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.
The article is about applying and financing college, not getting in-state tuition. They cannot fill out the forms to borrow money or apply, so they cannot go to college. Of course, since they will not be deported, the best solution is to make sure they don’t get an education, because we know that education is a bad investment and a waste of time.
Did we even read the same article? You talk about these kids like they are lazy sacks trying to game the state. They want to fill out forms, borrow money, go to college, and pay it back later when they become a nurse or a doctor. Sounds like a real threat to me.
And feel free to make fun of the Kennedy clan, because with the ridiculous hijinx in the Bush clan, it will end up a tie. Corruption runs deep in powerful families, and we have known that for centuries. Your insights are brilliant!
“You talk about these kids like they are lazy sacks trying to game the state.”
No, I think he talks about the illegal aliens being in this country illegally and should either a) leave, b) deported, c) seek legal status through either student visas or immigration.
As illegals, the state owes them nothing other than directions to the nearest border.
And just so you know I am an immigrant who went through the process and obtained my citizenship the legal way.
Amen to Jay Tea and Faith. The benefits of living in this country are – or should be – limited to those who are here LEGALLY and who pay the freight that FUNDS this so-called “free” education or educational discounts. If you broke the law to come here, you can and should be shown the nearest border and told to cross back and never return!
As to the Kennedys and their substance abuse inclinations, it seems like most of the Kennedy MEN are poster chidlren for bad behavior in general. That being said, Edward Moore Kennedy is not even 1% of the man or public servant that either his brother John or his brother Robert were. The ONLY REASON this bloviating gasbag continues to be sent to Congress is BECAUSE his name is Kennedy and in Masschusetts, that seems to trump all manner of incompetent behavior.
Finally, Jay Tea (D-Chivas) may be the funniest thing I have read in a long time! Kudos!
Once again, those of us who support legal immigrants (that was LEGAL) is because we either ARE legal immigrants or our parents or grandparents are/were legal immigrants (or perhaps a neighbor, friend, the gentleman who owns the store on the corner). The process is long and hard, and they deserve respect for all of that hard work and dedication. All I had to do to become an American was to be born, and I had little control over it, and I certainly didn’t have to pass a difficult exam!
I don’t dislike illegal aliens – they are people just like we are all people. I’m just asking them to follow the rules and become legal immigrants. Welcome Aboard! Should I go to their country, I will follow the rules there.
God bless America.
People like Ms. Silva (and Hillary Clinton via her association with Marian Wright Edelman and the Children’s Defense Fund) believe that children exist independently of their parents. Hence, why punish a child for the actions, or inaction, of their parents? (Such thinking also undergirds anchor citizenship whereby a child born in the US to illegal alien parents is automatically a U.S. citizen, an enormous hindrance to enforcement of immigration law.) The turth is that children are not independent entities of their parents, and believing such inverts much of the foundations of our legal system and cultural values. But that’s another topic entirely.
As for children of illegals not being able to take advantage of in-state discounts in college, such privileges are the result of paying taxes into the educational system, which is done primarily through real estate taxes, with income taxes providing a secondary source of support. Illegals circumvent this system of support on both points: they do not pay income taxes as their work is paid under the table. I don’t consider taxes paid under a false Social Security number to be legitimate, as these are often obtained through identity theft, either directly or indirectly in the instance where SSA cards are sold to illegals who require them to work in regulated industries. Illegals often pay less than their fair share of real estate taxes by occupying rental accomodation in numbers beyond what the units are meant to house.
Illegals have effectively lived at a discount during their entire time spent in the U.S., receiving public education and health care benefits for free up to (and often including) the time that said children are applying for admission to college. At some point, in the real world at least, the free ride comes to an end and participation in the system requires an investment. At no point have the parents of these children made known their desire to do anything other than benefit from our nation’s largesse and, while it may be a shock for their children when the hand-outs come to an end, it as a valuable lesson in how the real world works. Understanding that is the key to succeeding in life, and more valuable than any college education.
Kimyl oh,
We must be reading different articles. You say “The article is about applying and financing college, not getting in-state tuition.” Let me give you a few lines from the one I am reading.
“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.” That would seem to imply something more than just applying for aid.
“Many counselors say they believe their students should be able to pay the same in-state tuition at public universities that legal residents do.” Again, this would sure seem to be about paying in-state tuition, not about applying for aid or scholarships.
“In January, state lawmakers overwhelmingly voted against a measure that would allow children of illegal residents to receive in-state tuition.” Again, the issue seems to be in-state tuition.
Let me ask your question another way. Assume we had a bunch of high school kids who had admitted they were thieves, had escaped from prison, but for whatever reason the authorities decided that they would not catch them and take them back to jail. So the kids are self admitted criminals. Would you still say we should give them special treatment compared to people who don’t break the law? What if they were self admitted rapists? How about self admitted murderers? Can you not see the other side of the argument that says we should not give criminals special treatment we do not provide for law abiding people as it will likely encourage more criminal activity? They are not in the state legally any more than an escaped prisoner can be in the state legally. He may physically be there, but his status is not legal.
If you don’t like how the illegal immigrants are treated, there is a political solution at hand. You can start to lobby congress to change the immigration laws. At one time, we had totally open immigration. If you could come here, you could stay here. There is nothing in the constitution to prevent us going back to that. You could even do the difficult work of getting a US constitutional amendment providing the right for anyone in the world to come to the US. But if you aren’t willing to do the hard work to change the law, forgive me for not being sympathetic to your call for special treatment for criminals. No matter how heart rending the criminals story.
Laws such as these are made for mere mortals. The importance of a Kennedy transcends these meaningless barriers. And I’m quite sure that Lord Ted is more than fatigued by endless references to Mary Jo. After all, it’s not as though someone important died.