Once again, the insanity that is Massachusetts rears its ugly head on the topic of illegal aliens.
The Boston Globe, taking a break from using illegal aliens as a club to beat Attorney General Tom Reilly over the head, is back to its old games of cranking out a sob story on illegal aliens (no, not “the children of illegal aliens” — they are illegal in their own right, and some are not legally children) having trouble going to college. You see, the mean, evil, selfish, oppressive, reactionary state government doesn’t grant in-state tuition breaks to illegal aliens; instead, it hoards that privilege to only those who actually do such things as obey the laws and pay their taxes and other such tokens of submission.
The key paragraph in this piece, for me, is this one:
Many came here with their parents on tourist visas and stayed on after the visas expired, knowing they would no longer be in the country legally. How much Massachusetts should help them pay for college divides supporters and opponents of stricter immigration laws. Massachusetts, like all but nine states, requires illegal residents to pay out-of-state tuition for public universities, a barrier for many students.
No, Ms. Silva, that is not the question. The question is why should the state help them out at all? That money would be better spent helping them OUT OF THE STATE entirely, back to their native lands, where they can reap the benefits of their citizenship. The taxpaying citizens of Massachusetts have every damned right in the world to put limits on how their money is spent, and if they choose to reserve it for their children and the children of others who have respected the laws of the state and nation, that’s their right.
If the illegal aliens don’t like it, that’s just too damned bad. They knew what they were getting themselves (and their children) into when they chose to either jump the border or overstay a visa, obtained under fraudulent premises. If the kids have any right to be angry, it should be at their parents for putting them into the situation, not the people who refused to submit to their partents’ demands for a fait accompli.
Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas) is once again imparting his notion that the law isn’t necessarily the law, depending on who you are. No longer is it just for his family (he is immune from vehicular-homicide laws, his son
Patches Patrick doesn’t have to obey vehicular laws, his nephew Joe can ignore fireworks laws, his mother’s estate can flout Massachusetts tax laws, and so on), but now he thinks that there are certain laws certain police should not enforce. What brought this to light is his fierce stance against letting the Massachusetts State Police actually arrest and detain illegal aliens.
Sometimes, I wonder if I ought to change my name to Kennedy. While life would certainly be a lot easier, I lack the Kennedy gene that would let me withstand the perquisite liver abuse.