In-State Tuition Debate Isn’t About In-State Tuition (It's about AMNESTY)

National Review Online ^ | 9/26/11 | Mark Krikorian

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

(snip)

...the in-state tuition debate isn’t really about tuition at all — it’s about amnesty. First of all, the “DREAM Act” moniker is borrowed from proposed federal legislation which would have legalized certain illegal aliens brought here before their 16th birthday — an amnesty, in other words. The state-level “DREAM Acts” are just efforts at creating momentum and awareness for the amnesty legislation.

The problem with this, of course, is that once they graduate with this taxpayer-subsidized education, they’re still illegal aliens and so it’s illegal to hire them. (The stuff about “pursuing citizenship” is meaningless chaff — there’s no such thing for people in this situation.) They’re not going to “make our country better” or “go on to create money for the economy” or be “contributing members in the state of Texas” if they’re still illegal aliens.

(snip)

Now, maybe there’s an argument to be made for legalizing certain illegal aliens brought here at a very young age whose identities were formed here and who know no other country. Actually, I’ve made that very argument many times. But if we’re going to debate amnesty for people in this situation, then let’s debate amnesty. Arguing for in-state tuition for illegal aliens without making plain that the real objective is legal status is incomplete at best, dishonest at worst.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>If Arizona’s SB1070 says I get free beer, then yes, I agree with it.
<<

Cool. Glad to see your sense of humor.

I didn’t think you could POSSIBLY be serious with the posts you were making. lol

[Carling]

Apparently if you live in it for three years you’d be eligible for in-state tuition.

Last I saw, you can only claim one state as your primary residence. I’m not pro-amnesty, btw. I’m just trying to get my arms around what taxes illegals pay in Texas.

[Carling]

My point is that they’re here. They’ve been here. There must be a reason your state legislature voted 110-4 in 2001, and unanimously on the next vote, to place these in-state limitations on tuition for the children of illegals.

I was hoping as a Texan that you could tell me how your state so overwhelmingly approved of this law that you are railing against. I’m asking for your insight on why this legislation passed by such a huge majority in your state, not Mark Levin’s.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

First of all, I am not so stupid as to think that because a law got passed that it is “good.”

Obamacare passed. It will DESTROY this nation, as will pandering to illegals. We are drowning in illegals, and Perry keeps providing incentives for them to come here, all to get more votes for himself.

Do you think it is “good”?

If so, you are blind.

If you are just cheering Perry because he can “beat Obama,” and trashing conservatives and conservative principles in the process, then you are unprincipled.

Are you unable to see for yourself whether a law is “bad” or “good”?

Were you one of those teenagers who decided something was “good” if you saw the majority of your friends doing it?

Most of us outgrew that. Maybe you should do the same.

[Carling]

ObamaCare passed because of bribery to Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu.

The Texas law had over 96% of your state legislature pass it. Are you going to answer my question? If it’s such an outrageous law, why has there been no massive effort to repeal it within your state, and why did it pass with such huge majorities?

You can deflect my questions with strawmen and red herrings, but I’d really like to know how such a supposedly conservative state like Texas would have such overwhelming bi-partisan support for this law.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

I have no idea why politicians sell us out, and why they are all betraying us on immigration.

They are almost universally contemptible on this.

I have answered your question.

Now please answer mine.

Do you think the law is “good”?

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

And when you answer that, do you agree with Perry that opponents are heartless racists?

[Carling]

Perry said if you deny education to these kid, you have no heart. And yes, I think it was a poorly worded and dumb statment.

I’m not concerned about that, though. I just want to know why there is all this outrage on FR over a 10-year old law that passed a very conservative state almost unanimously the first time, and unanimously when it was up for a vote a second time. Did every state legislator in Texas sell you all out? I’d think there would be massive turnover in that legislature; is running against this law a winner in Texas?

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

Cool. We can agree to disagree on some things. No big deal, that’s why we’re here.

The issue at hand is, do we as Americans believe Rick Perry holds our values dear?

I say he doesn’t. You may disagree, that’s fine.

We each get a vote, so there we are.

Take care!

[Carling]

You too, FRiend! Beat Barry Obama!

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

ABSO-FRIGGIN-LUTELY!!!!!!!!!!

lol

[SuziQ]

Here’s a thought. Require the students to start the citizenship process, and start taking the required classes for it, if they want to get the in-state tuition rates. If they’ve been here all their lives, and have no connection to their parents’ ‘home country’, this is, for all intents and purposes THEIR country, and they should become citizens. It wasn’t THEY who broke the law, but their parents; they had no choice in the matter. So get them going on their own citizenship, and then they can sponsor their parents. If they can get a college education, it’s more likely that they will work hard bring their whole family out of poverty into a better life.

[Politicalmom]

Oh, yay, let’s reward the parents for years of breaking the law, probable identity theft, and sucking off the welfare state!

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>If they’ve been here all their lives, and have no connection to their parents’ ‘home country’, this is, for all intents and purposes THEIR country, and they should become citizens.<<

So you are FOR amnesty. Duly noted.

I am not.

[demkicker]

What I’m finding is that most Perry supporters here on FR are also amnesty supporters.

I agree. Some are just willing to support him anyway - even if they aren't pro amnesty. I don't understand it.

[SuziQ]

Did I say anything about allowing the PARENTS to stay? If the kids are in college, they can apply for a Student Visa, as foreign students do every day, and they now have a place to live, on campus.

The kids can work part time, or get loans, and can pay for college on their own, as our kids are doing. I'm not talking about making it free. They can pay, just as every other student in that state has to pay, but they'll be required to stay in school and continue the citizenship process, or they're out.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>If the kids are in college, they can apply for a Student Visa, as foreign students do every day, and they now have a place to live, on campus.<<

Oh, so foreign students are paying in-state tuition now? And the kids are suddenly LEGAL?

NO.

Keep tap-dancing though, this is getting really amusing.

[Politicalmom]

Actually, you DID say to allow the parents to stay.

“So get them going on their own citizenship, and then they can sponsor their parents.”

[SuziQ]

The students can sponsor their parents AFTER they themselves have become citizens. The parents must return to the countries from which they came to await that process.

[SuziQ]

Actually, the foreign students ARE ‘legal’ by way of their visas. Whether some colleges decide to give them ‘in-state’ tuition, I have no idea. I believe some might be getting grants of some sort.