Should the government provide free public education to children of Essay - 3

Should the government provide free public education to children of illegal immigrants - Essay Example Arguments for Educating †¢ Moral justification since the children are underage and did not choose to be illegals †¢ Criminal potential; uneducated immigrants might become criminals in future †¢ The American dream, America should welcome those who are projected for fighting for its ideologies in their countries such as democracy †¢ Economic Social and Educational Value, immigrants can play a role in the developing the country as teachers or business people IV. Conclusion †¢ Educating of immigrants children has both positive and negative impacts †¢ The position of Americans on the issue has softened over time †¢ These children should be given a chance at a better future Four hundred years ago, America welcomed visitors and immigrants from all over the world, with the passage of time, generations of these people and their descendants became the citizens of the United States. However, of late, immigration has become thorny topic and the American borders are no longer open to all due to a myriad of demographic and security issues. For one to become a citizen, there is a long process to be followed, and few people have the patience or the means to follow this up. Despite the legal restrictions, America is still, in the eyes of many people a haven of prosperity and security, and this has resulted to illegal immigrants who cross over the border through either land or sea to try their luck in the states. President Obama through the Dream act gave immigrant’s children who have been brought up in America a chance to pursue their education, which was previously impossible due to legal restrictions (Orchowski, 2010). This has elicited a myriad of reactions from different quarters with some agreeing, but many set against this move. This paper is will discuss the two sides of the argument and attempt to argue out that the children of immigrants should be given a chance at an education in the United States. Americans opposing this ofte n have come up with several arguments to support their position; they include claiming that; allowing the children of these immigrants access to public education in America is self-defeating. This is because it implies that the American government is using taxpayer’s money to fund the US border patrol to keep out illegal immigrants, while at the same time educating their children from the same coffers. They argue that the education of immigrant’s children will drive up the taxes especially in view if the fact that their parents, who have no social security numbers, do not pay taxes, as such it is the taxpayer who will bear the whole burden. In addition, another argument is that the education of illegal immigrants is a slap in the face of those legal migrants who have worked hard and paid the taxes. Besides, immigrants might be an encouragement to come to the country purposefully, so that they can get an education hence, in the end, they will spur more immigrants to com e over escalating the illegal immigrants problems. To mitigate this, the Dream act covers only the children who had been in America before it was enacted, but admittedly, it will be hard to ensure it will not encourage future immigrants to cross over illegally. While one must concede that these arguments are valid largely, they do not tell the whole story; neither do they represent all the variables that arise when an immigrant’s child is educated in the states. At the need of the day, it is essential one considers the advantages of

John Rawls' Theory of Justice Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

John Rawls' Theory of Justice - Essay Example This social contract is the basis in which people can live in harmony and is necessary because humans are social animals and the absence of any social contract will tend to destroy any society as there will be deviants in it. A theory of justice as propounded and conceptualized by John Rawls depends on two things: the original position which is highly hypothetical in that the principles of justice are selected and implemented from his so-called â€Å"veil of ignorance† in which people lack any ulterior aim or motive and therefore presumed to act in the best interests of everybody in that society. In his theory, the original position assumes everyone starts out being equal initially and gradually in turn seeks out the best possible solutions in which possible gains are maximized and possible losses are minimized (the maximin principle) in a heuristics fashion (a trial and error method). Everyone works for the betterment of everyone and disregards any probable gains for oneself (without hidden agendas or ulterior motives whatsoever). The veil of ignorance presumes a lot in a world in which men are naturally greedy and works against the principle of basic instinct in which the rule of self-preservation often prevails. I would dare say it is not a workable idea at all since it assumes complete innocence and conflates all people into one (Freyenhagen