I would say encouraged, and encouraged in order to avoid having a large population of US citizens in california living uneducated, unskilled and unproductive.
By definition illegal aliens are not citizens. Also if one needs to attend college to not be unskilled and uneductated then we really need to look at what we are, or are not teaching kids in primary and secondary education.
To attend public school, elementary through college, one should have to prove legal residence. Want an education? Come here LEGALLY. I'm tired of everyone condoning ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
So the link between illegal immigrants and these other cuts is *that* strong? Wow!
So basically any and every expenditure affects everything else, but instead of looking at the big picture you're blaming the illegals for all these woes.
Do you have any actual numbers for how many will qualify under this scheme? Because the way I see it there are two scenarios:
A) You don't have many illegal immigrants who have spent at least three years in a Californian high school, graduated with a diploma, have applied for state residency and can prove they are living in poverty.
In this case few will apply so it is a miniscule expenditure compared with other governmental/education mistakes/excesses. So no problem.
You do have a great number of illegal immigrants who have spent at least three years in a Californian high school and graduated with a diploma, who have applied for state residency and can prove they are living in poverty.
If you do have large numbers of people in this situation then you have big problems that will not be solved by denying these people a higher education (or by the money 'saved' by doing this).
It is done solely to punish them in an act of petty revenge (probably for their parents' actions) while ignoring the obvious negative impacts of this policy for the state as a whole.
Wow, what do you swat flies with a shotgun? Nice over the top rhetotic!
Quote:
So basically any and every expenditure affects everything else, but instead of looking at the big picture you're blaming the illegals for all these woes.
No I'm not "blaming" them. If I were "blaming" them, then I would likely be advocating that they not be able to attend state schools or attend but not be subsidized. I have advocated that they not receive a new benefit in a time of budgetary crisis that is affecting up to 75,000 students by not giving them educational access. It affects thousands more than that via reduced class and service offerings. That is the big picture which you don't see. When the state is borrowing billions and tossing out thousands of students educationally, you don't start new benefits for any, including and especially illegal immigrants.
Would you care to explain how not granting a new benefit is "blaming" someone?
As for your claim of "denying" them higher education. First there are already citizens and legal immigrants being by harmed and denied educational access these budget cuts. Can you prove that illegal immigrants are being disproportionately hurt by not receiving $165 toward their tuition at community colleges? If illegal immigrants are being harmed they are just part of that rather large number I quoted already being harmed.
Secondly getting 15 units of college education for $165, or even $270 which it is going up to now is still an absolute steal. Those are semester figures which would have to be paid twice a year. I'm not claiming it is a small amount to pay, but compared to the total cost of most colleges, it would be like having to pay a $20 co-pay for life saving heart surgery. The state has already subsidized it down to that cost for them and everyone else. Everyone and everything has limits as to what they can do. Illegal immigrants aren't even supposed to be in the country to go to community college, instead not only can they go, they are subsized down to between $150-300 dollars. When the state is turning away thousands of students while borrowing 10 billion dollars, illegal immigrants can realize the limits of what we can provide and chip in their community college tuition.
I already posted the link that showed that due to budget cuts and tuition increases over 40,000 fewer people were attending California community colleges. If they don't offer the classes and you can't afford them, then you are effectively denied whether you care to admit it or not.
Lol...is that the best you could come up with? "effectively" denied? You made a statement that you can't back up. Here, let me ask you again:
WHERE DOES IT SAY, LIKE YOU HAVE STRONGLY IMPLIED, THAT THE ILLEGALS ARE BEING GUARANTEED SEATS AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES AT THE EXPENSE Of LEGALS? FOR THE THIRD TIME...SHOW US A LINK OR SHUT UP.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise you can keep buring your head in the sand with sarcastic snips, but some of us have the reality of the situation.
Yawn. Boy, you're really struggling to come up with anything to back up your paranoid rhetoric and delirium. This is too funny.
quote:
For the first time since the federal government began tracking such things, more people have moved out of California to other states than have arrived from the other 49. The moving vans headed east and north represented a net of 775,000 people who gave up on California, according to reports Wednesday from the Census Bureau.
Despite that, the state's population is up, the Census Bureau says, thanks to in-state births and people moving to California from other countries. Between 1990 and 2000, California's population rose to just under 33.9 million. The number of foreign-born residents increased by more than one-third to almost 8.9 million.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
In state births... hmmm... think those kids are paying taxes yet? That is over three quarter of a million people leaving the state and taking their ability to pay taxes, their businesses, their retirements, etc. with them.
LMAO. Not surprised that you conveniently avoided to comment on how the population has been GROWING which totally defeats your ridiculous and retarded paranoid argument that the "entire tax base is leaving the state". Oh wait, foreign born residents don't pay taxes right? Children products are tax exempt right?
I'm sure the people coming to the state(with a growing population according to your very own article) are just gonna sit around doing nothing, not purchase any goods that produce sales taxes, and not start any businesses.
By the way:
-how many of those 775,000 were kids who weren't "paying taxes yet"? oops, forgot to consider that? I don't blame you. You're desperate now.
- what percentage of those 775,000 were foreign born? (since apparently they don't pay taxes right?)
Hey Gilsch? What part of illegal is so hard to understand?
Fellowship
"It would require that the student attended high school in California for at least three years, obtained a diploma or an equivalent degree and, if the student isn't in the state legally, has applied to become a legal resident."
Look another one of those links that just happen to support my made up statement with things like statistics, reports, figures.. all made up by reporters who publish them in newspapers for my grand conspiracy.
Another lame attempt. Conspiracy? Still paranoid I see. I think everyone on this board is starting to realize how you resort to selective quoting when you're struggling to back up your misleading paranoid rhetoric. The funny thing is that those articles and figures that make you deliriously happy because "now you'll get 'em"! haven't yet proven a thing. lol
Before you pat yourself on the back too much champ, maybe you should read other posts closely and actually address what you're being asked instead of weakly trying to put a spin on everything.
Quote from your article:
"Californians who left for other states exceeded new arrivals by 108,500 in 2002, almost triple the previous year's 39,500 net departures, according to economic analysis firm Economy.com, which based its estimates on Census Bureau figures, plus data such as school enrollments, employment and utility hookups and disconnections."(end of quote)
Amazing, 108,500 men, women and children departing(net). At this rate, the "entire tax paying base" will be gone in 300 years!! The horror!!
Not surprised you ignored this from the same article:
"As bad as it's getting now, individual out-migration in 2002 was well below that of the early 1990's, when recession, the bursting of the real-estate bubble, natural disasters, race riots and military cutbacks associated with the end of the Cold War wrecked the economy and prompted mass departures."(end of quote)
Hmmmm...you mean, out-migration now is "well below"that of the 1990's?
I ask again....is that really the best you can do??? Is that proof that, to quote YOU...."the entire tax base is leaving the state"?? LMAO
First the illegals were being guaranteed seats in community colleges at the expense of legals. Then the illegals wanted your house and to see you leaving in a cardboard box. Now the "entire tax paying base" is leaving the state.
You're suffering frompersecution delirium. Please get help SOON. The illegals are NOT out to get you.
I'd love to keep encouraging you to try harder, but I'm having mixed feelings. I don't like to see people making fools of themselves. Should you decide to keep trying, please don't do it on my dime(or the other tax paying Californians for that matter).
So I was talking to someone from the political science department about this one. The full idea is that by providing education now, dramatically less money is spend in the future due to problems with poverty and the jobs those in poverty are required to work. This legislation is focused at the people who need it the most and have little or no way of obtaining it.
Now, I've seen the argument over and over that they are illegal, so they just shouldn't have it. But that's not realistic. The problem is there, and ignoring these people only makes their situation worse and ends up costing more money in the future.
Illegal immigrants are very important for agribusinesses out west, and that why illegals are allowed in. Remember that Bush put out a proposal to provide amnesty to illegals at one point (apparently it was to be announced right after a meeting with Mexican Pres Fox min mid sept 2001).
So if you want to fight illegal immigration, go ahead and do so. But this idiotic idea of punishing immigrants is rediculous, as is the idea of it being a desirable reward. If you want to stop a reward process, work on elimination the use of illegal immigrants in agriculture and meat industries, since this is where the big draw is.
This policy is designed to deal with the issue in the long term. Maybe if California dealt with policy in a less myopic way it wouldn't have the same budget problems. My understanding is that much of the current budget crisis resulted from overspending on policies that didn't deal with long-term effects.
So I was talking to someone from the political science department about this one. The full idea is that by providing education now, dramatically less money is spend in the future due to problems with poverty and the jobs those in poverty are required to work. This legislation is focused at the people who need it the most and have little or no way of obtaining it.
Now, I've seen the argument over and over that they are illegal, so they just shouldn't have it. But that's not realistic. The problem is there, and ignoring these people only makes their situation worse and ends up costing more money in the future.
Illegal immigrants are very important for agribusinesses out west, and that why illegals are allowed in. Remember that Bush put out a proposal to provide amnesty to illegals at one point (apparently it was to be announced right after a meeting with Mexican Pres Fox min mid sept 2001).
So if you want to fight illegal immigration, go ahead and do so. But this idiotic idea of punishing immigrants is rediculous, as is the idea of it being a desirable reward. If you want to stop a reward process, work on elimination the use of illegal immigrants in agriculture and meat industries, since this is where the big draw is.
This policy is designed to deal with the issue in the long term. Maybe if California dealt with policy in a less myopic way it wouldn't have the same budget problems. My understanding is that much of the current budget crisis resulted from overspending on policies that didn't deal with long-term effects.
I could not agree more Giant. I firmly believe the United States has a failed system where by we build more and more prisons all the while we have schools run by irresponsible administrators and a teachers union who cares only to serve itself. The students are left out of the equation and there is no excuse!!! I believe public schools should be run at the federal level and should be equal. The "Rich" part of town and the "poor" part of town should both in each community across the country have equally equiped schools with equally qualified teachers and computers to retain the interests of students as well as prepare them for their future. My concern with the topic of this thread was only that the respect for the rule of law is swept under the rug when we justify "even good programs" for "illegal" status people. I am not against the program I am just concerned with the respect the rule of law is given. Now I am firmly aware the US has a history of bad and flat out immoral and "wrong" laws such as how African Americans and women were treated in the past. It is truly a good question how we judge the issue of "illegal" immigrants. Do we concern ourselves or do we allow anything? I suspect the answer is found somewhere in the middle in a balance of both a respect for the law and an awareness to incoprorate people into American society. I do not have all the answers I only ask questions.
Holy crap, FCiB! I agree with you (except for the teachers' union bit, but especially with the federally-run PS system...I've often argued that what we need is a National University system. Build five of them. One in each quadrant of the US. Staff them with the best and the brightest. Each focuses on on thing [agriculture, liberal arts, sciences, etc], make the HIGHLY competitive and TOTALLY FREE), and we both agree with Giant.
So I was talking to someone from the political science department about this one. The full idea is that by providing education now, dramatically less money is spend in the future due to problems with poverty and the jobs those in poverty are required to work. This legislation is focused at the people who need it the most and have little or no way of obtaining it.
Now, I've seen the argument over and over that they are illegal, so they just shouldn't have it. But that's not realistic. The problem is there, and ignoring these people only makes their situation worse and ends up costing more money in the future.
Illegal immigrants are very important for agribusinesses out west, and that why illegals are allowed in. Remember that Bush put out a proposal to provide amnesty to illegals at one point (apparently it was to be announced right after a meeting with Mexican Pres Fox min mid sept 2001).
So if you want to fight illegal immigration, go ahead and do so. But this idiotic idea of punishing immigrants is rediculous, as is the idea of it being a desirable reward. If you want to stop a reward process, work on elimination the use of illegal immigrants in agriculture and meat industries, since this is where the big draw is.
This policy is designed to deal with the issue in the long term. Maybe if California dealt with policy in a less myopic way it wouldn't have the same budget problems. My understanding is that much of the current budget crisis resulted from overspending on policies that didn't deal with long-term effects.
Your argument is associative. It makes a good case for education for all, and then links illegal immigration to education. Thus if you want to support the benefits of education, you must support illegal immigration.
No matter what form of leveraged savings you imply, there is no way to attain it if we simply don't have the money to spend today.
Quote:
The problem is there, and ignoring these people only makes their situation worse and ends up costing more money in the future.
We are not ignoring them, we are providing them two years of college education for likely less than $1000. That is already heavily subsidized, but it is not free.
According to your argument people with medical insurance are no better off than those without because they have to make a $10 co-payment when they go to the doctor. Their medical plan is "ignoring" them since it requires some effort or cost on their own part. This isn't true for medical insurance, and it isn't true for illegal immigrants who have to chip in to pay for part of their already heavily subsidized (not ignored) education.
Likewise by your own reasoning this bill doesn't go far enough. I'm not attempting a slippery slope, just running it to the true conclusion. Obviously higher education is really not obtained with just an associates degree. By your reasoning, we are ignoring them unless we also send them to and pay for the full tuition for them at the CSU or UC level so they may obtain their B.A or B.S degree.
So you should admit that with this reasoning, the true cost of saving them is much higher than subsidizing the $165 they would have to pay at community college.
Illegal immigrants are very important for agribusiness out west. You should say why before you sound so compassionate though. The fresh flow of illegal immigrants keeps Cesar Chavez's dream of unionizing farm workers and other types of workers from happening. Instead of us paying .30 a head for lettuce we pay .15 but hey at least no unions right?
Sounds progressive to me, NOT. Illegal immigration forces all workers, be they legal immigrants or natural citizens from obtaining true living wages or unionizing because the business never has to deal with a scarcity of labor. There will always be someone there who can work for next to nothing, and the employees, knowing that will not vote in a union, will not ask for a raise, will be consigned to the bottom rungs of society.
So yippee for agribusiness I suppose.
Quote:
Now, I've seen the argument over and over that they are illegal, so they just shouldn't have it.
Association again, you are claiming that "it" is education. Illegal immigrants do have educational opportunities. They have heavily subsidized educational opportunities. They do have "it." What they do not have is financial aid to pay for the $165 "co-pay" if you will, that is required of them to attend community college at that heavily subsidized rate.
The minimum wage in California is $6.75. That means that illegal immigrants would have to work a whole 24 hours, not even a full week, at minimum wage to pay for their community college tuition.
Yet you declare we are not letting them have "it." They will cost us large amounts of money in the future as a result. (Fear mongering which I said hurts perceptions of illegal immigrants) I'll give you a hint. Telling the general population they must spend themselves broke today in order not to be robbed (implied) by illegal immigrants tomorrow really isn't a good way to build support for immigration.
California's budget mess has a myriad of causes. However one of the biggest ones is uncompensated services, mandated by but not paid for by the federal government. I will even give Bush a honk on the nose and say that he claimed he would do better than Clinton on this and both have left California out to dry. California's view on this isn't myopic. They are simply forced to pay for services while getting nothing in return. If illegal immigrants cannot pay $165 for college, they obviously for medical care. Yet when they go in for medical care, the federal government will not pay for the treatment even while declarin they have domain over it, and that it is a federal issue.
The hospitals just go uncompensated, and there have been both hospital and emergency room closures as a result.
You also haven't mentioned how illegals, working outside of government regulations, force legitimate businesses to adopt illegal practices in hopes of competing with these workers. It becomes a race to the bottom. Illegal immigrant roofers will roof your house for cash. Professional roofers have to pay into workman's comp, unemployment insurance, actual state taxes as well. In hopes of competing the legitimate business will begin (and already have) working under the table. It leads to less reporting to the government, and less taxes. How is that helpful again?
Holy crap, FCiB! I agree with you (except for the teachers' union bit, but especially with the federally-run PS system...I've often argued that what we need is a National University system. Build five of them. One in each quadrant of the US. Staff them with the best and the brightest. Each focuses on on thing [agriculture, liberal arts, sciences, etc], make the HIGHLY competitive and TOTALLY FREE), and we both agree with Giant.
Bit of a follow up on this that I heard the other day on the radio. Seems now that Davis has been recalled and no longer is attempting to buy votes, he vetoed this bill.
Comments
I would say encouraged, and encouraged in order to avoid having a large population of US citizens in california living uneducated, unskilled and unproductive.
By definition illegal aliens are not citizens. Also if one needs to attend college to not be unskilled and uneductated then we really need to look at what we are, or are not teaching kids in primary and secondary education.
Originally posted by BR
To attend public school, elementary through college, one should have to prove legal residence. Want an education? Come here LEGALLY. I'm tired of everyone condoning ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
Yeah, I hate when people speed too...
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
So the link between illegal immigrants and these other cuts is *that* strong? Wow!
So basically any and every expenditure affects everything else, but instead of looking at the big picture you're blaming the illegals for all these woes.
Do you have any actual numbers for how many will qualify under this scheme? Because the way I see it there are two scenarios:
A) You don't have many illegal immigrants who have spent at least three years in a Californian high school, graduated with a diploma, have applied for state residency and can prove they are living in poverty.
In this case few will apply so it is a miniscule expenditure compared with other governmental/education mistakes/excesses. So no problem.
If you do have large numbers of people in this situation then you have big problems that will not be solved by denying these people a higher education (or by the money 'saved' by doing this).
It is done solely to punish them in an act of petty revenge (probably for their parents' actions) while ignoring the obvious negative impacts of this policy for the state as a whole.
Wow, what do you swat flies with a shotgun? Nice over the top rhetotic!
So basically any and every expenditure affects everything else, but instead of looking at the big picture you're blaming the illegals for all these woes.
No I'm not "blaming" them. If I were "blaming" them, then I would likely be advocating that they not be able to attend state schools or attend but not be subsidized. I have advocated that they not receive a new benefit in a time of budgetary crisis that is affecting up to 75,000 students by not giving them educational access. It affects thousands more than that via reduced class and service offerings. That is the big picture which you don't see. When the state is borrowing billions and tossing out thousands of students educationally, you don't start new benefits for any, including and especially illegal immigrants.
Would you care to explain how not granting a new benefit is "blaming" someone?
As for your claim of "denying" them higher education. First there are already citizens and legal immigrants being by harmed and denied educational access these budget cuts. Can you prove that illegal immigrants are being disproportionately hurt by not receiving $165 toward their tuition at community colleges? If illegal immigrants are being harmed they are just part of that rather large number I quoted already being harmed.
Secondly getting 15 units of college education for $165, or even $270 which it is going up to now is still an absolute steal. Those are semester figures which would have to be paid twice a year. I'm not claiming it is a small amount to pay, but compared to the total cost of most colleges, it would be like having to pay a $20 co-pay for life saving heart surgery. The state has already subsidized it down to that cost for them and everyone else. Everyone and everything has limits as to what they can do. Illegal immigrants aren't even supposed to be in the country to go to community college, instead not only can they go, they are subsized down to between $150-300 dollars. When the state is turning away thousands of students while borrowing 10 billion dollars, illegal immigrants can realize the limits of what we can provide and chip in their community college tuition.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I already posted the link that showed that due to budget cuts and tuition increases over 40,000 fewer people were attending California community colleges. If they don't offer the classes and you can't afford them, then you are effectively denied whether you care to admit it or not.
Lol...is that the best you could come up with? "effectively" denied? You made a statement that you can't back up. Here, let me ask you again:
WHERE DOES IT SAY, LIKE YOU HAVE STRONGLY IMPLIED, THAT THE ILLEGALS ARE BEING GUARANTEED SEATS AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES AT THE EXPENSE Of LEGALS? FOR THE THIRD TIME...SHOW US A LINK OR SHUT UP.
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise you can keep buring your head in the sand with sarcastic snips, but some of us have the reality of the situation.
California Exodus
Here let me quote you a bit...
Yawn. Boy, you're really struggling to come up with anything to back up your paranoid rhetoric and delirium. This is too funny.
quote:
For the first time since the federal government began tracking such things, more people have moved out of California to other states than have arrived from the other 49. The moving vans headed east and north represented a net of 775,000 people who gave up on California, according to reports Wednesday from the Census Bureau.
Despite that, the state's population is up, the Census Bureau says, thanks to in-state births and people moving to California from other countries. Between 1990 and 2000, California's population rose to just under 33.9 million. The number of foreign-born residents increased by more than one-third to almost 8.9 million.
Originally posted by trumptman
In state births... hmmm... think those kids are paying taxes yet? That is over three quarter of a million people leaving the state and taking their ability to pay taxes, their businesses, their retirements, etc. with them.
LMAO. Not surprised that you conveniently avoided to comment on how the population has been GROWING which totally defeats your ridiculous and retarded paranoid argument that the "entire tax base is leaving the state". Oh wait, foreign born residents don't pay taxes right? Children products are tax exempt right?
I'm sure the people coming to the state(with a growing population according to your very own article) are just gonna sit around doing nothing, not purchase any goods that produce sales taxes, and not start any businesses.
By the way:
-how many of those 775,000 were kids who weren't "paying taxes yet"? oops, forgot to consider that? I don't blame you. You're desperate now.
- what percentage of those 775,000 were foreign born? (since apparently they don't pay taxes right?)
Man, this is like taking candy from a kid.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Stuff
Hey Gilsch? What part of illegal is so hard to understand?
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Hey Gilsch? What part of illegal is so hard to understand?
Fellowship
"It would require that the student attended high school in California for at least three years, obtained a diploma or an equivalent degree and, if the student isn't in the state legally, has applied to become a legal resident."
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by trumptman
Look another one of those links that just happen to support my made up statement with things like statistics, reports, figures.. all made up by reporters who publish them in newspapers for my grand conspiracy.
Exodus II
Really you make this too easy...
Nick
Another lame attempt. Conspiracy? Still paranoid I see. I think everyone on this board is starting to realize how you resort to selective quoting when you're struggling to back up your misleading paranoid rhetoric. The funny thing is that those articles and figures that make you deliriously happy because "now you'll get 'em"! haven't yet proven a thing. lol
Before you pat yourself on the back too much champ, maybe you should read other posts closely and actually address what you're being asked instead of weakly trying to put a spin on everything.
Quote from your article:
"Californians who left for other states exceeded new arrivals by 108,500 in 2002, almost triple the previous year's 39,500 net departures, according to economic analysis firm Economy.com, which based its estimates on Census Bureau figures, plus data such as school enrollments, employment and utility hookups and disconnections."(end of quote)
Amazing, 108,500 men, women and children departing(net). At this rate, the "entire tax paying base" will be gone in 300 years!! The horror!!
Not surprised you ignored this from the same article:
"As bad as it's getting now, individual out-migration in 2002 was well below that of the early 1990's, when recession, the bursting of the real-estate bubble, natural disasters, race riots and military cutbacks associated with the end of the Cold War wrecked the economy and prompted mass departures."(end of quote)
Hmmmm...you mean, out-migration now is "well below"that of the 1990's?
I ask again....is that really the best you can do??? Is that proof that, to quote YOU...."the entire tax base is leaving the state"?? LMAO
First the illegals were being guaranteed seats in community colleges at the expense of legals. Then the illegals wanted your house and to see you leaving in a cardboard box. Now the "entire tax paying base" is leaving the state.
You're suffering frompersecution delirium. Please get help SOON. The illegals are NOT out to get you.
I'd love to keep encouraging you to try harder, but I'm having mixed feelings. I don't like to see people making fools of themselves. Should you decide to keep trying, please don't do it on my dime(or the other tax paying Californians for that matter).
Now, I've seen the argument over and over that they are illegal, so they just shouldn't have it. But that's not realistic. The problem is there, and ignoring these people only makes their situation worse and ends up costing more money in the future.
Illegal immigrants are very important for agribusinesses out west, and that why illegals are allowed in. Remember that Bush put out a proposal to provide amnesty to illegals at one point (apparently it was to be announced right after a meeting with Mexican Pres Fox min mid sept 2001).
So if you want to fight illegal immigration, go ahead and do so. But this idiotic idea of punishing immigrants is rediculous, as is the idea of it being a desirable reward. If you want to stop a reward process, work on elimination the use of illegal immigrants in agriculture and meat industries, since this is where the big draw is.
This policy is designed to deal with the issue in the long term. Maybe if California dealt with policy in a less myopic way it wouldn't have the same budget problems. My understanding is that much of the current budget crisis resulted from overspending on policies that didn't deal with long-term effects.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
best post of the thread giant.
Second best post of the thread superkaratemonkeydeathcar.
Originally posted by giant
So I was talking to someone from the political science department about this one. The full idea is that by providing education now, dramatically less money is spend in the future due to problems with poverty and the jobs those in poverty are required to work. This legislation is focused at the people who need it the most and have little or no way of obtaining it.
Now, I've seen the argument over and over that they are illegal, so they just shouldn't have it. But that's not realistic. The problem is there, and ignoring these people only makes their situation worse and ends up costing more money in the future.
Illegal immigrants are very important for agribusinesses out west, and that why illegals are allowed in. Remember that Bush put out a proposal to provide amnesty to illegals at one point (apparently it was to be announced right after a meeting with Mexican Pres Fox min mid sept 2001).
So if you want to fight illegal immigration, go ahead and do so. But this idiotic idea of punishing immigrants is rediculous, as is the idea of it being a desirable reward. If you want to stop a reward process, work on elimination the use of illegal immigrants in agriculture and meat industries, since this is where the big draw is.
This policy is designed to deal with the issue in the long term. Maybe if California dealt with policy in a less myopic way it wouldn't have the same budget problems. My understanding is that much of the current budget crisis resulted from overspending on policies that didn't deal with long-term effects.
I could not agree more Giant. I firmly believe the United States has a failed system where by we build more and more prisons all the while we have schools run by irresponsible administrators and a teachers union who cares only to serve itself. The students are left out of the equation and there is no excuse!!! I believe public schools should be run at the federal level and should be equal. The "Rich" part of town and the "poor" part of town should both in each community across the country have equally equiped schools with equally qualified teachers and computers to retain the interests of students as well as prepare them for their future. My concern with the topic of this thread was only that the respect for the rule of law is swept under the rug when we justify "even good programs" for "illegal" status people. I am not against the program I am just concerned with the respect the rule of law is given. Now I am firmly aware the US has a history of bad and flat out immoral and "wrong" laws such as how African Americans and women were treated in the past. It is truly a good question how we judge the issue of "illegal" immigrants. Do we concern ourselves or do we allow anything? I suspect the answer is found somewhere in the middle in a balance of both a respect for the law and an awareness to incoprorate people into American society. I do not have all the answers I only ask questions.
Fellowship
We should all go have a cold one?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by giant
So I was talking to someone from the political science department about this one. The full idea is that by providing education now, dramatically less money is spend in the future due to problems with poverty and the jobs those in poverty are required to work. This legislation is focused at the people who need it the most and have little or no way of obtaining it.
Now, I've seen the argument over and over that they are illegal, so they just shouldn't have it. But that's not realistic. The problem is there, and ignoring these people only makes their situation worse and ends up costing more money in the future.
Illegal immigrants are very important for agribusinesses out west, and that why illegals are allowed in. Remember that Bush put out a proposal to provide amnesty to illegals at one point (apparently it was to be announced right after a meeting with Mexican Pres Fox min mid sept 2001).
So if you want to fight illegal immigration, go ahead and do so. But this idiotic idea of punishing immigrants is rediculous, as is the idea of it being a desirable reward. If you want to stop a reward process, work on elimination the use of illegal immigrants in agriculture and meat industries, since this is where the big draw is.
This policy is designed to deal with the issue in the long term. Maybe if California dealt with policy in a less myopic way it wouldn't have the same budget problems. My understanding is that much of the current budget crisis resulted from overspending on policies that didn't deal with long-term effects.
Your argument is associative. It makes a good case for education for all, and then links illegal immigration to education. Thus if you want to support the benefits of education, you must support illegal immigration.
No matter what form of leveraged savings you imply, there is no way to attain it if we simply don't have the money to spend today.
The problem is there, and ignoring these people only makes their situation worse and ends up costing more money in the future.
We are not ignoring them, we are providing them two years of college education for likely less than $1000. That is already heavily subsidized, but it is not free.
According to your argument people with medical insurance are no better off than those without because they have to make a $10 co-payment when they go to the doctor. Their medical plan is "ignoring" them since it requires some effort or cost on their own part. This isn't true for medical insurance, and it isn't true for illegal immigrants who have to chip in to pay for part of their already heavily subsidized (not ignored) education.
Likewise by your own reasoning this bill doesn't go far enough. I'm not attempting a slippery slope, just running it to the true conclusion. Obviously higher education is really not obtained with just an associates degree. By your reasoning, we are ignoring them unless we also send them to and pay for the full tuition for them at the CSU or UC level so they may obtain their B.A or B.S degree.
So you should admit that with this reasoning, the true cost of saving them is much higher than subsidizing the $165 they would have to pay at community college.
Illegal immigrants are very important for agribusiness out west. You should say why before you sound so compassionate though. The fresh flow of illegal immigrants keeps Cesar Chavez's dream of unionizing farm workers and other types of workers from happening. Instead of us paying .30 a head for lettuce we pay .15 but hey at least no unions right?
Sounds progressive to me, NOT. Illegal immigration forces all workers, be they legal immigrants or natural citizens from obtaining true living wages or unionizing because the business never has to deal with a scarcity of labor. There will always be someone there who can work for next to nothing, and the employees, knowing that will not vote in a union, will not ask for a raise, will be consigned to the bottom rungs of society.
So yippee for agribusiness I suppose.
Now, I've seen the argument over and over that they are illegal, so they just shouldn't have it.
Association again, you are claiming that "it" is education. Illegal immigrants do have educational opportunities. They have heavily subsidized educational opportunities. They do have "it." What they do not have is financial aid to pay for the $165 "co-pay" if you will, that is required of them to attend community college at that heavily subsidized rate.
The minimum wage in California is $6.75. That means that illegal immigrants would have to work a whole 24 hours, not even a full week, at minimum wage to pay for their community college tuition.
Yet you declare we are not letting them have "it." They will cost us large amounts of money in the future as a result. (Fear mongering which I said hurts perceptions of illegal immigrants) I'll give you a hint. Telling the general population they must spend themselves broke today in order not to be robbed (implied) by illegal immigrants tomorrow really isn't a good way to build support for immigration.
California's budget mess has a myriad of causes. However one of the biggest ones is uncompensated services, mandated by but not paid for by the federal government. I will even give Bush a honk on the nose and say that he claimed he would do better than Clinton on this and both have left California out to dry. California's view on this isn't myopic. They are simply forced to pay for services while getting nothing in return. If illegal immigrants cannot pay $165 for college, they obviously for medical care. Yet when they go in for medical care, the federal government will not pay for the treatment even while declarin they have domain over it, and that it is a federal issue.
The hospitals just go uncompensated, and there have been both hospital and emergency room closures as a result.
You also haven't mentioned how illegals, working outside of government regulations, force legitimate businesses to adopt illegal practices in hopes of competing with these workers. It becomes a race to the bottom. Illegal immigrant roofers will roof your house for cash. Professional roofers have to pay into workman's comp, unemployment insurance, actual state taxes as well. In hopes of competing the legitimate business will begin (and already have) working under the table. It leads to less reporting to the government, and less taxes. How is that helpful again?
Nick
Housing density
Nick
Originally posted by midwinter
Holy crap, FCiB! I agree with you (except for the teachers' union bit, but especially with the federally-run PS system...I've often argued that what we need is a National University system. Build five of them. One in each quadrant of the US. Staff them with the best and the brightest. Each focuses on on thing [agriculture, liberal arts, sciences, etc], make the HIGHLY competitive and TOTALLY FREE), and we both agree with Giant.
We should all go have a cold one?
Cheers
Scott
LOL
Cold one any time Scott
Fellows
When will htat law pass in IL too?
No soup for you
Nick