If some of you out there are curious as to why some of us right-wing law and order types are somewhat reflexively opposed to "comprehensive immigration reform"...
Illegal immigrants can continue to pay in-state tuition at California’s public colleges and universities, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday.
“We’re really pleased with this judgment,” said Constance Carroll, chancellor of the San Diego Community College District, which advocated for that outcome. “As we said in our brief, this is really a matter of California law and California decision making. We feel that these young immigrants, who have bright futures, are being treated fairly.”
The court ruled on a suit originally filed in Yolo County in 2005 by a group of students and parents from 19 states outside of California. The plaintiffs contended that a 2001 state law, AB 540, improperly circumvented a federal law meant to prevent the granting of in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. The state law remained in effect during the litigation.
You see, we would love to "dialog" about "comprehensive immigration reform" but we don't dialog with crazy people and Constance Carroll is crazy. Where exactly does this alternate reality exist where a lunatic like Carroll makes sense talking about the "fair" treatment of people who are not even supposed to be here with respect to their tuition payments? We have illegal immigrants here taking advantage of our education system and we're arguing about tuition?
And don't even get us started on our legal system that upholds this illegal behavior.
Screw these people. Recall the great Amnesty push of the summer of 2007 when an unholy bipartisan political-class cabal tried to ram through an Amnesty bill but which was met and defeated by a bipartisan country-class uprising. It's kind of tough to "dialog" after that debacle in which the well was poisoned, perhaps irreversibly, and when pretty much the same ruling-class cast of characters are still at the levers of power.
Perhaps after the humiliations of 2006 and 2008, the Republicans can recapture their brand as "the Party that actually enforces the laws on the books." That would inspire confidence, no?
Allow us to dial it back for a moment: yes, we do realize that "dialog" is important but where is the middle ground, where is the room for compromise when dealing with a culture and mentality that don't see illegal immigration as... illegal?
And as long as the open-borders set continues to pander to and refuses to marginalize groups like La Raza and Mecha and their thinly-veiled third-world socialist, anti-American and Latino supremacist ways, there is, quite frankly, not a whole hell of a lot to talk about.
5 comments:
This is crazy. It will go to the Supremes. Wrong on so many levels. Can't they pay in-state in their native countries?
I love it. Why not just open up universities in Mexico and pay for them to attend before they cross the border?
Surely you are aware that CATO and the libertarian wing of the party are among the strongest open border advocates.
Steve
I love the vast majority of what CATO and Reason do for the overall cause of freedom and liberty but this particular sagebrush conservative regects their naive stand on this issue.
...and please, quit calling me surely.
/c'mon, you knew it was coming.
Yes, the Libertarians and Cato are for open borders. BUT they are not for open liberal compensation and benefits, nor are they for access for criminals or disease having access.
Steve, you can't have it both ways.
We can't pick and choose. We can't say we want a Libertarian border policy and choose not to have discretion regarding criminal background, communicable disease or provide benefits.
We should move towards open borders, but we can't continually provide benefits to a unproductive (non taxpaying) diseased or criminal society.
We are paying for socialism already, but we are not getting our money's worth or providing wisely.
Post a Comment