This article sheds light on an interesting government program that, hopefully, could provide a different solution for the illegal immigration problem that we face. While it seems mostly complete, it would have been interesting if the article had mentioned how many immigrants the funding and programs may effect. As it is, it only gives a number for the amount of organizations funded.
This article doesn't come out on any one side of the argument; it is focused on the factuality of one single claim, and in this it at least appears to be completely honest. While it is unsurprising that a political ad included some sensationalized language, regardless of the party it came from, it is a good reminder not to trust what we hear in such advertisements except, potentially, in basic principle.
This story is an interesting glimpse into the matter of illegal immigration in foreign countries, a refreshing break from the usual debate over problems in the United States alone. It is nice to see that the writer clearly realizes this is an issue that transcends simple politics to the personal prejudices of people throughout Europe.
Though not daring, this article shows an interesting and different side of the immigration problem and reveals some of the different aspects of the challenges that illegal immigrants face with regard to their rights. It seems reprehensible that a parent could have their parental rights completely removed without prior negligence when going to jail for something like illegal immigration. Granted, the story could lack some important aspects. It would have been interesting to have a law-based interview with someone besides the two lawyers, such as a judge who saw the case before the current appeal, to glean more reasoning for the legal aspects and understand the full story.
Looking briefly through other comments, I noticed people saying the story "clearly" has a bias both favoring and opposing the DREAM Act. Though there is often a duality in the nature of all things, this seems rather unlikely, and the perception of two opposing biases may shed light on interesting facets of human psychology. Regarding the story, while not digging particularly deep in any analysis of the DREAM Act, does show the feelings regarding the filibuster. Most Democrats and civil rights groups are, unsurprisingly disappointed, and the article does nothing more or less than reflect that disappointment. On the Republican side, the article covers the new memo intended to rectify immigration policy in different ways without ... More »
While this story and Colbert's testimony do not bring to light any new facts about immigration, they do give an important perspective on what sort of things illegal immigrants are actually doing in our country. It seems that, in some capacity, our economy depends on the work that they do and the wages for which they are willing to work. Of course, this article isn't the proof of the socioeconomic effects of immigration, but it does examine the issue in a different light.
