College tuition controversy
In-state tuition a must for all citizen residents, regardless of parents’ citizenship status.
Editor: The Bell Policy Center endorses this week’s move by David Skaggs to seek a legal ruling on granting in-state tuition to U.S. citizen students whose parents lack legal documentation.
Skaggs, the state’s higher education chief, has called on Colorado Attorney General John Suthers to issue a legal opinion on the policy, which has not been consistently applied by Colorado colleges and universities.
Allowing these motivated young people to attend college at the more affordable in-state tuition rate is the right thing to do, and it’s the smart thing to do.
Making college more affordable means these students are more likely to earn degrees and qualify for higher-paying jobs. The taxes paid on their higher lifetime earnings will more than make up for the lower tuition payments. In addition, raising the quality of our workforce boosts the economy, and that benefits everyone.
The Bell also applauds the policy change by Stephen Jordan, president of Metro State College, to allow U.S. citizen students whose parents lack legal documentation to pay in-state tuition. Metro previously required such students to pay out-of-state tuition. For a student carrying a full load of 15 credit hours, it’s the difference between $1,520 a semester and $5,495.
I urge Attorney General Suthers to come to a reasonable, common-sense ruling on this question. All Colorado residents who are U.S. citizens should be allowed to pay in-state tuition, no matter the immigration status of their parents.
This letter has not been edited.
what about the kids of parents from kansas ?
shouldnt they be given instate tuition too ?
Illegals deserve NOTHING from us. ESPECIALLY if we are unwilling to give the same benefit to other american CITIZENS who are from another state rather then a lawbreaking illegal who has no problem disregarding our laws
Posted by Fresh on August 16, 2007 02:57 PMYes, but it's nbot the students who broke the law. They are CITIZENS, and if they are Colorado Citizens and residents, than what's the fuss... if they are legal citizens, obviously they are a legal citizen of some state -- nobody is proposing giving those students from Kansas in-state tuition -- because they are not Colorado Citizens... they are Kansas citizens who can qualify for in-state tuition in Kansas...
What you, Fresh, are saying is that we should punish these young, Legal Citizens, for the laws their parents broke. That isn't the way of this country, nor should it ever be. Perhaps we should all start to look at this argument logically, rather than seeing the word immigrant and freaking out.
Posted by JB on August 16, 2007 03:04 PMEveryone born in the US is a citizen according to the constitution. What should matter is whether the student is a resident, not whether the parents are.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on August 16, 2007 03:05 PMHere is why it should be done. it encourages illegals to have more anchor babies here on our dime. we must then feed , educate, and medicate them all because we have ALLOWED the lawlessness of the parents to be rewarded.
what is to say the illegals children ( not all of whom are citizens either btw ) should want instate tuition here as well? I am willing to bet this bill would encompass that clause too . and what I am saying is that we should not cater to lawbreakers or the children the have unless we are willing to give it to american citizens as well FIRST!
Posted by Fresh on August 16, 2007 03:13 PMFresh, the students in questions ARE citizens... we are not talking about illegal students, only those who are, in fact, citizens.
What if I said you shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm because your father or mother had been convicted of a fellony? Doesn't make much sense does it. You should take a step back and stop being so reactionary when you see the word immigrant or illegal... and really examine an issue before getting all in a huff.
Posted by JB on August 16, 2007 03:22 PMexcuse me , but i DO NOT TRUST the politicians anymore, and I seriously doubt this isnt just a first step in providing education at a discounted rate to illegals in the future.
and again , this rewards lawbreaking and illegals coming here to have anchor babies because they know they will have the benefit of a discounted education.
Posted by Fresh on August 16, 2007 03:31 PMOy.... never mind. One cannot rationally argue that children should be punished for the crimes of their parents if they indeed believe the principals this country is founded on.
I won't try to argue with you, Fresh. Clearly as long as they are immigrant, you don't want them here... but of course, the students in question aren't immigrants, they are born in the USA just like you and me. Perhaps it's just non-white people, or people with different cultural values you object to. If so, do us a favor and call a spade a spade -- don't hide behind a weak argument.
Posted by JB on August 16, 2007 03:35 PMillegal immigrants, not immigrants.
but nice try to spin it into a racial arguement
Posted by Fresh on August 16, 2007 03:59 PMFresh,
So, you are upset at what the potential outcome could be, and as such, you would seek to limit the liberties and rights of US citizens, "just in case?"
Not only does the 14th Amendment discuss naturalization and birth right citizenship, but also equal protection. You would throw that away because YOU don't trust the politicians.
U.S. CITIZENS, legal residents of the State of Colorado will qualify for in-state tuition. If their parents are not legal, they will not qualify for in-state tuition.
And, do you REALLY think that illegals are crossing the border so that their "anchor baby" children can receive a discount on their COLLEGE education? That would assume that the current laws stay unenforced, that no new laws would be adopted as far as immigration is concerned, and would demonstrate the ability to have at LEAST 19 years of foresight, as they determine which college their as yet unborn child will attend. GIVE ME A BREAK!
Posted by Irrational on August 16, 2007 04:04 PMJust to make a point of clarification, I am referring to the parents not qualifying for in-state tuition, as THEY would not be legal residents of Colorado. But US citizen children are legal residents, as long as they meet the requirements of one year residing in Colorado to qualify for in-state tuition.
JB,
Principles, not principals. The latter implies that people would move to the US because our school PRINCIPALS founded this country. No big deal, but didn't want your very valid point picked on, because you used the wrong word.
Posted by Irrational on August 16, 2007 04:08 PMThanks Irrational-
I'm typing so fast I'm not really bothering to proof read. And yes, thanks for heading that off. :-)
irrational,
allowing children of illegals to obtain instate tuition is just the first step in giving benefits to illegas that the shouldnt have nor do they deserve. it also encourages illegals to come here and have " anchor babies"
we have to stop the invasion of illegals by preventing all of the incentive to come here. and yes irrational, providing instate tuition to their children is one of the MANY incentives they would be coming to this country illegally for.
Posted by Fresh on August 16, 2007 04:18 PMIrrational-
It's clearly not worth having a logical argument here... Glad that at least SOMEONE is able to think logically and look at this taking our laws and Constitution into account.
I don't mind people disagreeing, but at least present a rational and intellegent argument.
Posted by JB on August 16, 2007 04:30 PMTHEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL Fresh. THEY ARE US CITIZENS. Sorry for the caps, but you must understand that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. They are legal residents of the United States as CITIZENS, they get to have all the benefits of CITIZENS, since they are CITIZENS. They couldn't be denied that right, anymore than you could be denied that right. Equal protection to ALL citizens.
A citizen is a citizen, is a citizen. What you are proposing is the EXACT same thing they would do in Communist Russia. Chill dude.
Posted by Irrational on August 16, 2007 04:39 PMWhat needs to be done is close the loophole in the 14th amendment.
The clause was created to protect slaves, not for the purpose making citizens out of the babies of people here illegally.
Posted by KW on August 16, 2007 05:01 PMI'm probably as staunch an anti illegal immigrant advocate as you can find. They have devastated our working class and artificially held down the wages of the middle class. I will debate anybody to the ends of the earth about ending illegal immigration; enforcing our existing (but ignored) laws to dry up the economic incentive for not only future illegals, but also to "encourage" existing illegals to take their ill gotten booty and migrate home.
However, until the 14th amendment is either changed or reinterpreted by the US Supreme Court ANYBODY born in the United States is a legal citizen irregardless of the parent's status. Granted, that was not the original intent of the amendment, but it is the legally accepted interpretation of it.
Complaining about it is about as effective as complaining about the weather -- useless until the high court of the land rules differently. Even if Congress were to legislate in a manner declaring that a child's status was dependent on the status of the parent's, it would have to withstand a Supreme Court review of Constitutionality. The only other way to change the amendment would be through the legal process of amending the ENTIRE Constitution -- in other words, all sections of the Constitution would be fair game for amendments; not just the 14th.
Therefore, anybody born in this country is a citizen; and if they matriculated from a Colorado high school they are eligible for in-state tuition rates and any scholarships or financial aid they may qualify for which are afforded to any other Colorado high school graduate.
Posted by Trinity on August 16, 2007 06:40 PMTrinity's right,of course,about the 14th amendment.I think,however that he's mixing apples and oranges about the in-state tuition business.As has been said any number of times,a dependent child's residency follows that of the parents',and any college kid under 21 being supported by his parent IS a dependent child.Attorney General Suthers' opinion is not only legally dead wrong,it's clear and convincing evidence of his intent to defraud the people who gave him and his boss the life-and-death power they now so enjoy wielding.
On an issue closely related to the one this thread addresses,the anchor baby controversy is in fact not an issue at all.Here's how:Illegals with citizen children can always take said kids back to Mexico-or place them in foster care.It's a win-win- either way.If the kids taken to Mexico are abused,we've got Americans being pushed around by an obnoxious foreign regime,and the President (Hillary,maybe?) can send the military to Straighten Things Out.The ones abandoned to foster care here at home will represent an enormous bump in the work assigned to and money paid to the social services system,thus enhancing their job security.That'll make them happy,for sure.
The only fly in the ointment is the fate of the children,and the only thing I can say in that connection is this:
Since when have the sins of the mother and father NOT been visited on the children?
Metro State has a very good website which explains current in-state tuition qualifiers - at http://www.mscd.edu/enroll/registrar/services/tuitionClassification.htm. The site states that for the student under 23 to base his/her abilitiy to qualify for in-state on their own merit (as opposed to their parent(s) or legal guardian(s)' merit), they must be emancipatated and that:
Emancipation is the term used when a person under the age of 23 is no longer considered a dependent nor is supported by parents or legal guardian. A minor can begin establishing domicile on the date he/she is emancipated. You can prove emancipation in the following ways:
The parents or legal guardians submit an affidavit, which surrenders any claim or right to the care, custody, and earnings of the minor, as well as the duty to support the minor and the minor must meet all living expenses, including the cost of education.
Proof of marriage for one year.
Proof that parents or legal guardians have failed to provide financial support, along with proof that the minor can independently meet all living expenses, including the cost of education.
Proven entry into the military service (1 year).
Mike Rosen has suggested on his radio show that US born children (who are therefore citizens) of illegal immigrants be allowed in-state tuition based on their own merits PROVIDED their illegal parent(s) or guardian(s) be deported - which would immediately emancipate them. I find the concept intruguing.
Posted by Mary on August 17, 2007 03:01 AMAlso, no one seems to understand the actual 14th amendment. The clause also states that the parents of a child born in the US must also be subject to our laws. In other words, they must be here legally. This needs to be taken to the Supreme Court and a ruling made. We need to make Anchor babies illegal as well.
We also need to stop paying for anything for illegals, no school, no welfare, nothing except a train ride out of here. We need to make it an onerous fine for hiring illegals. Take the incentive out of coming here.
Joe Arpaio has it right.
Posted by Dravur on August 17, 2007 07:30 AMWe can also anticipate that many of these "citizen" students will also receive a free ride in addition to the in state tuition status.
I have two daughters in college and I had to fill out extensive paper work (FAFSA) in order for both of them to receive loan money. Our income level disqualified them from any assistance. The same form is used to qualify for grant money and/or finacial aid. FREE money. Since the illegal alien parents frequently are not documenting their income then I would imagine the majority will be receiving a FREE RIDE in addition to in state tuition.
Posted by Sam on August 17, 2007 08:16 AMDravur,
What? Do you just make stuff up like Mary?
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"
-14th Amendment
This is the part you should all be paying attention to:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
It's pretty simple and clear cut.
Mike Rosen made an interesting point in his column today.He drew attention to the non-US citizenship of foreign diplomats' children born in this country.Although here legally,foreign diplomats are strictly speaking not US residents.
I should think that illegal presence in this country makes the illegal NOT a resident of the USA and at least technically not here-illegals certainly go to some trouble to make their unsanctioned presence here invisible to the government agencies that regulate immigration. Sounds like excellent reason for revoking the citizenship of illegals' offspring.
A government that can legally convict the innocent Lisl Auman of murder certainly has the expertise to come up with a bulletproof way of dealing with the anchor baby problem,as well as scofflaw officials like Skaggs and Suthers who duck their responsibility to do what we gave them the power to do.Let's encourage the powers that be to do the right thing and humanely facilitate the repatriation of those whose exit is legally required.
Jimminy,
You would have to change the 14th Amendment. Or repeal it.
Please, tell me what part of this you do NOT understand:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Pretty big road block to "revoking" a right, don't you think?
Posted by The Constitution on August 17, 2007 10:24 AMSam,
So, because you didn't plan ahead to save for your daughters' college education, you will begrudge others? Is that what you are saying?
Financial Aid, is just that, AID. It is a loan that must be repaid. It sucks, but that is the way it works. I would rather have an educated person that got a free ride and will be a productive part of society, than someone who is stuck on the system, is a citizen, and now we continue to perpetuate the cycle of dependency.
Posted by Poor baby on August 17, 2007 10:28 AMKW,
You are right! If they go to Terry Anderson Show .com they can see the 14 Ammendment explained.....just like you stated.!
Posted by on August 17, 2007 11:34 AMTo Poor baby:
You know nothing about my savings or lack thereof. I certainly don't expect a free ride and have NEVER received one. You see my kids educations is fully funded with my savings (many years of sacrifice) and their loans.
You might take some refresher courses in comprehensive reading skills. I resent anyone who gets a free ride. Why should the "disadvantaged" get a free ride? Anybody has the ability to pay for or finance their education. My kids will owe and other will be scott free. Social engineering at it's finest!!! Certainly not deserved by children whose parents broke the rules to begin with. PLEASE
Posted by Sam on August 17, 2007 12:01 PMSam-
You said,
"Certainly not deserved by children whose parents broke the rules to begin with. PLEASE"
So, if the parents break the law, the children then should also suffer the consequences? So, if you decided to steal money, should your children then also go to jail, or should your children be required to pay the money you stole back?
I'm sick of hearing about you parents complaining about putting your kids through school... I am a successful young adult, put MYSELF through school, including a semester abroad -- I worked full time in college and am better for it.
Gripe, gripe, gripe... the great thing about my education, I know and understand the United States Constitution and know that this argument is a joke unless we change the 14th Amendment.
Also, another great part of my education is I understand the complexities of the ENTIRE immigration issue -- not just the knee jerk reaction. Do you realize the interconnectedness of a lot of various issues that tie back to immigration?
And, yes, illegal immigration is an important issue, but it only surfaced recently as a "wag the dog" issue, similar to the whole debate about gay marriage.
Obviously you didn't save enough, since they are taking out loans. I don't need to know your specifics to understand that by you writing "I had to fill out extensive paper work (FAFSA) in order for both of them to receive loan money." That tells me you didn't save enough for their college education. What kind of reading skills do I need to brush up on?
And, since you were theorizing about a free ride, instead of sticking to the subject matter of in-state tuition, vs. out of state tuition, your point and rant is moot.
Why should those that seek an education, be punished for the stupidity, or even the bad luck of their parents? Do you think your two daughters should be denied loans, because you make enough to afford their education, but you didn't think ahead enough to save for it?
I am being harsh right now, specifically to you, to hopefully demonstrate the ignorance and narrow viewpoint you are taking. Step out side your box of comfortability, and realize that there is no negative impact on you at all. The ability to get a college education for CITIZENS of the United States and Colorado in particular, helps our economy and our state.
I do understand that it may be over your head a little bit to understand the Constitution, and the protections in which it GUARANTEES, but maybe you should take a remedial civics course, or, if you feel you have the comprehensive ability, a course on Constitutional law. It just may help you understand how the law works, and what the Constitution actually reads, and means to citizens of the US.
Unless of course you would prefer to deal in feudalism, in which the sins of the parents stay with their offspring, and hereditary is more important than intellect.
Posted by Poor baby on August 17, 2007 12:23 PMTo JB
You said "So, if the parents break the law, the children then should also suffer the consequences? So, if you decided to steal money, should your children then also go to jail, or should your children be required to pay the money you stole back?
Children will experience many advantages and disadvantages based on the DNA lottery that we all are born with. I NEVER said I resent putting my children through college (and yes they are also paying). In fact you are a perfect example of anyone being able to go to college.
I simply resent that many of these "citizen" children of illegals will get a financial leg up on citizens because their parents are frequently paid under the table. This will qualify the "citizen child" grant money (money that will not need to be repaid) that a documented citizen will not get based on REPORTED income. Now do you get it?
Posted by Sam on August 17, 2007 12:27 PMAnon at 11:34 am
You should stick to citing cases argued before the Supreme Court. Your partisan pundits were unable to devine the intent of Congress in writing the 14th Amendment. Maybe you should visit PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) as this deals exactly with this question.
In it, you will find the following information:
"A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
" The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory."
Or, we can keep on discussing this topic, based on "feelings," partisanship, misinformation, or ignorance. Doesn't matter to me really. The facts in this matter affirm the decision of the AG in this matter.
Posted by The Constitution on August 17, 2007 12:40 PMYo,Con-There's ample precedent for revoking citizenship.Happens all the time.Just ask the ex-Nazis who lied to get naturalized,got found out decades later and were justly deported.As I implied before,smart government lawyers can get around any so-called constitutional guarantee,and do it every day.There's no bar,legal or otherwise to our leaders expediting in a timely,just,and humane fashion the departure of those who need to depart.Their failure to act jeopardizes both the safety of the illegals and the legitimacy of government. It is worth repeating that we have the aliens at better than ten to one.I will also repeat that a major terrorist attack,economic implosion,or other significant disruption in the USA could trigger a violent reaction in all directions from the well-armed but hitherto law-abiding population.We just want the law obeyed and enforced,but in view of leadership's failure to secure compliance with immigration law here at home as well as pacifying the enemy in Iraq,we question leadership's will to do right.The will of leadership can be changed peacefully.The inability of leadership to govern and to defend us "against all enemies,foreign and domestic" is a catastrophe waiting to happen.Let's hope our leadership is misinformed rather than impotent.
Posted by Jimminy on August 17, 2007 12:46 PMSam,
A couple of serious questions for you. If you are simply arguing against citizen children of illegal parents not being able to get a "free ride" as you state, how does the determination of Attorney General Suthers to allow in-state tuition, vs out of state tuition, change anything you are ranting about?
If the children must be considered "out of state" how does that change their ability to apply for grants, still based on the amount of money their parents make?
Would you prefer to continue the cycle of dependence (have these now uneducated citizens relying on governmental programs, instead of being able to get a decent paying job), or would it be ok, for them to save the $4,000 per semester (a total of $32,000 for their college education), instead of a lifetime on the rolls of welfare, medicare, medacaid, SSI, food stamps, or any other domestic "free ride?"
I honestly and genuinely am curious to your viewpoint on this, and would hope it is not based on naivety or ignorance.
Posted by Poor baby on August 17, 2007 12:55 PMSo Con's mind,and numerous others,are made up? So was Neville Chamberlain's.And Vidkun Quisling's.
Posted by Jimminy on August 17, 2007 01:00 PMJimminy,
See your point, understand your argument, but we are not addressing the facts in this instance. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court has ruled on this already. Not much can be done but to amend me (as we did with prohibition), or just deal with it.
While I agree with you to some extent that we need to address the illegal invasion into our country, this is not anything new. Just as we don't need to go all crazy because of Anthropogenic Global Warming catastrophic predictions, we don't need to get all crazy about having an "invasion" of illegals. Throughout the history of immigration into the United States, this story has played out over and over and over again. With the Chinese, the Italians, the Irish, the Germans, the Poles, and now the Hispanic. We will survive, just as we have in the past, as research shows that even Hispanics, within two generations, assimilate (Pew center of research)
Posted by The Constitution on August 17, 2007 01:11 PMPoor baby:
To answer your question: It doesn't prevent them from qualifying for grant money. In -state or out of state doesn't matter. That wasn't my argument. Grant money and financial aid is largely a a function of the financial status of parents. Or emancipation of students over the age of 23 or so. Loans are available to nearly anyone. That's as simple as I can explain it to you. No comprehension problem on my part here, I'm just wondering if you have any knowledge of grant monies and financial aid.
If a student (legitimate citizen) lives in Kansas but wants to attend an institution in CO then they will pay out of state tuition. PLUS if that same students parents are fairly well off (but decide not to help with college) then the student will be penalized. The student will not qualify for any grant money. They may qualify for a LOAN but certainly not FREE GRANT MONEY. Is that fair? I've seen it many times; well qualified students from good back grounds receive nothing but debt to be paid off for years to come. Once again a bit of an advantage afforded lawbreakers. GREAT!
Do you disagree that the status of illegal parents frequently being paid under the table does not give an unfair advantage to them in receiving grant money. This isn't hard to understand.
My response to you is predicated on the fact that I don't view these "citizens" as in fact citizens. The current interpretation on the 14th amendment is preverse in my opinion.
Also not that it's pertinent to the debate but you insist on implying that I "obviously did'nt save enough" for my kids education. What ever that has to do with anything I'm not sure. However, I will tell you that I could fully fund their schooling but I choose to bring them up to feel they need to EARN any opportunies they receive in life. So you see even though you want to present yourself as super educated your ignorance about my person situation makes YOU look naive
Posted by Sam on August 17, 2007 01:49 PMSam-
A few points to your response to me: First, you do not address my question regarding Children paying for the crimes of their parents... instead you turned it into a biological conversation talking about DNA, inherited traits, etc... This is comparing apples to bannanas... not even as close as apples to oranges... at least both of those are round!
Secondly, you put "citizen" children in quotes, implying you do not agree that they are citizens. However, under current law, that is not an arguable fact.
Thirdly, many, in fact most, illegal immigrants DO pay taxes. They often find work using a stolen Social Security number, and pay taxes based on that number... and NEVER recieve the benifits of Social Security, etc... because they cannot collect on ANY of that money that has been paid in... since it is not their Social Security number. So, there IS a cost to them to be here illegally...
Posted by JB on August 17, 2007 02:00 PMGood points,Con.Mine are that A)the law is by no means as sacrosanct as it's cracked up to be.The law can be changed even by its own procedure.Witness Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson to name just a couple.The legitimacy of law is vitiated every day through the tacit and explicit exemptions to the law that government grants itself. One example will suffice.If you or I committed a home invasion and machine-gunned Esmail Mena to death,as the police did a few years ago,we'd now be on Death Row or already in the ground,unlike Mena's murderers,who to this day enjoy an excellent living as respected public servants.
B) the previous "waves of immigration" were all entirely legal,and done at the invitation of our leadership in response to the national need to develop the uninhabited areas covered by the Louisiana and Gadsden Purchases(both legal)as well as the areas covered by the treaty that ended the Mexican War(also legal).This invasion is not legal at all,and because it is illegal,it bears only a superficial resemblance to earlier influxes of invited immigrants.
A third consideration is that we have already been viciously attacked by people who DID use the immigration system to get here,learn to fly(but not land) commercial aircraft and not only kill thousands of bona fide American citizens,but very nearly destroy national shrines as sacred to us as the Kaaba is to Islam.I think it's entirely appropriate that any guest of the USA be required transparently ,completely,and instantly to demonstrate absolute suitability to be here.
And to clarify, I am not saying it's ok to steal a SS number... just pointing out that many do pay in to taxes, since a large bit of your argument was based on that
Posted by JB on August 17, 2007 02:11 PMTo JB
Cry me a river!!!! Boooo hoooo hoooo.
You said:
Thirdly, many, in fact most, illegal immigrants DO pay taxes. They often find work using a stolen Social Security number, and pay taxes based on that number... and NEVER recieve the benifits of Social Security, etc... because they cannot collect on ANY of that money that has been paid in... since it is not their Social Security number. So, there IS a cost to them to be here illegally...
You're right JB there IS a cost to them to be here illegally and shall we completely over look the fact that they came here willingly and also STOLE someone elses identity. Perhaps causing complete choas in that persons life. I don't see you too worried about that. Of course I know your type never worries about the cost to people who play by the rules. The rules should be interpreted any which way that fits your argument.
Concerning "children paying for the crimes of their parents" happens ALL THE TIME. I really think I should have been born to a privledged back ground. The fact that I wasn't means somebody owes me something right? Read my previous post and my other positions will be obvious to you.
Posted by Sam on August 17, 2007 02:11 PMSam-
Wow. You claim to know, "My type.." I assure you that you do not. You know nothing about me. I DID NOT resort to an attack on who you are as a person, nor did I claim to know "your type."
My arguments were based strictly on YOUR arguments and their logic. I would appreciate you showing the same maturity and logic.
Posted by JB on August 17, 2007 02:27 PMJB
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to "attack" you. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
I just cannot understand how anyone can be an apologist for illegals. For the life of me! I hope that your utopian idea of what life in the United States is going to look like in say 10 years fits with reality. Otherwise you are taking me and everyone else down with you.
With complete maturity and logic........
Posted by Sam on August 17, 2007 02:36 PMSam-
Beautiful sarcasim. My feelings certainly aren't hurt, but no good can come from debates that are based in personal attacks, rather than strict logic.
Also, when did I apologize for illegals? I simply stated a FACT that contridicted your argument of them not paying taxes. I am not arguing for illegals, just CITIZEN children, who are born in the USA, just like me and you.
On a final note, if you do want to talk about illegals...if one were to weigh the cost of rounding up and deporting ALL illegal immigrants, both in term of logistics and long-term economical impact... against the cost of a guest-worker program, or a path to legal residency... I venture to guess the latter is far more cost-effective.
Posted by JB on August 17, 2007 02:48 PMSo, legal children of illegal parents should be granted in state tuition rates – while the schools are subsidized through our tax dollars, and other students pay “just a bit more” to make up that difference.
Our government and big businesses want the illegal underclass workers yet expect legal residents to raise and educate their children from grade school through high school (costing us billions)…and now college.
Check out this link – then you decide if this illegal underclass and their anchor babies are worth it. http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_researchf6ad
And Poor baby…you didn’t stay in school long enough!
JB
Just because they pay taxes doesn't make it right to steal SS#! That does'nt justify the CRIME!
Posted by it's a joke! on August 17, 2007 10:18 PMJoke-
Read my above post. at 2:11pm. I never said it was right. Sam was griping that Citizen children of illegals get financial aid, even though their parents don't pay taxes. I was only showing that in fact, many do pay taxes.
Sam
I am with you all the way. One can work their ass off and still not have enough money for their children's college education. Who is naive enough to think that EVERYONE can save for their children's entire education? The rich can, of course, but the rest of us are left to do the best we can.
I too resent the fact that a lawbreaker ILLEGAL can get a break while those who were born here run into obstacles when it comes to college.
I too had two go through college and we helped as much as we could, but they are up to their armpits in loans that they will be paying for a long time. No free handouts expected here.
As long as ILLEGALS do not have to pay for breaking our law (their children getting financial breaks for school, ETC.) They will continue to come in droves. Take the jobs away, social services, free health care, free public school education, assistance for higher education, they will stop coming ILLEGALLY.
I also think that if they could not come here and have their anchor babies (FREE) it would stop MILLIONS from coming ILLEGALLY. It is their ticket to multiple freebies. I think that if someone is in this country ILLEGALLY a child born here should NOT be given immediate citizenship. One cannot deny that that would certainly stop the hemmorage that is happening to this country.
HARSH? We better start getting harsh or we are giving up our country slowly but SURELY.
It's very absurd when I read about people talking about "breaking the law" and "illgeal". Maybe I am missing something here, but last time I checked toddlers and babies cant think and make rational decisions, can't they? Maybe you were a genius when you were a baby. POINT IS: These young kids were dragged here by their parents, some a few days old others a few years old. They have lived in America all of their lives, and excelled in academics and displayed excellent citizenship. These kids love America more than any other country on the face of the planet, hell they have lived here all of their lives. To add, they are some of the brightest kids in this country, how can you turn them away, wen they did nothing wrong?! How can you hold a child accountable? And i end with this question, which I hope you will think about: Are Americans defined by being born on a piece of land, or are they defined by the VALUES that they hold and cherish?
Posted by Dont Wish on August 20, 2007 03:31 PM