Instate tuition for illegal aliens
The General Assembly is again considering offering "instate" tuition rates to illegal aliens (NHR, by Mary O'Leary). As with most any topic, there are at least two sides to this debate.
My main concern though arises from my three years residing in Vietnam. I made good friends there, including some who would've gladly given up everything to live in America. They played by the rules and "got in line." Yet while they queued up, others broke the rules and "cut to the front of the line"... and now the idea is to reward them financially?
To me, that just seems to be a slap in the face of my friends and all the other people around the world who play by the rules.
And the article has another reason to oppose this proposal:
For state Rep. Robert Godfrey, D-Danbury, the proposal is flawed.He said it is a conflict with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which prohibits states from providing a postsecondary education benefit to an alien not lawfully present unless any citizen is also eligible for the benefit.Godfrey’s interpretation is that the state would have to charge the in-state rate for all students, if it was offered to illegal residents.Hmmm... on second thought, maybe we should let the state ignore federal laws? Then the town can start to ignore state laws, such as binding arbitration.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
2 comments:
If immigration laws are to be ignored and in-state tuition preference is to be given to illegal aliens, then I’m sure Rep. Reinoso will have no problem adding this amendment to his proposal—
“The No-trespassing laws are hereby repealed. When a family of squatters breaks into a home, they shall not be tossed out. Furthermore, the owner of said home shall pay all living costs of said squatters, including medical and education expenses, out of his own pocket.”
Rep. Reinoso and “children’s activist” Doug Hall should support repealing the No-trespassing laws in this manner – it’s consistent with their logic of giving preferential tuition to illegal aliens. And being “compassionate” liberals, they should gladly, personally support a group of squatters in their own homes (as should Rep. Nardello who previously voted for tuition preference for illegals). “It’s for the children,” don’t you know!
The point is that if we have the right to decide whom to invite into our homes, we have that same right as a nation. If immigration laws can be ignored, then so can no-trespassing laws. Aren’t the No-trespassing laws as “exclusionary” as the immigration laws?
Elhardji, the subject of the NHR article, sounds like a fine young man. But he is trespassing, and he's received 13 years of taxpayer-financed K-12 education as it is. And his preferential admission to a state college will displace a similarly hard-working young adult who's here legally and who’s played by the rules.
We’re now facing 22% of state college seats going to illegal aliens (reflecting the projected 22% of Connecticut’s population who will be illegal aliens in 2025). Young adults who are legal U.S. and Connecticut residents will be effectively excluded from nearly a quarter of state college seats. Add that as another reason for the young adult “brain drain” from Connecticut.
this is total BS....I dont know how people even think these things up...build a fence on the border but give illegals college tuition?
Post a Comment