|
In 1994, California had the
second weakest economy in the nation (Kadetsky 102) and because of this, its
public education had fallen in rank from among the top 10 states to among
the bottom 10 states (Herschensohn A20). The number of illegal aliens in
California was 43% of all of those in the nation, totaling almost 1.7
million people (Kadetsky 102). Raul Hinajosa of the Inter-American
Development Bank set the net flow of illegal immigrants to almost 100,000
people a year, the majority of whom were women and children ("California
here we still come" 53). The recession caused a loss of 1/3 of the revenue
previously received by the state government, yet California maintained its
per pupil spending which accounted for almost $1.7 billion spent on
educating illegal immigrant children. With 2/3 of all of the babies born in
Los Angeles being born to non-citizens, the high cost and lack of sufficient
funds to educate children would not disappear.
… The purpose of the law is
not to inflict undue stress among immigrants, but rather to ensure that the
quality of education is not diminished for students who are legally here in
this country. The law is not requiring any more of the students of public
schooling than it currently asks of all employers. The proposition is
applied to only those foreign citizens who violate our Federal law by
entering this country illegally. "If a person is here unlawfully, he should
be entitled to no benefits" (McCarthy 41). According to U.S. News and World
Report, if "illegals broke the law when they jumped the border ahead of
those who have waited for a long time- they broke the law and ethics- why
should they be rewarded with free stuff from our government" (Zuckerman
110)? |