[jasper12]

Why do illegal's go to college? They can't get a job after they are graduated, unless they go back to where they are from.

[JayCT]

Please be respectful of other people when commenting. Thank you, JayCT, Moderator

[goldenband]

Originally Posted by JViello

This was the protect freed slaves, and not for people 9 months pregnant making a run for the border for free medical care and citizenship. Period.

There's a pretty sizeable body of jurisprudence and case law that disagrees with you. "Period." It doesn't matter what you think. You don't like it, amend the Constitution.

[jjinla]

"It doesn't matter what you think. You don't like it, amend the Constitution."

Republicans are TRYING to, and they are being called fascists for it.

PS - JViello you left out welfare, food stamps and housing assistance for the families of anchor babies.

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Second, if the US System wasn't so crazy by design I'd say that people don't have a reason to have their status in limbo. But it isn't sane, so its' fairly unreasonable to expect perfect status. Reforming the system is all but politically impossible because of just hardened racists in the Southwest. They might be small but damned do they vote. I really hate to paint with a brush, but that's who the candidates were courting. As for how other countries do it, I'm really only familiar with Greek and Irish Citizenship laws.

~Cheers

How is the system insane and how are hardened racists from the South making it worse?

If anything states like Arizona and Texas are cracking down on illegal immigration, and getting sued by the federal gov't for it. If conservatives in TX had their way there would be a guest worker program, and all social services would be off limits to illegals.

You really aren't making any sense, I think what you are really saying is you don't like the demographic that criticizes illegal immigration, hence the reference to racist southerners.

I mean come on

~Cherrio!!

[Bluefox]

Hi Everyone,

I had posted this on a similar thread in the California forum but haven't yet received a satisfactory response. Maybe someone can help me with this. If this question has already been answered, just direct me to the post. Thanks!


So the issue is whether a state statute giving illegal aliens in-state tuition benefits is a violation of a federal law which denies educational benefits based on residency to illegal aliens.

I just don't see how California, Connecticut, or any state for that matter has a greater stake than the federal government in determining public policy with regards to immigration, which above all else is a federal issue.

Or is it more of an issue of the federal government not being able to tell a state to whom it can and cannot provide state-funded benefits, even though the recipients of those benefits do not have any legal status to be in the country?

It just seems like the flipside of the Arizona controversy. Isn't a state giving benefits to undocumented aliens (CA, CT) just as nefarious as a state allegedly taking away rights of undocumented aliens (AZ), when it comes to overstepping the initiatives of the federal government with regards to illegal aliens?

Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks!

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by Bluefoxwarrior

Hi Everyone,

I had posted this on a similar thread in the California forum but haven't yet received a satisfactory response. Maybe someone can help me with this. If this question has already been answered, just direct me to the post. Thanks!


So the issue is whether a state statute giving illegal aliens in-state tuition benefits is a violation of a federal law which denies educational benefits based on residency to illegal aliens.

I just don't see how California, Connecticut, or any state for that matter has a greater stake than the federal government in determining public policy with regards to immigration, which above all else is a federal issue.

Or is it more of an issue of the federal government not being able to tell a state to whom it can and cannot provide state-funded benefits, even though the recipients of those benefits do not have any legal status to be in the country?

It just seems like the flipside of the Arizona controversy. Isn't a state giving benefits to undocumented aliens (CA, CT) just as nefarious as a state allegedly taking away rights of undocumented aliens (AZ), when it comes to overstepping the initiatives of the federal government with regards to illegal aliens?

Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks!

How do we have a greater stake then the federal govt

CT taxpayers fund the majority of the state universities here. Therefore our tax dollars are funding the "in state tuition". This is why people in CT care, it is our money.

Doesn't this make sense to you?

If we pay for illegals to get in state tuition, we are doing 2 things

1. Paying more taxes
2. rejecting one more in state resident, who might not get an education

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by jjinla

PS - JViello you left out welfare, food stamps and housing assistance for the families of anchor babies.

I'm really not convinced that there is an "anchor baby" epidemic. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but the laws are pretty strict as is. The child can stay, but there's no guarantee that the parents are legally bound then to stay in country. But you're making a leap that illegal immigrants take up a sizable chunk of available housing assistance, welfare, etc.

Hartford Renter,

I say broken because there's an insane backlog that keeps peoples legal status in limbo and sometimes just doesn't keep with demand. And then there's the allowed recruiting of seasonal workers to work on giant corporate farms. A US citizen has to be 21 to sponsor their parents and other relatives for citizenship. Any attempt to revamp the guest worker programme is met with considerable backlash by a predictable caucus. It's an easy campaign issue, it maligns a group that can't vote, protects powerful interests' cheap labour supply, and gets a core group to the polls. There's really no reason to change it, and forget the fact that the economy plays a bigger role in immigration than the want for services.

It's not a demographic thing of people I disagree with on this. I've never been to the Southwest, but there are plenty of polls and elections that I can study from. Who I mentioned are completely in the minority, please don't me wrong, but they do vote in primaries. Look at John McCain's reelection campaign. He completely switched his position and rhetoric on Immigration reform in his bid against JD Hayworth. Or Sharon Angle, who lost, that showed "scary Mexicans" as the normal for undocumented workers. Incidentally, in perhaps poetic nature, it was the Latino vote in Nevada that really helped push Harry Reid back in office.

And there is a huge difference between crackdowns performed by states and allowing kids in-state tuition. And I'm not too sure if I believe that Conservatives in TX want a guest worker programme. I'd need to see the statistics.

~Cheers

[Beeker2211]

Renter,

I still don't exactly see how it is edging out a legal student. Because it seems to me that what is really going on is that undocumented students have a fairer shot, not legal students having an unfair shot. I'm willing to put money that the students citizen status wouldn't even come up in the selection process.

~Paz

[AMSS]

Originally Posted by jasper12

Why do illegal's go to college? They can't get a job after they are graduated, unless they go back to where they are from.

I wonder that too. But it doesn't surprise me that colleges would further the exploitation of these people. Colleges are already taking tuition money from students they know won't make it, why not take it from people who can't do anything with it either?