Act has yet not been enacted, but one must see that this act is a benefit to the country.
The Dream Act should be seen as a benefit to the country. If this act is acted it would help the country advance because it would be helping out those with the brain power to put it to good use. It would also help the alien community because they would be informed about the rules and ways to receive citizen ship the right way. Immigration is a huge problem in the United States but the dream act would help immigrants and the nation to advance and work together."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"I do not think the DREAM act should go into effect because it is saying ok for all of the illegal immigrants to come into America, and take what every citizen, and legal immigrant has worked for. Kit Bond a Senator in Missouri states, “While I support immigration regulation through a legal framework, I do not support rewarding those who broke the law to get here.” It shows how lenient the system could be, and many people would take advantage of it, and allowing more problems to come up. Putting the DREAM act into effect would put out the word that America does not care who comes here. That shows that anyone can get benefits here; that is like saying a man who murdered someone can get away with a slap on the hand.
If the government says yes to the DREAM act we would probably go higher into debt, and the American citizens do not have a good chance to go to college because it is harder to get in with more people applying. It is not fair to the ones who have been citizens, lived here all there life and have followed the system, and can not get into college or get a loan because illegal immigrants get it first. Not only would it make it harder to get into college it would also take away more jobs which is already hard enough to find in this economy, so allowing illegal immigrants to come into America take the jobs that we need is unfair to everyone who has lived here since they were born, or came here legally. Letting the DREAM act go into play would be rewarding to all of the illegal immigrants. All of the undocumented children and adults should be able to get it the legal way like everyone of the new generation, past relatives have been able to come here legally so why can’t everyone else? If their parents came here illegally they should be able to get the citizenship just like everyone else has. If they can come here with no problem they should pass the test to get the documentation.
There is Rules behind the DREAM act, but who is to say they actually would finish school up to high school? If they have to be here before 16, but graduate on time and live here for five years that does not make sense because if someone came over at 15 they would be 20 years old when you graduate high school, and be able to go to college. If they can not come over when they first start school as a five year old they should not come at all, that is taking away money to pay for teachers who know a different language. If they were older and came here to the United States, teachers would have to teach the students the same thing that every child knows, so they would not be so far behind. It would be hard to talk to their parents over the phone about grades if their child is in an English speaking teachers class because their parents probably would not be able to understand what they are saying. The DREAM act has many flaws and should not go into effect."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"A proper education is essential for a successful lifestyle. I believe that no one should be denied this opportunity, even if they are undocumented. Our nation states that all men are created equal. If this is the case no one should be denied the right to do, or obtain, another thing that is accessed by others.
In the United States, undocumented students are denied the chance to further their education after high school. This is unjust because the child wishes to enhance their education. If they are not committing wrongful acts they should be allowed the chance to become educated and help our country. Many illegal immigrants were brought to this nation against their will as children by their parents. It is wrong to punish them for an action that they had no say in. Our country should feel honored to have many people wishing to come to this country to have an opportunity in life, and a chance at being successful. Many times people leave their countries because they are not worthy of providing their families with the essentials that they need. American citizens should be proud to have an amazing country that many refer to as “The Land of Opportunity”. This country was formed by people of different nationalities and it is wrong to deny people of different countries the chance to grow intellectually.
Our country should put the Dream Act into action so it can allow undocumented students the chance to serve their country-whether it is by serving the country in the armed forces or attending college to help in numerous ways. A question that may arise can be “What if enacting the Dream Act causes a greater migration of people into the United States?” Many people see this as a bad thing, but in reality it is not. These people come to this country to work and to become part of our society. This will benefit our economy. If our country states that all men are created equally, then we should begin to show it by giving people the rights that they deserve."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose West Leyden High School
"The DREAM Act policy is designed to help illegal immigrants graduating high school to get financial aid and go to college or serve in the military. In addition to this illegal immigrants can also attain a legal status. I am 100% against the DREAM Act. It has yet to be enacted and I’m hoping it stays that way for many different reasons.
The idea is absolutely ridiculous. If we enable the act it is basically putting a welcome sign to illegal immigrants and illegal activity. If we welcome immigrants with an excuse to get a free education people who are not going to get an education will start to come and cheat the system. Even if someone comes here with the intent to go to high school or college there is no guarantee to whether or not they will pursue what they say. Who is to say that they will even finish high school? If someone wants to go to college and do something for themselves that badly then maybe they should go get their documentation to actually become legal.
Another reason why I am completely against the DREAM Act is because the students who are actually supposed to be here will have more competition. If an immigrant moves here and actually goes on to get a college education there is less of a chance for a legal citizen to go and pursue their aspirations. In the article it states, “The result punishes citizens and mocks legal immigrants who have ‘played by the rules.’” If you can’t attempt to pass a citizenship test then you shouldn’t be allowed to attempt to take your college entrance exam.
The last main reason why I am against the DREAM Act is because of the money that will have to be put behind it. We are in a bad financial situation as it is and we don’t need more money to go to a pointless cause. We need to start paying off some of the debt that we owe other countries and use our money productively.
I couldn’t agree more when Richard Lamm says, “Amnesty is a big billboard, a flashing billboard, to the rest of the world that we don’t really mean our immigration law.” Wanting a college education isn’t an excuse to be here illegally."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"I believe that undocumented high school students should have the opportunity to gain residence if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. There are many types of immigrants. Some are looking for work, and others are running away from war or civil persecution. Also, some immigrants just want to have the same freedoms and opportunities that Americans have. Many of these people come to the United States illegally because the process to become a citizen takes too long. This process is complicated, expensive, and has no guarantee that you will become a citizen.
In Plyler v. Doe the court decided that immigrants can attend public schools. In Texas there was a law that kept money from the schools who had children who were not “legally admitted”, and also rejecting those students from even getting enrolled into the school. People thought that this was unfair and took it to court. They decided that because of the fourteenth amendment, which says that any person within the jurisdiction must be given the equal rights and opportunities, that immigrants have the right to get a public education up to high school.
Most of these students were brought here by their parents, so they did not have any say in the matter. They were brought here when they were little kids and did not know that they were breaking any laws. Undocumented students usually attend U.S. schools for the majority of their lives. These young adults have worked really hard in school to make something out of themselves, but because they are not residents, they cannot reach their dreams. These people are robbed of going to college and making a name for themselves. As far as I am concerned they are already legal residents because they have already lived in this country and gone through the school systems.
Therefore, I believe that if the child meets the requirements, they should become a legal resident. The qualifications include: must have entered the United States before they were 16, they cannot have a criminal record, lived in the country for at least five years, and have to graduate from their high school. The Dream Act really shows that with hard work and determination you can make it. This is another example of the American dream where a person with nothing can make something of themselves."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"The united state is commonly described as a nation of immigrants. It was backed up on March 2008. On March 2008 an estimate of 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants where living in the United States. People from all over the world come to the United States for many reasons some are seeking work and some are attracted to the freedoms or comforts in another land. so, the dream act was proposed in 2004, this policy is intended to provide undocumented students who wish to attend college or serve in the armed forces a legal opportunity to pursue and get financial help for the their goals, as well as an opportunity to attain legal statues. They are qualification for any candidate wanting to be a part of the dream act. The qualifications are: you may not have a criminal record; have entered the United States before they were 16; lived in the country for at least five years; and have graduated from high school or its equivalent.
The dream act is both wise and fair; undocumented children did not decide to enter the country by themselves their parents made that decision, but they have embraced the American lifestyle. Also, if the students that do get a chance to participate in the dream act are good students, they have to fit the qualifications. The students that do qualify are on a perfect pathway to making our country a better place. If we give undocumented students, who want to either go to a university or serve in the armed forces get all that applies to the dream act, we will be allowing these students to make something of their lives. They will also be contributing to our country, and making our country into a better more advanced place.
Some opponents argue that the cost of providing a college education to undocumented youth will come at the expense of students who are citizens. Yes, this might be true, but the students who are undocumented and are getting the money from scholarships or loans are in every way entitled to obtain them, and if they have won over the citizens it is because they truly deserve it; it has nothing to do with their legal statues. Enabling the dream act would be a smart decision because when the dream act is in place many intelligent, good people will have the chance to become something great, and contribute to their country. The idea of the dream act is wonderful for undocumented students and as well as the United States of America."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"Congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. The “Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2004/2009 was first introduced to congress in 2004 and was supported by Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. It’s wise and fair to provide talented students who have clearly respected the American society to take a new path towards being a responsible, participator, law-abiding member of the United States of America.
The best way to learn and become a great citizen to the U.S. is to go to school. If immigrants are able to receive public education and receive a legal status they are more likely to become great participants in democratic life. I believe that public education is a human right because not all immigrants make their own decisions of coming to the U.S. for a better life. If immigrants are great outstanding, respectful, law-abiding students they deserve a chance of being the first, second, or third to be successful in their families.
If they pass this law they would allow immigrants to enter jobs and the political life of our country. Equality should be the number one priority in the United States. We will have more educated students for labor that need workers right now. Opponents say that it’s wrong because this and other programs for unauthorized immigrants lead to illegal behavior. They say that this issue will encourage more families to enter the country illegally so they can benefit from it. Also, that providing immigrants this chance of going to college will come at the expense of students who are citizens. They think the issue will lead to competition with immigrants and citizens in freshmen classes at state colleges and universities.
Children who came to the U.S. with their parents at a young age shouldn’t be held responsible for the decision to enter the country illegally. Everyone should deserve a chance no matter what it takes to accomplish. If immigrants are provided with a legal status they will be able to work and help their families that don’t live in the country instead of them coming in illegally. If they are granted legal status there wouldn’t be any illegal behavior because they know the consequences of maybe losing their legal status.
Immigrants will work hard to get into colleges and it’s not up to them who the colleges and universities choose between an immigrant and a citizen. The hard work should determine who deserves the chance and who doesn’t. Therefore, Congress should enact a law that allows immigrants to gain a legal status and the opportunity to go to college and join the armed forces."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"The DREAM ACT has been a controversial issue in the U.S, and I believe it should be passed. The DREAM ACT policy is about allowing undocumented high school students to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to serve in the army or to further their education by going to college. The goal of this policy is to allow potential students to attend college to contribute in the American society in a positive manner. This policy would help the United States in several ways because undocumented children that have potential will go to college and make something of themselves. They will help contribute in the political and democratic part of the U.S. The ones who support and also introduced this ACT are; Senator Rich Durbin (D) of Illinois, Senator Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) of California also supports this idea. Phyllis Schlafly from Eagle Forum opposes this idea. There are several benefits of this policy in which aid the United States in many ways. First of all, these students would actually want to get an education to better themselves, therefore they would be devoted to what they’re doing. Also, hiring people that do their job efficiently would result in a promising and successful future for America. In addition, they would be dedicated to their job for the reason being that they want to keep their job. This policy would achieve its goal efficiently although there would be a minor cost due to an increase in students attending college. Since the expense of college is fully on the student, they would ask for financial aid, which comes from the taxpayers. This should not be such a big problem because illegal people also pay taxes one way or another. This would protect people and families from having a hopeless and unbright future and it also insures people’s liberties because humans have the right to an education and it cannot be denied in any way. The only disadvantages that this would cause is competition within the students to get into college, but this would also have a positive impact on society because only the best of the best will be getting an education, therefore meaning a more successful future for the U.S. As there are good things that this policy can have there is also some bad. This would encourage other families to migrate to America and could eventually cause over population. Further more, this would also cause for less jobs to be available for others. As known, one of the alternatives is to do nothing, but that is not always a good way to go. Another obvious alternative is to try to pass this policy in order to better America. Either way I believe this policy should be passed. America would get better economically and more people would have a brighter future."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"In America, there are millions of people who immigrate to this country to try and have a better life. Most families bring their children when they’re younger so their children don’t have a choice in where they go. These children work hard in school and do good things and hope to get into a good college, but they can’t, because they are undocumented students, who unfortunately, came to this country illegally. In 2009, government proposed what is called the D.R.E.A.M. Act to try and help those undocumented students become citizens so they can attend school, and if they need it, receive financial relief for college as well. In order to actually be able to take advantage of the D.R.E.A.M. Act, you have to meet the requirements set forth by the government. To be able to take advantage of the D.R.E.A.M. Act, you would have to have entered the United States before you were 16, lived in the United States for at least five years, and graduated from high school. You must not have a criminal record as one of the requirements. There are many people who understand and support the act, such as Dick Durbin, senator of Illinois, and Nora Preciado, an immigration lawyer. A good, reasonable argument was made by Dick Durbin, in a quote of his, which states, “Our immigration laws prevent thousands of young people from fully contributing to our nation’s future. These young people lived in this country for most of their lives; it is the only home they know. They are American in every sense except their technical legal status.” This quote is very true. The children who are here and are undocumented worked hard to try to get an education and contributed to the community throughout their life. Also, opponents don’t know the circumstances in which the immigrants came to the country. Many of them come here to escape negative situations in their original country. Immigrants didn’t come here to take away people’s scholarships; they just want an equal chance at a good life."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"Congress must provide undocumented students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if the undocumented student qualifies to attend college or if they serve in the armed forces. Such a policy is necessary due to the educational right of every individual in this country. This would improve student personal standards for all students: documented and undocumented.
Education is a basic right of every American child. Many undocumented individuals can still be considered “American” if they desire it. In 1989 the United Nations General Assembly adopted education as one of the rights for children around the world. This relates to congress enacting the DREAM Act because this policy could give many unauthorized citizens a chance to have a future. Many talents within undocumented students go unnoticed because these students do not have the opportunity to express their talents in the classroom. If the DREAM Act or a similar act was enacted it would provide a strong basis as well as encouragement for students to work harder and proceed with secondary education.
An act like the DREAM Act would open the door to the college gateway for more students. This would create competitiveness among all students that would lead to increased educational standards in the U.S. This is better for the nation because all students would have to try harder in school to stay in the “competition”. Some students would go to school to become citizens and eventually have careers. On the other hand, documented students woul also have to work because they would know that they have more people to compete with to enter colleges. This would lead to improved overall educational standards around the nation due to the newly potential admitted undocumented students.
Congress must give undocumented students a chance in the educational world by giving them a chance at residency status. This backs up the idea of the United States being a place where the American dream still exists. Also the country would benefit by having the best qualified students attending its schools. The United States is a country built by immigrants and needs to open the educational gateway to immigrants once again to open the way for the founders of the future."
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"The Dream Act is a program for illegal immigrants that are able to become permanent citizens if they attend college or serve in the military. I think congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they have qualified to attend college or serve in the military. There are parents out there in the world that have moved to the United States to have a better life for their children. Many of these children are undocumented which may cause problems in the future for them. I believe that each child deserves of future even if they parents are illegal. Why? Because not allowing them to gain permanent resident is like punishing them for what their parents did. I believe that these students should be allowed to gain permanent resident because if they are willing to go to college and serve in the military than they should be rewarded. I also believe that if these students didn’t think being a resident because if they wouldn’t be wasting their time reaching for a goal. The United States has many opportunities for people, which is the number one reason why people choose to come here. Everyday there are many students trying their hardest to do good in school. They want an education, they want a brighter future, and they want to be somebody. Everyday there are students that join the military serve in the country, even if isn’t their own country. They try to make America a better place even if it’s not their “home”. But to them it is. Everyone deserves a chance to succeed and being an immigrant should not be the burrier between that."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"I believe that we should give undocumented people the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to college or to serve in the armed forces because it gives these people a chance to learn and to be of use to this country. Also I believe that if they have worked hard enough through out their school years to become eligible to go to college and to go to the armed forces that they would work harder to get their resident status. We should give these people the chance to work toward their residency instead of just handing it to them as some people think, this way they will earn their residency.
Of the 11.9 unauthorized migrant people in the United States 1.5 million of those are children under the age of 18. The way I view it is if all those children go with out ever becoming legal residents then both parties lose. The children will not be able to vote or do anything that a legal resident could and our country would lose tax money. If a way for these people to gain residency is to go to college or to serve in the armed forces then it is something that I am sure they would take advantage of to better themselves. Some say that the DREAM act is a smart policy because we can not expect to deport every unauthorized non-citizen so we must educate all the children so that they will make a stronger future for America.
All in all I do believe that we should allow people to gain residency if they qualify to go to college or the armed forces because it is of benefit to both parties. The children will get educated and will be able to move their lives forward to become someone and the country will get the benefit of more educated children and they will get more tax money."
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"Our immigration system is a broken one that needs to be fixed. We need reform that provides hardworking people of good character with a real path towards citizenship” (Joe Baca). Even though undocumented students are breaking the law by being illegal they still can contribute to make America better. Students cannot have residency if they are illegal. So now the students can’t continue by becoming educated. Residency won’t be given to random people, but only those who work for it.
Students who are undocumented should receive residential status because it is usually not their fault that they are undocumented. The parents are the ones who have brought their children to America illegally. The child, now student, had no authority over this and didn’t know what was happening at the time, but now the student does and they can’t continue their education. The students want to further their education, but because they are undocumented they can’t. It is not fair to hold this against them because they have no control over it.
These students have lived in America most of their life and don’t know their home country. Most of them haven’t been to their foreign country since they were born, so it is not fair to send the students back to a country that they haven’t been to and are not familiar with. Thus, the students are actually Americans because they have lived here all their lives.
Also, students should gain student residency because it can only benefit the country. The students want to pursue his or her education, which will help the country in the future. The pursuit of their education will later create more job opportunities. Also, the undocumented students provide the military with more applicants. In addition, the students who will gain residency will be well rounded people. The students will have to put in effort to go through the process and the obstacles of receiving residency. If they are willing to put in the effort, they should be rewarded.
However, people may oppose this idea because it isn’t fair for undocumented people to gain citizenship if they don’t try the right way, but if they serve our country in some way, then they are only contributing to America. People can oppose this idea, but when polled seven out of twelve voters voted yes for this idea. This shows that more than half of the people agree on this.
In summary, students should be allowed to experience the dream act. These students didn’t choose to be illegal, they have lived here and it is their only home, and it isn’t fair to send them back to a foreign country they don’t know. Finally, the students will be going through a process to receive residential status and be involved in positive activities, which shows they are committed and willing to go through what it takes to receive residency."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"In March 2008, an estimated 11.9 million unauthorized migrant persons were living in the United States. Of these, 1.5 million were under 18 years old. Up to 600,000 of these are students, and 65,000 these students are among the 2.8 million students that graduate each year. Personally, I think that congress should give undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college, or sign up to serve in the armed forces.
If a migrant student works hard and is able to qualify for college, then I think they should have the same rights as every other citizen. Immigrants who qualify to attend college should also be allowed permanent resident status because if they are smart enough to qualify to attend college, then it will only benefit our county by having them here.
The same goes for immigrants who are willing to serve in our armed forces. If they are willing to fight for this country then I believe that they should be granted permanent resident status. To join the armed forces shows enough, it shows that they have enough love for the United States that they are willing to fight for the county. Recently, Senator Richard Durbin and Senator Richard Lugar introduced the DREAM Act, which was intended to help undocumented high school students.
The purpose of the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act, also called the DREAM Act, is to help those individuals who meet certain requirements, have an opportunity to enlist in the military or go to college and have a path to citizenship which they otherwise would not have without this legislation. Supporters of the DREAM Act believe it is vital not only to the people who would benefit from it, but also the United States as a whole. It would give an opportunity to undocumented immigrant students who have been living in the U.S. since they were young, a chance to contribute back to the country that has given so much to them and a chance to utilize their hard earned education and talents.
All in all, I want the best for my country, so allowing immigrants who qualify for college and immigrants who are willing to join the armed forces will just benefit the United States."
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"Undocumented high school students should gain the opportunity to permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. Congress should support the idea because it is taken to our advantage if they participate in activities that we provide. One example is with attending college. If the undocumented students have a high grade point average and attend one of our colleges, they can give the college a good reputation because they have intelligent students attending their school. Another example is with the armed forces. Serving our country is another way of helping us against our enemies. If Congress allowed undocumented high school students to enroll in the armed forces, then they are pretty much giving us extra help and support.
Undocumented immigrant students have been going to school in America. They could be working just as hard as anyone else. Education is important to having a good living, and without it, studies show that job opportunities aren’t as easy. Also, people who are less educated are proven to make a lower salary compared to those who attended college. So, we can’t take away the future of one high school undocumented student, because that effects their life. The only difference between undocumented students and U.S. citizen students is that they don’t have official documentation in the United States of America at all. If Congress were to allow the idea, it could benefit our colleges in the U.S. One example, would be giving us a good reputation. Undocumented students can give our colleges a good reputation because by them attending one of our schools, that can convince other students from other countries to want to attend college here, which helps us. Also, letting undocumented students gain legal status would help them if they have a high intelligence and wish to attend a good college in the U.S. By not letting all of the students attend college that’s basically holding them back from making opportunities for a better future. This could force unregistered students to go down a path of not doing anything at all to benefit our country because they can’t go to college or join the army.
By giving illegal immigrants proper training, they can be just as helpful in the army as any U.S. citizen. If an unregistered immigrant has the dedication to our country and is willing to sacrifice their lives for us then they should get legal status and recognition because they show dedication and pride to our country. Anyone who is willing to fight for our country shows that they are patriotic. Although some would disagree with this idea because they broke one of our laws to get here in the first place, they made the effort and are willing to take their lives to be in the U.S. or to support us. To conclude, giving unregistered students legal status would benefit our country by giving us more people for the army and by them going to college we can have more educated people helping our country."
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"Maria Gutierrez
Period 3
Social Security: Pass to Success
Congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. I strongly agree with the DREAM act, which would give the gifted youth hope and opportunity to better the future of all of America. I believe that a good citizen should participate with anything possible to better America, such as serving in the armed forces, or being an excellent student. I understand that many current citizens that would like to attend college would not want competition. There are many people who do not try, including citizens. I am well aware of many citizens that fail classes, and do not care about their education. If someone really wants to go to college, they won’t worry about who’s going, just if they can get in. It is extremely unfair for America to accept a student with a GPA of 2.5 rather than a gifted international alien with a GPA of 4.0. There are currently scholarships that one could apply for, but how would you feel if you met all of the requirements and expectations except for the citizenship part? Many students do not have a choice whether to be in the United States or not, they have been brought here by their family for a better future, isn’t that what everyone wants? Deporting them will only shut down everything that they already have. Many people living in America now have been adapted to everything here; they also bring new things that many Americans love. In Illinois, we celebrate Pulaski day because of the help that he gave to the American soldiers. He was born in Poland, yet we still recognize his contributions and we would not have that day off if it wasn’t for him. America was known as the Melting pot because of the different cultures, we are thankful for being similar, but other people from all around the world just spice it up and help out by contributing their skills and knowledge. People are worried that immigrants are taking over the jobs instead of citizens, but most citizens are making more money since they are able to attend many universities, rather than working at lower end jobs that are available for the immigrants or lazy citizens. Having expectations for immigrants to qualify for resident status makes it fair. If one really wants to gain citizenship, of course they will work hard for it. Everyone works for what they want, don’t we? “Our immigration laws prevent thousands of young people from fully contributing to our nation’s future. These young people have lived in this country for most of their lives. It is the only home they know. The yare American in every sense except their technical legal status.”- Dick Durbin, Senator (D-Illinois). We should not take away the hope of opportunities, which America is all about, opportunities."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"The DREAM Act introduced into Congress by Senator Durbin (D) of Illinois, Senator Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana, and others. This policy was first introduced in 2004, the policy was intended to provide undocumented minors to a free education paid by the government to students who wish to attend a college or serve in the armed forces. The DREAM ACT also gave them the opportunity to attain legal status. I support the DREAM Act because education is a human right and everybody should have an opportunity to an education whether documented or undocumented. I believe that some kids that are coming to this country did not have a choice to come, but were brought by their parents for a better education and a better life and i believe that the DREAM Act can help those kids have a better life. If kids who are undocumented got this opportunity to an education, they would take advantage of that because they know that this is their only chance and choice to succeed in life, but kids that live here do not take that opportunity that they have that other people do not. In other words, kids who live here and have the opportunity to an education do not take advantage of that and most end up dropping out of school or some just slack off at school. I bet that other kids around the world would love to take that persons spot or even kids in this country would too. As it says in the Illinois Youth Summit not all undocumented people will be deported, so why not educate those that would remain and help them learn about being a citizen and what their responsibility as a citizen is. Also these kids will have the opportunity to get job where ever fit best because they would have some sort of college degree and that would lower the unemployment rate because more people would have more jobs because they all have some sort of education from college."
|
04/09/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"In 2008, there were about 11.9 million illegal immigrants, and within that 11.9 million, 1.5 are under the age of eighteen. A major problem that is facing the United States is unauthorized people living in our country. For years legislation has tried to take action, and solve this problem of unauthorized migrants in America. Many of the people that are in America were brought from there country at a very young age, and had no choice but to live in America without legal status. Refugees are another case in which people came to America without legal status. Recently, Senator Richard Durbin, Richard Lugar, and many others have created a way in which a student can go to college or the armed forces without legal status; it’s called Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. This act provides those without legal status to pursue an education beyond there high school career. I believe that Congress should provide undocumented high school students with the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces.
I believe that the DREAM Act can be very affective for many reasons. The requirements are very specific and make sure that a person trying to attend college or go into the military are qualified. In a previous case, Plyler v. Doe, an undocumented student is allowed to go to school without legal status. The court said that the fourteenth amendment would protect the student because the laws effect anyone who is subject to the state. Also, “The Convention on the Rights of the Child,” states that a primary education is available and free for all. These are all related because it shows how students without legal status were given the opportunity to get an education in America. Also, I believe that if the DREAM Act was enacted it would give the illegal immigrants the opportunity to finish there education and receive financial help from the government. It also makes America more educated. Another opposing opinion is that allowing undocumented students into college will interfere with citizen’s chances to get into college. Allowing undocumented students into college will make the citizens work harder to get into college. This will make the future of America more educated.
Overall, I believe that congress should provide undocumented high school students with the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. Like in previous cases the fourteenth amendment gives equal protection, and protects anyone subject to the laws of a state. American students receive financial help while going to college, and not allowing illegal immigrants would be against the fourteenth amendment. It would also allow created a better educated for those in America."
|
04/09/2010 Oppose Lakes Community High School
"The Dream Act should not be passed. It is a small band aid over a huge problem. Immigration as a whole needs to be fixed. The Dream Act cannot even be considered until there is a new immigration policy. If it is passed, then what will happen to the next wave of illegal citizens? It will need to be passed over and over again if it is passed now and if nothing else is done about immigration. This will cause more illegal immigration. The United States needs to deal with issues such as anchor babies, which are children that are legal just because they are born in the United States. If the parents are not legal then the children should not be legal. This would eliminate parents that chose to be here illegally just so their babies can be legal. It takes about 18 years on average to become a citizen if you are a Mexican immigrant. This process needs to take less time, so more people will come here legally. However, the process should be more difficult. People should need to tell and prove why they want to be in the United States and how they will help the United States. The United States needs to find a way to deal with illegal immigrants. The Dream Act is not the way to start."
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"Equal Opportunity
I believe that Congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. There are many controversies concerning illegal immigrants, but this is only one. This is called the “Dream Act”, a law that President Barrack Obama is trying to pass. I support this because most of the undocumented students that are here in America came here when they were young and they didn’t have a choice.
First, since most students came here when they were young and didn’t understand anything, they should be able to go to college or serve the armed forces to get citizenship. If anyone is to blame it should be the parents because they made the decision to bring and raise their child here without documentation. As Dick Durban, “Our immigration laws prevent thousands of young people from fully contributing to our nation’s future. These young people have lived in this country for most of their lives. It is the only home they know. They are American in every sense except their technical legal status.” They want to go to college just like everyone else, so we should embrace Durban’s idea and let the kids unlock there potential. If undocumented students want to go serve in the armed forces, they should get citizenship, because they are willing to risk their lives for America.
Additionally, if an undocumented student is smart, they should have an opportunity to further educate themselves. From the words of Nora Preciado, “… There were always reminders that I was not necessarily an American. And it became really apparent late in high school when people are trying to decide what the next step is going to be… And for me, the realization that I couldn’t attend a university was a real shock.” So if this law would pass, smarter and smarter people would be going to college like Nora. We should pass this law so people like Nora can equal opportunity like the other legal citizens.
Although I strongly agree to pass this law, I understand why some may rebel to this idea. The many people who oppose this idea do so because they believe that the illegal immigrants are taking their spots in colleges. Legal citizens believe that by allowing the illegal immigrants to enter colleges, their chances are being limited to be accepted into the college. They believe it is unfair that their opportunity is being cut by an undocumented immigrant.
In conclusion, Congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. If students want to go to college or serve in the armed forces they just want to be like everyone else. They are as much American as someone who is born in America. So basically the students didn’t have a choice when they came to America illegally."
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"The Dream Act is proposing that congress permit undocumented high school students to gain permanent resident status in the United States. In my view I support this act. I support this but I would like to put out there that I want the undocumented students that have been here since a young age to gain residency. Kids that have been here since third grade and up should be able to gain it because those are kids that their parents brought while a young age. They did not come here because they wanted to. They came here because their parents wanted a better life for them. That is in deed everything a parent wants for their child. People out there say that these kids should be treated the same as adults like their parents. I disagree with what they say: although I respect and know where they are coming from, I disagree with them. I would like to tell these people that these kids where brought here by their parents and not willingly. Put yourself in their position. You parents came here illegally and brought you here little and you didn’t have a choice. Wouldn’t you feel like you shouldn’t be held liable for what your parents did? All you did was listening to your parents and did what they told you to do. People say that they should go back to their countries and get visa/legal permission. What they don’t know is that getting a visa isn’t just going to the United States building and saying I want a visa to go study and work in the United Sates. That isn’t the way it works. The people that want to come here from Mexico I know have to show that they have a stable life over there. They won’t let a student come here and study here. Even if you have a stable life over there they still might not let them come here. Even visitors have the same chance than students. You might have to wait years and years to get a visa. Permitted into the United States are less than 375,000 visas. Even though this seems a lot more people want to come here and they are not permitted. Remember this number is based on different countries. As of march 2008 11.9 million unauthorized migrant persons were living in the United Sates. About 65,000 students that graduate per year around the world are undocumented. There are 2.8 million students that graduate each year.” There were always reminders that I was not necessarily an American. And it became really apparent late in high school when people are trying to decide what the next step is going to be…And for me, the realization that I couldn’t attend a university was a real shock.” Quoted by Nora Preciado, immigration lawyer, former undocumented student. This is how most undocumented high school students feel when they are about to graduate. They did well in high school and now they cannot attend school and get a career they love. These students are Americans they just don’t have the legal status to show it. They know how to spell, read and speak English. There life is here in the United States. Why would they want them to go back to thei"
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"“…there were always reminders that I was not necessarily an American. And it became really apparent late in high school when people are trying to decide what the next step is going to be…And for me, the realization that I couldn’t attend a university was a real shock.” (Nora Preciado). Nora Preciado is an immigration lawyer who was a former undocumented student. She faced a lot of pain and hardships when after 12 years of schooling; she was not allowed to move forward.
As of March 2008, an estimated 11.9 million unauthorized migrant persons were living in the United States. Even though their parents and other family members chose to come to America illegally, the children’s entire lives, and friends in their lives are 100% American. They grew up in America and have migrated into America’s society. We strongly believe that congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or if they serve in the armed forces. Because of this act, the students who qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces that are undocumented would gain citizenship.
However, some people believe that giving them citizenship is almost like a reward for their wrong doing. Senator Kit Bond states, “While I support immigration regulated through a legal framework, I do not support rewarding those who broke the law to get here.” That is also a great point, but put yourself in their shoes. Just because their parents chose to come to America illegally doesn’t mean that they should be punished for their PARENTS mistakes. Other thought contradicting this act may be that the illegal students could be taking the places of legal Americans which is truly unfair. But once you take both sides of this act, you begin to feel sympathy for the undocumented students.
According to Senator Dick Durbin, “Our immigration laws prevent thousands of young people from fully contributing to our nation’s future. These young people have lived in this country for most of their lives. It is the only home they know. They are American in every sense except their technical legal status.” We definitely agree with Mr. Durbin’s statement because even some of our present classmates who we have known since preschool are illegal. They do the same things as we do, and work just as hard. It would be heartbreaking if we all get to graduate high school and move on to a University and some of our peers wouldn’t be able to join us.
In retrospect, undocumented students should be allowed to gain residency if they serve in the armed forces or qualify for college because they deserve it. They deserve to be treated as an American because that is truly who they are. Immigrants enrich our communities and country and we definitely owe them some respect. They work just as hard, if not harder, than every documented student in America."
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"Many people may argue with this topic, but the main idea is that this topic focuses on high school students, which is a high chance that they are not the ones responsible for being in the difficult position that they are currently in. This topic is very controversial because it allows undocumented students to gain permanent residency in the United States as long as they go to college or join the armed forces. Our personal stand on this situation is that the undocumented students should be allowed residency because in the long run they are helping the United States. Allowing undocumented students’ permanent residency allows them to help grow the U.S. economy as well as agriculture and military. Allowing them to stay as long as they keep up their grades increases the literacy rate in the U.S. Having more educated individuals in the U.S. will provide many more role models for those who are in need of one Additionally, punishing the high school students for their parent’s mistake is not morally right because most of these students have been in the United States for the majority of their lives. These high school students have grown up in the U.S. and have adapted to the culture here. Sending these undocumented students back to their countries as teens creates more problems for their future because they may not speak fluently in their parents’ language, which will cause misunderstandings of the customs of their original country after living in the U.S. for such a long time. In class discussions and surveys taken throughout East Leyden High School, the overall winning side was to let undocumented high school students have an opportunity at residency. The survey takers mentioned that everyone deserves a fair chance at a better life, and were being unselfish when answering the questions of the survey. Though many will view this topic as such a great idea to help those in need, there are some parts about letting undocumented students gain permanent residency that create an unfair citation for those that have waited the long process to come to the United States legally.
Opponents to this bill would argue that these “illegals” are taking our jobs and places in college. But the reality is that like any other citizen in the U.S, these undocumented residents would have to go through the same application process giving everyone a fare chance at getting the opportunity to do what they want. Also it is not like they are living here for free, they pay the same taxes we do as well have to go through the same consequences that we might have to if we got in trouble. Some may also argue that they won’t be actually committed to serving the U.S. when the illegal’s join the army, but then again, how would anyone know if a person really is loyal to serving their country, legal or illegal?"
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"Congress should pass the DREAM act, allowing unauthorized citizens who qualify to serve the armed forces or enter college a full citizenship. Most students come from parents who illegally enter the U.S., so when they are brought up, they did not have the choice to come here. Over 65,000 undocumented students graduate high school each year, but can’t continue their education because they need a full citizenship. We can’t just shun them from citizenship when they are American in every other aspect.
The students went through their education and contribute to the country; but because they can’t continue their education, they would be very limited in this competitive environment. We can use any new ideas and work force from across as much people who are capable, but we are not tapping into a powerful group of people who can contribute. Only cons to allow citizenship and access to college would be the added competition in college. I don’t believe this is a problem. If Americans can’t compete with the added competition, then this will allow the U.S. to progress at a much faster rate. We should be progressing, not waiting for Americans to catch up.
As a country we need to be able to defend ourselves, being that we recruit people to serve in the armed forces. Undocumented people live in the same country as us, and also serve us. Allowing more people to serve can mean the difference in a time of war. The only con for allowing undocumented people citizenship to join the armed forces would be if the undocumented people have their patriotism in the U.S. If the people live in the U.S. for their whole lives, then their patriotism is set. Yes there is the shadow of terrorism, but if have been able to keep undocumented people from joining the forces, then we should be able to regulate who can join the armed forces."
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"Giving Undocumented Students Citizenship
Should undocumented students be giving citizenship for going to college or joining the armed forces? We believe the undocumented students should get the chance to become citizens. We believe that the undocumented students had no choice in coming to the U.S. Their parents made the decision for them and now have to pay for the choices their parents made for them. If the students were to get citizenship, then they’d only be helping this country.
Why wouldn’t we want people protecting our country in the armed forces? A high school student willing to join the armed forces is a very courageous act to make. And when he or she realizes that they are undocumented, they will be fighting for a country they aren’t even a part of. If they were given the chance to become a citizen to join the army, they would. Some would say that they wouldn’t care about fighting but to join is a big risk. So why take that away from the undocumented students. Again, the student had no choice in coming to the country when he or she was young. So to tell him or her to go back would be like tearing them apart from the only home they know. They want to protect the U.S., the only country that undocumented student has ever been in.
Why should the U.S. not give a big number of young intelligent undocumented students a chance to have a great education and citizenship to one day help U.S. citizens? Undocumented all over the US want to go to college, but when they find out they are undocumented, they can’t go. Well they could but to pay the insanely large amount of money to attend college would be impossible. How would it feel to graduate high school with best ACT score in your class, and have your college dreams shot down because of your illegal status? Many people disagree with the DREAM Act because they think that they will be taking the spots that all American high school students may have at college. If we gave undocumented students the chance for citizenship, it would only help our Country."
|
04/09/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"“Our immigration system is a broken system that needs to be fixed. We need reform that provides hardworking people of good character with a real path towards citizenship” (Joe Baca, Member of Congress) There are thousands of students across the nation that aren’t allowed to get their driver’s license and other items because they are not United States citizens. This issue affects thousands of teenagers that want to be U.S. citizens, but aren’t because they weren’t born here. Good undocumented teenagers want to have an equal opportunity as teenage citizens. I believe that Congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces because they are either fighting for our country, or trying to raise the economy by having a higher education.
First off, undocumented students should gain permanent residency status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces because it’s not fair for high school students to not have equal opportunity to achieve their goals. One of the most important things that the United States has is freedom, and if some people aren’t as equal as others, then the country isn’t following the Constitution. The 14thamendment states the right to citizenship, which everyone equally has. It protects a person's civil and political rights from being denied by any state. In democracies, societies see themselves as sharing equality through citizenship. Without citizenship, undocumented students raise questions for democracies about the difference between the rights of citizens and the rights of all persons in a country (CRFC 33). Those who say no think that they should have to go through the process that everyone else does. But evidence shows,” The process of applying for legal entry into another country is often long, complicated, and expensive, with no guarantee of success” (CRFC 33). To go against this, the parents brought their children over here. It wasn’t the child’s fault that they live in the U.S. If they already go to high school here, they should be able to go to college or join the armed forces here to gain residency. Opponents state an argument saying that the cost providing a college education to undocumented youth will come at the expense of students who are citizens. The “Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act” or DREAM should be able to work because it only qualifies students with no criminal record, living here for at least five years, and graduating from high school. Since it takes so long to become a citizen, it would be easier for undocumented students to use this act, although it will place American citizens in direct competition with undocumented students for spots in universities and state colleges.
All in all, Congress should grant undocumented students the right to gain permanent residency if they follow the guidelines. They deserve equal opportunities and chances too."
|
04/08/2010 Support West Leyden High School
"America has always welcomed immigrants because of their work ethic. I believe immigrants and unauthorized aliens should be able to receive citizenship. As a society we should welcome people who come here to benefit our country. Students seeking to go to college benefit themselves and receive and educations should be supported by our nation and praised for their success. In these cases the issue is a win-win situation because they would be helping our nation through becoming better and more educated people. These are the students who plan to be successful by becoming doctors, teachers etc. Also our country prides itself on its patriotism. This is why America prides itself on the fact that our people choose whether or not we go into the army. When a person, who is illegal, decides to go into the armed forces it shows that they have pride in this country. They should be rewarded for deciding to fight for America. These students can benefit our country because our nation is built on people who volunteer to make us a better country. These immigrants are looking to help our nation and fight for it when they need to. In conclusion I feel that immigrants are beneficial to society therefore I believe they should be rewarded for the positive actions they make to make us a better country. I believe that the Dream Act will provide many opportunities for those who what to help themselves therefore I feel that this should be passed."
|
04/08/2010 Support Corliss High School
"Undocumented students face challenges every day, including whether they should have a chance at receiving an education and gain resident status. These children should have the same opportunity as other individulas in the U.S so that they can become successful and contribute to the country. It would be unrealistic for people in America to think that every undocumented person would be deported back to their country. Instead of trying to get rid of them or denying them certain privileges we should work to help them remain a part of the country. Since some undocumented immigrants and their children have been in the U.S. for decades, and contributed to our economy and society, it would be terribly unfair to not give them same opportunities as other residents. With the Dream Act, the children of undocumented immigrants can have a chance to gain a post secondary education like the rest of the children in the country. Denying undocumented children the right to a post secondary education could have negative effects when they graduate after high school. Since they would only have a high school diploma they can only work jobs that are minimum wage and may have to live on government assistance. Some jobs will not hire them because they are not citizens, so this could cause them to be poor because they are unemployed. Some businesses will even take advantage of them because it is cheap labor. People may think these problems have no effect on them, but they do. Unemployed immigrants could lead to high unemployment rate and increased taxes because if they are getting paid minimum wage then they will need extra help from the government. All of this can be avoided if you give the chance to get an education past high school. People who are against undocumented children receiving a chance at gaining resident status and an education should think how it could affect them and the benefits that will come if they let them have that opportunity. People should welcome immigrants who come here legally and help the ones who are here now to make the country better."
|
04/07/2010 Support Corliss High School
"Congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent residence if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. Those students would only serve the country. They would also help drive our economy into recovery. After all, this is America--the land of opportunity--and we should provide that opportunity. America has always given an opportunity to immigrants for they are the ones who built this country from the beginning. Recently Congress has been debating whether they should provide undocumented students an opportunity to serve in the armed forces and attend college. It is the duty of America to help those in need as it has for hundreds of years. Even though undocumented people may not have been born in America, they still love this country and want to protect it just as much as everyone else. Because they have such a strong love for this country they also want to join our armed forces. In fact 15% of our armed forces are undocumented people who immigrated to this country. During the Civil War when our nation was going through its most difficult time it was undocumented Americans who fought to support the Union and save the country from breaking. In these difficult times that the U.S. is going through it is important to have college educated people who can push the economy forward. America needs new professionals who connect with the general public and know what consumers are interested in purchasing. Only then can our economy flourish once again. Having more educated citizens also means new advances in science, medicine, and technology, which will further advance our country as a whole. Some might argue that the cost of providing a college education to undocumented youth will come at the expense of students who are citizens. However ,the cost would be beneficial in the long run when those students are able to start a career and become taxpayers. The United States was built by immigrants. This country is known as the melting pot and should continue to be a melting pot of success. Undocumented students should be given an equal opportunity to reach, educate and create a future for themselves and this country just as any American and want to protect it by joining the Armed Forces. Let the land of the free give freedom."
|
04/07/2010 Oppose East Leyden High School
"There are many issues our country faces these days and one of the most important ones is providing undocumented high school students the chance to become a permanent resident. This would allow them to gain the opportunity to qualify to attend college or serve in the military. My position on this argument is I disagree with letting illegal immigrants have the opportunity to become a permanent resident provided by the government.
First of all, it can bring out some competition between colleges. Maybe you weren’t accepted into Harvard or Yale because some illegal immigrant was chosen instead of you. How would that make you feel? I also have a problem with letting them join the military because of the military statuses. An illegal immigrant could move up in rank ahead of you when you have been working so hard to gain that position.
What if the news gets out and every other country hears about it? Now we have a real problem! Our country is going to be overflowing with more and more people looking for jobs. Even though our unemployment rates are high, there going to be through the roof later on. It’s going to make them think that they can get away with everything if they waited. And that’s not right helping them out like that other immigrants had to go through the hard ships just to make it here. They should work hard too and help give them a sense of accomplishment.
As of March 2008, about 11.9 million unauthorized migrant persons were living in the United States and of these there were at least 1.5 million children under the age of 18. This shows that we do have a problem and the government is trying to find a way to fix it. An example of this would be in 1986 Congress and President Reagan had granted a pardon to the millions of illegal immigrants already living in the country. They hoped that it would stem the flow of immigrants arriving, but it didn’t. Because Reagan granted that amnesty, more immigrants thought they could get away with coming to this country illegally. Reagan didn’t realize this problem’s affects of the future and look where it has gotten us.
I understand that some people may support this idea, but I oppose the Dream Act. Due to military ranking, college competition, and shortcuts."
|
04/07/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"I believe Congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status. The Dream Act is the opportunity for undocumented youth between the ages of 12 and 35 being eligible for a conditional path to citizenship in exchange for completion of a college degree or two years of military service. I don’t quite agree with that because the undocumented students would have to pay extra for college. They would pay not as an Illinois resident but as a Mexican resident which would be much higher. I believe in an alternative, such as amnesty. Amnesty is a general pardon granted by a government. The undocumented students just need to admit that they are illegal and pay a fine of about $5,000. There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in America. If every person paid $5,000 then America’s debt would be paid off. American would just gain money from the fine, and from new taxes. Even though I understand the position of those who oppose it, it’s really a good thing to give amnesty. I know that people are worried for their jobs and for college opportunity but the undocumented students will raise the education level and maybe open new businesses that will result in more jobs.
The undocumented students that came here as children can’t be blamed for their parents actions. Their parents wanted a better life for themselves and their children. America is known for freedom and opportunity and that’s exactly what should be given to them. If the students worked so hard through high school to get good grades then why should they be punished for being smart? It’s just unfair to them. The undocumented students are forced to live a worse life when in reality they are just as American as someone with a resident status. If they were born here or even came here at a young age then they have been surrounded with American culture throughout their whole life. How can you send a kid back to a country they don’t remember and a language they don’t speak? The citizen test should still apply to the undocumented students in order for them to gain resident status. The student would have to pay the fine, take the citizenship test, and admit that they were illegal. I think Obama should give amnesty for undocumented high school students!"
|
04/07/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"According to The Washington Post, over 65,000 undocumented high school students live in the United States as of now. When these young adults graduate from high school, they will have no means of pursuing any desired careers because they do not have the necessary papers to move forward in life such as a Social Security Card, birth certificate, etc. But if Congress were to allow these high schoolers to gain residency through attending college and the armed services, then these individuals would have a brighter future.
That being said, the new surge of individuals to colleges and armed stations across the U.S could have a negative effect on the already present high schoolers in the U.S. For example, legal students who wanted a choice position in either of these facilities could not be accepted because of an overwhelming new amount of attendees. And everyone today knows that with the United State’s current economic turndown, many students are scrambling to get to their choice colleges that have very precise acceptance standards. In short, the competition is fierce as of now. But the new U.S. residents may not have a chance to even enlist in the army anytime soon. With the new Iraq troop withdrawal taking place now and ending in 2011, the U.S. may not need new recruits. (www.lasvegassun.com)
Looking from a financial perspective, giving residency to undocumented high school students would benefit college income. With these new individuals looking for admission, the money collected by colleges for tuition purposes would be enormous. Unfortunately, in California, and possibly other U.S. states, less than 1 % of college students are illegal immigrants. (www.sacbee.com) This fact stands because the majority of illegal high schoolers, once graduated from college, are denied the ability to work from employers because of their illegal status. Also, becoming a legal U.S. citizen is no easy task, with waiting periods that can sometimes take years to certify with no affirmation of success.
An alternate idea proposed that would benefit undocumented high school students, yet still be fair to existing residents would be to have every illegal immigrant live in the U.S. for five years, and have a high school diploma ready when they want to qualify for the armed forces of colleges of choice. Comparing this to the recent Dream Act in the United States, this idea is moderately similar, but not nearly as detailed. In the Dream Act, these illegal aliens must have proof of arriving in the U.S. before age 16; have an American high school diploma, proof of residence in the U.S. for five years and have “good moral character” meaning they have committed no major crimes. (www.resistinc.org)
Of course, the Dream Act is a positive reinforcement for undocumented high school students who want to gain residential status to further their future careers. But if Congress were to allow residency to young adults by having them attend college and the armed ser"
|
04/07/2010 Support East Leyden High School
"“…there were always reminders that I was not necessarily an American. And it became really apparent late in high school when people are trying to decide what the next step is going to be…And for me, the realization that I couldn’t attend a university was a real shock.” (Nora Preciado). Nora Preciado is an immigration lawyer who was a former undocumented student. She faced a lot of pain and hardships when after 12 years of schooling; she was not allowed to move forward.
As of March 2008, an estimated 11.9 million unauthorized migrant persons were living in the United States. Even though their parents and other family members chose to come to America illegally, the children’s entire lives, and friends in their lives are 100% American. They grew up in America and have migrated into America’s society. We strongly believe that congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or if they serve in the armed forces. Because of this act, the students who qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces that are undocumented would gain citizenship.
However, some people believe that giving them citizenship is almost like a reward for their wrong doing. Senator Kit Bond states, “While I support immigration regulated through a legal framework, I do not support rewarding those who broke the law to get here.” That is also a great point, but put yourself in their shoes. Just because their parents chose to come to America illegally doesn’t mean that they should be punished for their PARENTS mistakes. Other thought contradicting this act may be that the illegal students could be taking the places of legal Americans which is truly unfair. But once you take both sides of this act, you begin to feel sympathy for the undocumented students.
According to Senator Dick Durbin, “Our immigration laws prevent thousands of young people from fully contributing to our nation’s future. These young people have lived in this country for most of their lives. It is the only home they know. They are American in every sense except their technical legal status.” We definitely agree with Mr. Durbin’s statement because even some of our present classmates who we have known since preschool are illegal. They do the same things as we do, and work just as hard. It would be heartbreaking if we all get to graduate high school and move on to a University and some of our peers wouldn’t be able to join us.
In retrospect, undocumented students should be allowed to gain residency if they serve in the armed forces or qualify for college because they deserve it. They deserve to be treated as an American because that is truly who they are. Immigrants enrich our communities and country and we definitely owe them some respect. They work just as hard, if not harder, than every documented student in America."
|
04/07/2010 Support Corliss High School
"The level of jobs and open spaces for schools are going to need to increase in the future because of the increase in the United States' population. As a result Congress should provide undocumented high school students the opportunity to gain permanent resident status if they qualify to attend college or serve in the armed forces. America is the land of opportunity, and has been a welcome place for immigrants to come and improve their situation. With the recent recession there is a concern for unemployment and the lack of available jobs. People who live in the United States--even those whose parents came illegally--need to make a valuable contribution to our society and economy. Undocumented high school students did not choose to come here
illegally, but were brought by their parents. For this reason they deserve to get any help that Americans receive. If they have proven that they can work hard and succeed in the high school classroom, then why shouldn't they also have the opportunity to get a college education as well? We consider an education to be very valuable in creating good citizens, so let's be good citizens ourselves and help those undocumented students obtain a college education. This is the right thing to do, and sends the message to others that when we need their help they would be more willing to give it."
|
|
|
