What do you think about Illegals getting instate tuition?

D_yer_Maker · June 4, 2007, 12:02am

@ ucsducladad: Thanks for askin’ before accusin’! I can even give you a 3-word answer: No effin’ way!

Now, for the unabridged answer…

The question is would I be mad about an admission decision and my answer is no. Not with the kid. Not with the state university admission office.

We need to have rules about who can come and go across our national borders. As to the student who is here in violation of some federal law – which is really a quota system, not a code of moral conduct, such as theft/assault and battery/mp3 pirating – I see no reason to elevate that sort of violative conduct, with regard to a federal standard no less, to a point that’s out of alignment and disproportionate to grounds for disqualification for other crimes, like speeding over 20 mph or mp3 pirating or, for that matter, tax evasion (particularly state tax evasion with respect to a state school system).

As to the university, if they think the university community is improved with diversity of all kinds and try to ensure that they don’t have a homogenous student body and my kid isn’t admitted, why should I get upset if the person they selected is in violation of that federal documentation quota? Shouldn’t the university try to take the best people instead of subordinating that goal to enforcing the federal immigration laws? Or, if the admission office is supposed to crack down on laws, aren’t there others that merit at least as much scrutiny that, oddly enough, few people here are crying out for?

Now, while I am utterly disappointed in U.S. immigration policy on a number of levels…the admission decision isn’t what would trigger the outrage. Heck, I’m already there. Maybe that’s partly why the hypothetical given is sort of a yawner to me.

We need sensible rules about who can cross our borders. The rules need to make sense for Americans. We probably need to run immigration like the Federal Reserve Bank and take the politicians out of the loop as much as possible because they screw it all up with all their posturing. In some respects the immigration standards are too restrictive…creating a climate in which people that we NEED to cross the border have to do so illegally. In some respects the standards are too lax…opening up avenues for entry that are best left closed as they serve no colorable purpose that advance American interests. And then, as if the policy wasn’t disconnected enough, the enforcement is so crappy as to render our ill-fitting policy moot anyway. Too much of our immigration is conducted in the breach. It’s a free-for-all. And that’s just ridiculous. So, no, opening the borders would suck. We need a coherent policy that advances American interests. And we need ironclad enforcement of that policy once it’s settled on.

But what’s going to happen is the special interests will send our policy off on so many tangents. And with another ill-fitting immigration policy that’s cobbled together by special interests that aren’t looking out for the national welfare, there will be little will to enforce it, so basically we’re doomed to end up right where we are.

And I’m supposed to blame a kid who’s otherwise just like my kid and/or a college admissions department for that mess? Nope.

higherlead · June 4, 2007, 12:03am

D’yer - guess you are right. Southern governors are defying federal immigration law today just as a generation or two ago they defied federal civil rights law to the applause of some who think that laws they don’t like are optional.

As for which is the greater character flaw, stealing music or criminally crossing an iternational border and availing yourself of medical and educational benefits paid for and intended as a safety net for American citizens is a matter of opinion. Fortunately we haven’t elected you to any office where you need to make that decision for the rest of us.

ldmom06 · June 4, 2007, 12:15am

<h2>“Southern governors are defying federal immigration law today just as a generation or two ago they defied federal civil rights law to the applause of some who think that laws they don’t like are optional.”</h2>

This statement doesn’t even make sense to me. Illegal immigration is not a Southern state issue. You do realize a good portion of illegal immigration occurs via fraudulent paperwork and an airplane bound for major cities in the Northeast don’t you? In Central and South America, there is a black market for visas and green cards. People who have no intention of immigrating to US apply for the necessary credentials and upon approval, sell those credentials and their identity to black market dealers.

Hillary on the issue and how things are in the State of NY… 
"Unlike many pro-business Republicans, Mrs. Clinton also has castigated Americans for hiring illegal aliens. ‘People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,’ she said. ‘I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.’ "

D_yer_Maker · June 4, 2007, 12:16am

@ higherlead: Then again, maybe you have!

If these people are evading taxes, I’m against them availing themselves of public benefits. But that goes for anyone evading taxes. Why is the tax evasion angle only applicable to criminal aliens? If they’re paying taxes into the system, then the point you make is considerably dulled.

The fact is, I expressly said that I’m very much against tax evaders getting public benefits. The difference is that I don’t draw that line at tax evaders who also crossed a border without proper papers. And I don’t lump in taxpayers who crossed a border without proper papers. You make your case based on people who don’t contribute their fair share, but you’re pointing your fingers at criminal aliens – which means you’re ignoring a much larger group of people who have committed the offense and you’re overreaching and reining in some people who do contribute their fair share.

If this is truly about people who cheat the system by grabbing public benefits that they don’t deserve, I’m suggesting that I’m zeroing in on that problem and your aim is not quite as accurate.

higherlead · June 4, 2007, 12:18am

“Shouldn’t the university try to take the best people instead of subordinating that goal to enforcing the federal immigration laws?”

Yeah George Wallace didn’t like federal civil rights laws and you don’t like federal immigration law. George thought the best people were all white and you think some of the best people are those who break the immigration laws.

Obeying the law is not optional in a free society.

D_yer_Maker · June 4, 2007, 12:21am

Federal immigration laws don’t bind the states in the same way that civil rights laws do. I’ll try to engage you intelligently if you want, but if you’re just out to make snappy little comments, have at it.

higherlead · June 4, 2007, 12:32am

“You make your case based on people who don’t contribute their fair share”

No I made my case on the basis that they cannot legally reside in the United States which is going to make it really tough to make it class on time.

There is also the simple fact that millions of criminal aliens are in fact evading taxes. In fact it is quite impossible for any of them to pay social security taxes or to file federal or state taxes without a valid social security card. Tens of thousands of them are working as cash only day laborers and additional tens of thousands are self-employed and not pating taxes because they can"t pay taxes because they are not documented.

But I do’t really care about all those crimes. I think the tax laws ought to be optional and that stealing mp3’s is much worse than cheating Uncle Sam. Of course my opinion on the relative morality of intellectual property theft versus income tax evasion is as insignificant as your moral weighting of intellectual property theft versus criminal entry isn’t it?

The law is the law. We don’t get to pick and choose which laws we will obey and which we won’t or sooner or later General Sherman will come stick a bayonet in our butts.

higherlead · June 4, 2007, 12:57am

“Federal immigration laws don’t bind the states in the same way that civil rights laws do. I’ll try to engage you intelligently if you want, but if you’re just out to make snappy little comments, have at it.”

You haven’t said an inyelligent thing yet. You start by arguing about what to call illegal aliens. That is like starting a discussion of abortion law by calling your side “pro life” or “pro choice”. You want the moral high ground before the discussion even begins. You are about as serious about having a serious discussion as Lindsey Lohan is about going on the wagon.

Article 1 US Constitution

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

…
…

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Case closed. Only the federal government ca make immigration rules and they apply to everybody. There is enough case law on it to build a 2000 mile fence on the Mexican border.

D_yer_Maker · June 4, 2007, 1:00am

My point is that I don’t see the relativism that gets people so fired up about this issue when it comes to a college admission decision versus the others.

Fine, let’s not admit people who are illegal aliens. But let’s also cut off tax evaders.

And, since you’re saying that your case is based not on the fair share concept but a federal law that’s not something college admissions offices should be expected to enforce, let’s cut off parking ticket scofflaws, and people who make personal copies at work, and speeders and everyone who breaks any state or federal law.

That’s the problem here: all the outrage over law-breaking and the “a law is a law” indignation stops dead cold when it reaches back to the point where it might hit us, too.

You say that we don’t get to pick and choose and that’s my very point…that when you start to employ college admission offices in a crackdown against illegal immigration, you’re picking and choosing because I’m not hearing anyone saying, “And they should also weed out these lawbreakers too…” Which is why your sarcasm speaks either to your failure to grasp that I’m the one who’s been advancing the hypocrisy argument (or my inability to communicate that well enough for you to grasp it).

I know that I’ve made it clear that I’m for better immigration standards that are based on advancing American interests and then having iron-clad enforcement. My point is not that we should have open borders or that people should look the other way. I think immigration laws ought to be enforced by the federal government before we start thinking college admission offices are failing society by not enforcing those laws.

The question I responded to was whether we’d be upset and I’d say not with the kid – not without picking and choosing the laws kids need to obey – and not with the college admissions office – not without first holding the federal government accountable for enforcing the laws and controlling the borders. I think I’ve been as clear as I can be that I’m all for federal enforcement.

Now go ahead, pull out one sentence from this post, come out with a snide comment and tell us more about Sherman’s march.

Better yet, why don’t you just answer atlmom’s question instead of complaining about my answer to it? I wouldn’t be pis$ed and said why. I assume you would be pis$ed. So, tell us why you’d have a cow over some Mexican getting into UT over your kid instead of trying to make hit-and-run comments as to why I’m wrong because I’d get over it.

higherlead · June 4, 2007, 1:27am

College admissions officers and college administrators and college financial aide officiers have a fiduciary responsibility not to expend state or federal money on persons ineligible to receive those benefits. Colleges “enforce” laws all the time starting with the one that prevents you from getting student loans if you have not registered for the draft or have been convicted of a drug felony.

I wouldn’t be poed if a criminal alien got in ahead of my kid so much as poed that he got in at all. I don’t believe in rewarding criminal behavior. I guess that is a novel concept in Texas or wherever you live.

collegialmom · June 4, 2007, 2:32am

There are different penalties for breaking different laws. Coming to this coutry illegally is supposed to result in having to leave, unless one can prove an error in processing.

Shoplifting results in a different penalty.

Murder has other penalties.

The US could declare that all laws were meant to be broken, because a human committed them, who really needs help. That would empty the prisons and jails, and save a lot of time and money in the short run.

This immigration bill is the same. They are saying that they can’t really have a efficient and effective system to screen immigrants, so they are throwing up their hands up and saying, “well let’s just make them legal!”

In terms of instate tution, how can someone be a resident if they aren’t really here at all?

rationalwar · June 4, 2007, 4:18am

It’s NAFTA crossing our borders, you can think Clinton for this.

ellemenope · June 4, 2007, 5:49am

<a href=“http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=25131&docId=l:621151829&start=9[/url]”>http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=25131&docId=l:621151829&start=9</a>

Connecticute legislature passes bill allowing instate tuition for illegal immigrants. Bill goes to governor.

bbecker · June 4, 2007, 7:28am

It’s not taking away from anyone, you still get your instate tuition as well. Why do you care? Why does anyone care?

Atlmom · June 4, 2007, 7:44am

First, there are legal definitions of what constitutes a legal resident of a state or a country.

Black’s Law Dictionary: 
illegal immigrant
n. an alien (non-citizen) who has entered the United States without government permission or stayed beyond the termination date of a visa.

If you have a visa, a green card or permission to stay in the United states given by the U.S.A. you are legal. If you don’t you are considered illegal. No such thing as a little legal for this purpose ( or a little pregnant.) Its pretty simple, you are here legally with documentation or you are NOT.

Atlmom · June 4, 2007, 7:53am

**Does the requirement that we educate every person who is within our borders, legal or illegal, extend to the University system? **

Should we have some sort of immigration system that allows only people with documentation OTHER THAN A TOURIST VISA to receive education benefit (for elementary and secondary education?.

I have encountered numerous families who come here for vacation and enroll their children in school only to take them out to return to their homeland for their normal school year. THis is very common I am told…

alwaysamom · June 4, 2007, 8:25am

Atlmom, you should be looking for more than Black’s definition of an illegal immigrant. That really proves nothing in this debate. What would be more apropos would be the definition in the legislation in the state of Georgia as to what constitutes a resident of the state, for purposes of in-state tuition.

LakeWashington · June 4, 2007, 10:14am

Sorry, I just can’t support the Civil Rights Movement analogy in this debate on illegal immigration. And, again in this thread I see propopents of expanded immigration ignoring the real detrimental impacts, like depressed wages for low and semi-skilled workers. And how do we handle the folks who are waiting in line now, just like they were told to do?

D_yer_Maker · June 4, 2007, 11:12am

I agree and disagree with where you’re going atlmom. While these people are in violation of a law…why does the analysis stop there? Why just this law?

What of people from one county who finagle records so that their child goes to school in a neighboring county? Is that materially different? Yes, there are people who are draining resources unfairly. But the tunnelvision that makes this just an illegal immigration issue is what I don’t get.

If it’s about misallocation of resources, then there are broader solutions that should be advocated. And if it’s a case of someone who is paying into the system, having tax withdrawn, but who is here beyond their visa…then that’s not such a big deal – at least not in terms of misallocation of resources in a state or local school system.

You can get plenty bang for your buck by shaking down some trial lawyers who forget to include all their revenue come April 15, more than making up for the cash-only wages that go unreported (again, another example of evasion that’s not limited to immigrants here illegally).

The problem with immigration policy is that it’s not tight enough where it needs to be tightened and not loose enough where it needs to be loosened. Until there’s a sensible policy, we won’t find enough resolve to enforce it.

We’re addicted to some of the illegal immigration and we should figure out a way to either detox or create rules that are practical enough to bring those people into compliance so that we don’t force them underground where we can’t collect taxes or monitor them. What we’ve got now are rules that don’t work, so we push people into the underground because we don’t seem to have the will to stop them. (Throwing money at a wall allows politicians to boast that they’ve done something; but it largely ignores the problem and hardly cuts it off at its roots.)

So, yes, illegal immigration creates inequities and drains the public coffers of valuable and finite resources. So does tax evasion. In fact, tax evasion is the chief reason that the public resources are being drained. So why not also speak out against that broader problem?

LakeWashington hits on the other problem: depressed wages for blue collar workers who are here legally. That only happens if those people are employed. And, as part of an immigration reform package, I would impose a strict liability on employers – with some limited safe harbors for demonstrable good faith – in which the employer would have to pay triple the wages that were paid to undocumented aliens going back 5 to 7 years. But, again, that creates a demand on us so there’s little willpower. Plus, with that sort of ruinous measure we had better craft quotas that ensure there will be enough workers to fill the employer’s needs without having to build a new plant across the big wall.

Here again, the problem is not simply that the person didn’t have the right papers…it’s that the quotas we currently use are not realistic (in some cases allowing for too many legal aliens to depress wages in certain sectors while at the same time not allowing enough legal aliens to make employers willing to take the calculated risk of tapping into the underground network…and, thus, sustaining that network).

Illegal immigration is a dynamic with many players, so pinning it all on people who cross a border without paperwork and holding them accountable to the exclusion of their aiders and abettors (from Congress to Border Patrol to employers and even to consumers who like cheap produce and cheap clothing that make us dependent on an underground society) seems too narrowly focused to me.

We need pragmatic and tough restrictions that people will enforce and support through compliance. Instead, what Congress seems predestined to give us is an immigration policy that’s been dictated and chiseled away at by special interests from within and without our borders. It will be both too weak and too strong and pretty much make no sense, so the culture will be to continue to ignore it.

collegialmom · June 4, 2007, 11:16am

“It’s not taking away from anyone, you still get your instate tuition as well. Why do you care? Why does anyone care?”

<ol>
<li>Because they are here illegally.</li>
<li>Someone pays more to support them, either the instate students/taxpayers or the out-of-state students.</li>
</ol>

Anyhow, this immigration bill just will encourage the next 15 million illegals to immigrate illegally. What are the implications of having millions more uneducated people floating around the US? Where is the health and criminal screening? How about the immigrants from other countries coming in over the Mexican borders?

Most hospitals are having huge problems with under reimbursed or non reimbursed care in general, and illegals add to this in a way that makes it very difficult for some to stay open. many are closing or limiting services.

Schools face the same problems.

What do you think about Illegals getting instate tuition?

CONNECT WITH US