
Ten years ago they beat MIT. Today, it's complicated (2014) - luu
http://www.azcentral.com/story/life/az-narratives/2014/07/17/phoenix-high-school-win-mit-resonates-decade-later/12777467/
======
moeamaya
As a poor Mexican from Arizona who went to MIT, this story hits close to home.
But after much reflection, I believe the sad reality has a enduring positive
legacy which has only begun.

While perhaps not following the paradigm of success we on HN often consider,
the team's victory in the competition and subsequent publicity became a widely
distributed step-function for an entire generation of down trodden Latinos.
Although anecdotal, I've witnessed a large swath of family and friends become
engineers, go to med school or start their own business. This viable reality
was made possible by the previous generation taking chances and working
incredibly hard.

I admit that I've been envious in the past of my immigrant friends with
parents who are from India, China and Korea, where studiousness and
achievement are default conditions for upbringing. But I'm excited to see an
inflection point in the Mexican culture and it starts with stories like these!

~~~
kelukelugames
It's harder for unskilled labor to emigrate across the Pacific. I knew plenty
of underachievers in Beijing.

Most of the hispanic people I met through school or work were recent
immigrants from upperclass families. However, one of my Columbian classmates
at MIT grad school was the son of a janitor. He founded a startup after
graduation. If we calculated a ratio for achievement vs our parents'
occupations then he has one of the highest scores.

Here is the link to his company. [http://www.skulpt.me](http://www.skulpt.me)

------
lhopki01
This demonstrates a tragedy that happens all too often. How many talented
people out there have their talents wasted because of barriers like this. How
many people can't fulfil their potential because they're born into a poor
family or on the wrong side of an arbitrary border?

~~~
huherto
Sometimes a border is not a border, it is scar. An ethnic group was already
living in that area and one day they find themselves at one side of the fence.

~~~
gedy
You are very right, especially places like colonial Africa. However in the
context of California, Arizona, etc much of the immigration is from Guatemala,
Central America, etc, not the true native tribes like the Chumash, Luiseño, et
al who are still here.

Just pointing this out because "division" gets bandied about a lot
inaccurately.

~~~
huherto
I am thinking about "El Norte".

[http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-
in...](http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html)

------
techman9
I was on a First Robotics Competition team in high school and interacted with
Falcon Robotics, (Team 842), a few times. They're well regarded as one of the
best and most gracious teams in the competition.

------
Yhippa
I don't know the specifics of the current reasoning or history that Arizona
has with immigration but at a base level I'm pretty infuriated that these kids
actually have the desire to do hard things that society needs and got
thwarted. I know there are rules but how many potential new engineers (is
there still a big shortage?) are we letting slip through the cracks?

~~~
OJFord
Does "illegal" in this (immigration) context have a more subtle meaning in the
USA?

When the article says he lost his place when voters pulled scholarship money
from "people in the country illegally", I read that and think, well I'm not
surprised - surely if the university is aware that somebody is in the country
_illegally_ then they have a duty to report it to the authorities, and
certainly not offer them studentship - nevermind a scholarship?!

~~~
skybrian
The question is whether children should be blamed for what their parents did.
Many people would say no.

~~~
OJFord
It's not really about blame though, surely, it's just about upholding the law.

The child of an illegal immigrant is there illegally, they're not to blame,
but they're illegal residency surely shouldn't be supported.

An analogy might be distributing inheritance evenly, because "children
shouldn't be blamed for what their parents did [and how much they made doing
it]".

Some people might argue we should do that... but even they'd surely agree it's
pretty extreme.

Just seems like a rather ambivalent relationship with immigration law to me.
But hey, that's just my outsider's point of view!

~~~
Lawtonfogle
>but they're illegal residency surely shouldn't be supported.

Then provide 0 medical services, CPS services, police services, or legal
system services. If you have someone here illegally, especially a child, being
targeted by a predator, it sucks. Really bad. But to offer them any services
paid for by the American people is supporting their illegal residency.

I find that most people who push for the view of not supporting legal
residency in cases such as school care or even medical care are still willing
to do so when you talk about the illegal resident being the target of a
predator. This makes me think that either they don't fully accept their own
logic or that there is something else at play that they didn't expand upon.

------
Cyph0n
I watched the documentary around a year ago and was really inspired by the
team. It's sad to hear what happened to them to be honest. Such brilliant
minds put to waste.

~~~
jacobush
Possibly they were all better off though, after their win, than they would
otherwise be. It's both heartbreaking and inspiring what became of them.
Heartbreaking: that not even one became an engineer or had greater (Hollywood
ending style) success. Inspiring: that they struggle hard and have some
success against formidable odds. Also sad that the Phoenix school to this day
has to scrounge for equipment and funds. Lots of players dropped the ball
here, the Arizona state, companies, enterprises, MIT. MIT could have gotten
immense goodwill by partnering up somehow with the Phoenix school. An off-site
campus or something, anything really.

~~~
throwaway_exer
One graduated from ASU with an engineering degree and works as a supervisor.

------
rtl49
Often stories of this sort are used to advocate a more permissive immigration
policy, particularly toward those from Mexico and South America who have
entered the US illegally seeking economic opportunity.

Rational arguments seldom make their way into this discussion, if it can be
called that.

On the one side we have the empathetic liberals, who in many cases ultimately
wish to see the complete abolition of national borders and global inequality.
Joining them are corporations, which want abundant labor in order to reduce
the costs of employment.

On the other, we have low-skilled citizens, who don't wish to see their
quality of life reduced by admitting large numbers of people willing to work
for very little. Along with them are those concerned about the political and
cultural consequences of admitting a massive, homogeneous, and very different
group of people into their homeland. There are probably some racists among the
group, though probably far fewer than the other side often claim.

Whichever side you find yourself on, I think the following must be admitted:

1) The ordinary citizen currently in the United States will likely experience
a decline in quality of life as a result of a permissive immigration policy.

2) Massive economic migration to rich countries from poor ones is not a
solution to the problem of global economic inequality or poverty.

3) Historical instances of immigration, colonialism, and invasion do not
justify or necessitate permissive immigration policies in the present day.

~~~
jsprogrammer
>1) The ordinary citizen currently in the United States will likely experience
a decline in quality of life as a result of a permissive immigration policy.

On what basis must this be "admitted"? You provide no rationale for it in the
preceding paragraphs and then dump this line as if it should be obvious.

~~~
rtl49
Ordinary people in the US benefit economically because of their citizenship.
Many of these people possess few skills and would live in abject poverty doing
the same work in other countries. Admitting large numbers of low-skilled
workers increases the supply of laborers, with the result that competition for
employment increases, and wages decline. Even with a minimum wage, the number
of employment opportunities is reduced. Thus, ordinary citizens stand to
experience a decline in their quality of life.

~~~
ocb
That's very simplistic analysis. The impact of immigration on the wages of
native-born workers, even low-skilled ones, is definitely not a settled
question [1].

[1] [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/06/01/does-
immigration-s...](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/06/01/does-immigration-
suppress-wages-its-not-so-simple/)

~~~
rtl49
It's simplistic because of the format. Its intention is to explain the general
line of reasoning to the person who asked for it, not provide an exhaustive
analysis.

The article you've cited addresses immigration in general, not low-skill
immigration by itself. This could support argument in favor of a selective
immigration policy, not massive immigration of low-skill workers from
developing countries.

------
uniclaude
This is from 2014, maybe it should be marked as such. Incredibly touching
story nonetheless.

------
elg0nz
I cannot recommend more Spare Parts by Joshua Davis (the book the movie is
based on). It does a great job explaining the situation these kids live in.
(How can a kid go to college when their parents are sick and working 4 jobs to
make ends meet?)

The real heroes here are not just the kids, but the teachers that with a non
existent budget created a safe space for these kids to thinker and to use
their natural talents

------
forgotpwtomain
Just a heads-up - this page auto-plays a video.

------
77pt77
> since his legal status prevented him from being an employee, but allowed him
> to create his own company.

Come again?

~~~
winter_blue
The key here is that he is _hiring himself_ , so as _he is the employer (of
himself)_ , and the liability for hiring an undocumented worker falls on
himself.

Anyone can create a Delaware C corporation, even people from other countries
who have never been to the US. You do need to be a citizen however to create
an LLC or an S corporation.

~~~
elmar
Sorry this is incorrect anyone can create an LLC and a S corporation no need
to be a US Citizen, at least in most states, can you pin point a state that
requires US citizenship?

~~~
winter_blue
You're probably right. I got this information from an NYSBDC advisor[1] that I
met with while I was in college.

(I wanted to do a startup part-time, but that dream was shattered after I
found out from my school's immigration advisor that working for myself was
prohibited.)

[1] New York Small Business Development Center (NYSBDC):
[http://www.nysbdc.org/](http://www.nysbdc.org/)

------
SmellyGeekBoy
This is a terrible clickbait title (currently "Ten years ago they beat MIT.
Today, it's complicated")

------
winter_blue
The entirety of blame for all of this pain, loss, and suffering falls squarely
on the Republicans who oppose immigration reform, and keep calling for the
merciless deportation of everyone including children who overstayed their
visas or came over the border.

~~~
sokoloff
I think there are two issues there. One, the immigration rules. Two, the
enforcement of those rules.

On the second, I have little sympathy for the category of people who
intentionally break a law and then cry foul when that is discovered and
addressed.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
>On the second, I have little sympathy for the category of people who
intentionally break a law and then cry foul when that is discovered and
addressed.

So homosexuals put in prison because homosexuality is illegal in places
(including the US not even 20 years ago)... no sympathy for them? OR... do you
think not all laws are equal and that there are bad laws?

~~~
sokoloff
There are absolutely bad laws. There are also unconstitutional laws. I have no
support for the latter, of course.

For bad but constitutional laws, we have a process for challenging and
changing them. While they're in effect, I believe that if you're going to
break them publicly, you should not expect to escape consequences.

~~~
winter_blue
Regarding constitutionality, FYI:

Back when the U.S. constitution was written, visas did not exists, and getting
permission to immigrate was uncommon. You could literally walk into most
countries without any papers. As such, the enumerated powers of Congress
actually only contains the power "To establish an uniform Rule of
Naturalization" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4). Nothing about restricting
immigration.

The US did not regulate immigration at all until the passage of the Chinese
Exclusion Act (1882). The Act was challenged in the courts, and the SCOTUS
ruled that Congress' power to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
meant that it could also exclude people from entering the country – which is
quite a stretch. For more, see:
[http://openborders.info/blog/immigration-](http://openborders.info/blog/immigration-)

Popular opinion at the time was that Chinese and other Asian people were unfit
to be part of American society, and the SCOTUS was willing to stretch the
meaning of those words in the Constitution to grant Congress the new powers
necessary to exclude them.

------
MCRed
Yet another tragedy of regulation. Yes, I know unions want to keep competition
for their services low, in the theory that they can extract higher wages. But
the reality is, the people who want to come to america to work for companies
are almost always going to have something that the existing people in america
don't- either a willingness to do jobs that american's don't like or think are
beneath them or skills that americans don't have in enough quantity.

Limiting immigration is limiting economic growth. The time when the country
grew the fastest and most dramatically was also a time when shiploads of
people were just showing up.

Every time you see someone saying "we need regulation for capitalism to work"
these are their victims. Democrats and Republicans both have a history of
denying people human rights, and the right to employ whomever I want-- without
regard to where they were born-- in my business is a right that they are
denying. It also denies the employee the right to work for whomever would like
to hire them.

Government doesn't know best. This is why socialism has never worked.

So, if you're lamenting the way these people have been treated, look to your
own voting history.

