Bad Faith Argumentation?

Illegal immigration is a very difficult subject to tackle.
I say difficult, because, as a college freshman from Los Angeles I have found that
1. The issue is always debated
2. There's no easy explanation (and I've asked around a lot to try and find one to no avail)
3. It's always current (which goes back to #1)

I mean to say that illegal immigration is not black and white. There are many factors to consider, such as...

1. Children born in the USA from illegal immigrated parents
2. Healthcare for illegal immigrants
3. Jail? Judicial system?
4. The danger of crossing the border
5. The rise in unaccompanied children making the journey to the USA to reunite with their parents

On April 19, "The New York Times" published an article (here) called "A 12-Year-Old's Trek of Despair Ends in a Noose at the Border".

The article discussed Noemi Álvarez Quillay, a young girl from Ecuador who was trying to get to her parents in the Bronx.

The article really shows the horrors and dangers of border-crossing, especially for young children.

I wonder how many people would be okay with open borders, although that will not happen. In Los Angeles, I wonder how life would be if all the immigrants went away for a day? Would "Americans" really be okay with that?

I found an article on "The Foundry" (link) that discusses the DREAM act in relation to military service.

The article reads:

"Here’s a disturbing new idea from some members of Congress: Trade instant citizenship to illegal immigrants if they’ll agree to serve in the U.S. military. Serving in the military is a high calling and a privilege—certainly not something to be treated as a bargaining chip in immigration politics. Yet these congressmen are trying to sneak this provision into the larger National Defense Authorization Act, which lays out the budget for the Department of Defense. What’s more, the immigrants in question would be those who are brought to the U.S. as children—often called DREAMers (after the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act)."

Basically, the writer, Amy Payne, is against this act, because she thinks it would encourage illegal immigration because it would give minors a way to stay in the country without much hassle.

On another note, quickly, let's talk about the Dream Act.
On the official website for the act (here), it has a list of qualifications undocumented immigrants must have in other to be eligible for help:


Must have entered the United States before the age of 16 (i.e. 15 and younger)
Must have been present in the United States for at least five (5) consecutive years prior to enactment of the bill
Must have graduated from a United States high school, or have obtained a GED, or have been accepted into an institution of higher education (i.e. college/university)
Must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of application
Must have good moral character

Here's the thing... just like how "Stop and Frisk" allows the police to stop and search people of "suspicious nature", and the question is, define suspicious nature.....

How is "good moral character" defined, and what stereotypes does the Act buy into...

Perhaps I can connect the film "A Better Life" into this whole scenario.

Also, it would be important to connect the relational dimension to this argument, as heavily discussed by Dr. Keeling in lecture.