Indiana lawmakers this week scuttled an effort to award in-state tuition subsidies to illegal aliens, but that begs the question — why should illegal aliens be admitted to state colleges at all? My friend D.A. King, a tireless champion of immigration control in Georgia, reports that the legislature in Atlanta is considering bills that, among other things, would clarify that post-secondary education is a public benefit for which illegal immigrants are not eligible. And Gov. Nathan Deal — who campaigned as an immigration hawk — in sitting on his hands, just as he did last year when the legislature was fighting over a larger immigration measure. If the current bill passes, he may well end up signing it as he did last year, but that’s not what he promised when he was running in 2010. Here’s the relevant question on a candidate survey:
If elected, will you do whatever necessary to prohibit illegal aliens from attending any school in Georgia’s university system and our technical college system? This is a YES or NO question.
Deal’s answer?
Yes.
You might think “whatever necessary” might include a statement like “I support this bill.” Instead, his office is wimping out in the face of opposition from the ACLU and Amnesty International (!), saying “the governor does not comment on the legislative process”.
Pols will always sell you out if you let them.
Allowing immigrant students access to Universities is a better solution compared to completely preventing their access. If they get a college education, they will have a better chance of getting a decent job, and thereby contribute to the U.S. economy. If they are completely prevented from attending college and stay in this country, they will likely end up being part of the underground economy as a day laborer, meaning a lower wage occupation that pays few taxes to the government. If these students have the wherewithal to go to college, let them attend. The alternative is worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suppose I can understand Deal's point of view: if he won't let the (illegal) students have in-state tuition, then they might not (illegally) vote for him. Legal schmegal, a vote's a vote.
Nice to know where he stands, though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I want to know is whether or not Mitch Daniels supported the bill in Indiana.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Krikorian, please learn the correct usage of "begs the question." It's disheartening to witness intelligent people misusing this term, as so many people seem to do these days.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt prompts the question, or it brings up the question, or it demands an answer to the question, BUT IT DOES NOT BEG THE QUESTION!
It's the "parameters" of the new millennium!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHonestly? This sort of bill is incredibly shortsighted. Taking a realist approach--and let's face it, the likelihood of someone magically being able to fiat away existing illegal immigrants in any significant numbers borders on the fantastical--one has to question whether limiting avenues by which the children of illegal immigrants (as the main beneficiaries of education benefits) can become higher skilled workers is an intelligent move.
There's a clear correlation between higher skilled workers, their wages, and subsequently, their own tax contributions. Beyond that, as skill levels are increased, overall reliance on government spending decreases.
In short, they earn more, contribute more, and require less. So long as we provide funding to education because that funding has a societal impact that outweighs its own costs, the same arguments extend towards illegal immigrants who partake in it as well.
At that point, it becomes clear that the only real real argument for this bill is based on some given notion of fairness (i.e. it's not fair that they participate, or that they've come here illegally, etc.). However, such arguments have no bearing on the economic feasibility of a situation that is already a given. Instead, they are at best logically equivalent to the left's similar arguments (i.e., they're people to, you just oppose it because you're secretly racist, etc. etc.).
When it comes to funding decisions, even in cases where my own ideas might otherwise be implemented, I believe we benefit most from having a strictly rational basis for action, based on clear and identifiable data-driven arguments. When things turn into a "I feel X, so we should Y" type of argument, we always end up dealing with runaway spending. Always.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the people of a state like Texas want to allow college age students who have attended public school for years to attend a state college - who are you to say they shouldn't? If you really had the courage of your convictions you would challenge the presence of illegal aliens in public school at all levels.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI never thought I'd see the day when American politicians put their party above their country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have.
Perhaps I've lived too long.
Dumb to say yes to "whatever necessary." Would you agree to raise taxes as part of a grand bargain? Or make some other deal?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll I care about is requiring writers to find out what "beg the question" means.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Pols will always sell out if you let them." Right.
This is why I won't vote Republican if it implies a "consumption tax." I was already taxed, and am now enjoying my money. I fully expect a sellout on other issues that interest me, so I might as well vote for the bad guys.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe U S opponents of immigration are busy creating legal disabilities against those of foreign birth that are coming to create by imitation the horrible conditions of third world nations.They think that to act to harm foreigners is somehow going to improve the welfare of Americans.Such ignorance of the rules of social order is sour and petty,and harmful to all.Freedom works better.Before 1920,the USA had a wiser set of policies.Read the jew-hating,Irish hating,eastern european hating rhetoric of the restrictionist of the teens and the twenties.They hold to the theory of a static pie of human goods,and cry "me,mine,not yours!.I will smash you with the Law."And any law they propose is ipso facto good,to them
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy admit them indeed?
What is the supposed purpose of attending college for anyone? To learn some skill so you may get a job that will allow you to be a productive member of society.
But aren't illegals (technically) ineligible to work here? Where is the disconnect?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA lot of us tried to warn people about Deal before the primary. All he is interested in is preserving his network, and whatever it is they do.
I suppose you could say Georgia is only being true to its roots.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePols will always sell you out FULL STOP.
Fixed that for you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think "beg the question" means what you think it means.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll I care about is requiring writers to find out what "beg the question" means.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's try this on other issues:
If elected, will you do whatever necessary to prohibit all U.S. citizens and residents from consuming and/or possessing illegal drugs? This is a YES or NO question.
If elected, will you do whatever necessary to prohibit U.S. citizens and residents from violating copyright laws? This is a YES or NO question.
If elected, will you do whatever necessary to prohibit U.S. citizens and residents from violating online gambling laws? This is a YES or NO question.
If elected, will you do whatever necessary to prohibit gas stations from selling gasoline to any driver without proof of insurance? This is a YES or NO question.
If elected, will you do whatever necessary to prohibit underaged citizens and residents from consuming alcohol? This is a YES or NO question.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse