From In-Crowd to Out

Advocates for immigrants say that children should not be punished for their parents’ actions and that states could benefit by enrolling students who could not otherwise afford college.

Using that logic, then many of the fathers of these children shouldn’t go to prison, because presumably they’re the fathers of minor children.

This Supreme Court decision was in 1982. This was a really bad time period for SCOTUS making education decisions. Two years earlier, they came out with a screwy decision that all-white private schools couldn’t be tax exempt, but all-black or all-Hispanic or all-anything but white schools could be. This is essentially the same Supreme Court members that pioneered the “strict scrutiny” doctrine of judges’ examination of legal classifications based on race, which, not to delve into the legalese, means essentially that American courts are to believe there is no such thing as race. How the two fit together I don’t know, but it didn’t need to — the legal doctrine SCOTUS used through all those years was the Lincoln/Mao school of public policy — all power through the barrel of a gun.

That 1980 decision essentially ended the Citizens’ Councils of America as an organization, because, at the time and for about a decade earlier, they had feted the private school movement in the South, and that became the CCA’s almost sole purpose in life. CCA remnants were reorganized as the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), that you know about, but many of those private schools still exist, even if they would be better off with the ability to go tax exempt.

I have studied the arguments on both sides for allowing children of illegal immigrants to attend state university at resident rates if they are graduates of in-state high schools and meet the other admission requirements.
I feel that we should allow this ONLY if the country (or state of the country) allows American citizens to attend universities at the tuition rates for local students. In international affairs, (which is what this is) reciprocity is the fundamental principle of diplomacy. We do for your people here exactly what you do for our people living in your country.
But (I suspect, I don’t know) that Mexico politicians will never go for this. I’m not talking about blond haired, blue eyed suburban American college students getting reduced tuition breaks at El Taco Community College near Acapulco so that they can hang out at the beach and still get Pell Grants, I’m talking about Mexican American students with Mexican parents who are living in Mexico, need to continue their education, and find themselves discriminated against because they are American citizens. I don’t know details, for all I know Mexican state colleges may be near free like European colleges for qualified students.
I’m saying that in all things legal, diplomatic, and international, there must be exact reciprocity. If Portland, Oregon and its official sister city, Guadalajara, Mexico (twisted sisters there!) want to have a program where students of one city can attend colleges and universities in the other city at local resident rates, fine. But don’t insist that Portland does it for Mexicans if Mexico won’t do it for Portlanders.

Thank you,
(muchas gracias, amigos)

Filipe got a loan, enrolled in college, and sank $46,000 into debt. This is a loan he should not have received and the Citizen taxpayer will foot the bill.

We have no obligation to educate this man or feel sorry for his plight, he should not be here. The education given to illegal immigrants is hardly fair to the taxpayer, we should reexamine the order of kindergarten through 12th grade. This order is bankrupting States and is a draw for those that broke the law.

While I feel sorry for this guy and others like him there is no way that he or anyone else should pay for his college. For most kids in the US they are told from about 8th grade on that they need to go to college or they will get nowhere. Most of them end up with a huge debt and no way to pay it back, these are the kids that would have been better served by going to a 2 year community college and getting a vocational certificate.

Denying illegal aliens in-state tuition is not “punishing” them for their parents’ actions. It is preventing them from profiting from their parents’ crime.

Let’s say I robbed a bank when my daughter was born and invested it in a 429 college savings plan. If the FBI catches me, would it let her keep the loot, because she was just an infant when the crime was committed and society would benefit if she got a good education?

I don’t think so!

Last night, at the New Brunswick City Council meeting, www.cityofnewbrunswick.org, I mentioned that 6 months ago the 3rd Circuit held oral argument in the case of Pedro Lozano v. City Of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, on whether the proposed local ordinance is pre-empted by federal immigration law, and I exclaimed my hope that the 3rd Circuit reverses the lower court to allow local governments to crack down on illegal aliens and that I do not want illegal aliens to take our jobs!!

now you know why colleges charge so much and why their costs are out of control, way beyond the rate of inflation. We are told by a Massachusetts education official that letting illegals pay the lower in state rate would actually make money for the state. Let’s see; someone from New Hampshire wants to go to U Mass’ nationally known education school, and would pay double what an illegal or Mass resident would pay, but the state would LOSE money.

OK. Just privatize all the damn state universities and let them compete on quality of programs and of students. Give scholarships to academic superstars, not to students who can barely speak English but get scholarships from state colleges because of “diversity” concerns.

States got into the college business originally to provide farmers with advanced training that dad couldn’t provide back at the farm. It’s time states got out of this business of education, and rebated the saved money to middle class taxpayers.

You might see fewer ethnic and gender studies programs under privatization and more engineering, business and science programs. And believe it or not, more private universities might attract grants from wealthy individuals who would want traditional religion, history, culture and arts programs-that would be Western art, thank you very much.

But if a Chinese millionaire wanted to fund Buddhist studies or Far Eastern art studies, fine. Still better than the Puerto Rican or Chicano studies that state schools fund. Hear me Ahnold?