In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants

[philibusters]

i have a close friend of mine whose daughter is in 1st grade.  in her class there are 3 illegal immigrant kids who speak NO ENGLISH.  this is in middle class america by the way.  anyways, the mother often volunteers at the school and noticed one day that the teacher spent most of the day trying to translate to the 3 criminal children.  (shut up, they are guilty be association)  anyways, she went to complain and the principal said too bad so sad.  so she wanted to move her kid to the better school down the road but was rejected...

why?
because she wasn't registered as a citizen in that specific county.  on the other hand, those illegal immigrants can have their children ANYWHERE they want.  but because this lady lives in another county, she's stuck with one school choice only.

only in america

Seems to me the illegals would have to provide an address as proof of residence just the same as the lady who tried to move her kid to another school.  Proof of residence is not the same as citizenship I think you mixing two separate issues to a small extent...however, there needs to be some special program for kids who can't speak English, it is pretty absurd if they whole class has to slow down because of 3 kids in a class of 30, that just doesn't make sense.  I think the woman has a valid complaint that her kids are getting cheated out of an education, her argument she should be allowed to move her kid to the next school doesn't make sense though, as thats based on residency with in a county, which is a separate issue from national citizenship.

[philibusters]

By denying them the right to an education, we are creating a permanent underclass of people who are unable to meaningfully participate in society.

I'm not saying that we should deny them an education, I am just saying that they shouldn't be given in-state tuition.  In-state tuition in California ($20,000+) is much more expensive than out-of-state tution in Utah ($14,000).  So there are still many options that illegal immigrants have when going to school, I just don't think that an illegal immigrant should be given a government subsidized education. 

As a part of this, can someone be considered a citizen of a State and not of the U.S.? 

lso, I don't follow your logic.  States shouldn't give in-state tuition to people who've lived in those states because they don't distribute those benefits to people who've never contributed to those states?

They may have lived in those states, but not LEGALLY.  In fact, they aren't legal citizens of ANY state.  I go to school outside of California, and there were several hoops I had to jump through to get residency so that I could pay in-state tuition. 

As for children who were brought here when they were young, it is truly unfortunate that they have to suffer the consequences of their parents mistakes.  However, LEGALLY there are no exceptions.  I might be unfair to them, but it is also unfair that the wonderful people of Africa have to suffer so much more than any Mexican, Central, or South American.  Famine, cruel governments, war, and genocide to a degree that has never been seen south of the U.S. border has plagued that continent for years. 

How is it fair that they have to go through the arduous process to come to the U.S. (or Europe) LEGALLY, while 12 million others cut in front of them because they have easier access to the U.S.? 

The wonderful people of Africa, lol....

??Don't get joke.

[philibusters]

you guys are aware that if you try to sneak inside south america from the mexican border....you will be shot to death on the spot.   they have snipers ready to take down intruders

also, mexico has some very strict immigration laws of their own, like non citizens can NOT hold demonstration marches or get involved in politics.  they also give first job preference to their own citizens, etc. 

every mexican that comes here bitching about our policies is a hypocrite criminal!  and vincente fox just laughs it up. 

The sniper thing sounds like a myth or rumor, but I don't doubt that Mexico has lots of restrictions on immigrants and is trying to get rights for its emigrants that it wouldn't dream of givign to those that immigrate to Mexcio.  That doesn't make every mexican that complains about our policy a hypocritical crimina-first off lots of them have temporary work cards so they are not necessarily criminals and secondly it unlikely many of they had much to do with politics other than possible voting (if they were into politics, they would probably not emigrate as they would have a sense of pride and vision for their country) and most of them probably have no idea or at best a vague idea of what laws govern the rights of immigrates in Mexico which probably isn't a national issue in Mexico like it is here.

Also Vicente Fox isn't the President of Mexico anymore.

[queencruella]

i have a close friend of mine whose daughter is in 1st grade.  in her class there are 3 illegal immigrant kids who speak NO ENGLISH.  this is in middle class america by the way.  anyways, the mother often volunteers at the school and noticed one day that the teacher spent most of the day trying to translate to the 3 criminal children.  (shut up, they are guilty be association)  anyways, she went to complain and the principal said too bad so sad.  so she wanted to move her kid to the better school down the road but was rejected...

why?
because she wasn't registered as a citizen in that specific county.  on the other hand, those illegal immigrants can have their children ANYWHERE they want.  but because this lady lives in another county, she's stuck with one school choice only.

only in america

Right, because illegal immigrants are just rolling in dough and have extra money to transport their kids to a non-district school miles away instead of taking the school bus to the district school? That makes sense. You have to be assigned to a school based on your residential address- e.g. lease agreement, homestead exemption, utility bill. If a student is going based on someone else's address they need extra documentation to prove that they are a)living with that individual and usually b)that it's because of extreme hardship that they have to live with a person that isn't their parent or legal guardian.

[DDBY]

i have a close friend of mine whose daughter is in 1st grade.  in her class there are 3 illegal immigrant kids who speak NO ENGLISH.  this is in middle class america by the way.  anyways, the mother often volunteers at the school and noticed one day that the teacher spent most of the day trying to translate to the 3 criminal children.  (shut up, they are guilty be association)  anyways, she went to complain and the principal said too bad so sad.  so she wanted to move her kid to the better school down the road but was rejected...

why?
because she wasn't registered as a citizen in that specific county.  on the other hand, those illegal immigrants can have their children ANYWHERE they want.  but because this lady lives in another county, she's stuck with one school choice only.

only in america

The children are amung the many victems of thier criminal parents . They have no choice.  If they did they would not have the ability to chose. It's the same as parents who physically abuse thier children.  The parents are criminals but the children are victems.

A 1st grader does not wake up in the morning thinking: "I'm going to go to a foreign country to steal and identification and to live off of the tax payers there while living under the radar.".

[philibusters]

i have a close friend of mine whose daughter is in 1st grade.  in her class there are 3 illegal immigrant kids who speak NO ENGLISH.  this is in middle class america by the way.  anyways, the mother often volunteers at the school and noticed one day that the teacher spent most of the day trying to translate to the 3 criminal children.  (shut up, they are guilty be association)  anyways, she went to complain and the principal said too bad so sad.  so she wanted to move her kid to the better school down the road but was rejected...

why?
because she wasn't registered as a citizen in that specific county.  on the other hand, those illegal immigrants can have their children ANYWHERE they want.  but because this lady lives in another county, she's stuck with one school choice only.

only in america

The children are amung the many victems of thier criminal parents . They have no choice.  If they did they would not have the ability to chose. It's the same as parents who physically abuse thier children.  The parents are criminals but the children are victems.

A 1st grader does not wake up in the morning thinking: "I'm going to go to a foreign country to steal and identification and to live off of the tax payers there while living under the radar.".

I agree its somewhat un-American to classify a person as something because of their parents.  Not saying it doesn't happen all the time in all type of contexts, but one thing the framers of the Constitution did was to abolish all inheritable titles-thus we have no Dukes, or Earls or whatever and that clause in the Constitution stands for the broader  notion that every man is judged only on his own merits.  Granted they are children so its hard to separate them from their parents but still...

[blackpowerman]

The sniper thing sounds like a myth or rumor, but I don't doubt that Mexico has lots of restrictions on immigrants and is trying to get rights for its emigrants that it wouldn't dream of givign to those that immigrate to Mexcio.  That doesn't make every mexican that complains about our policy a hypocritical crimina-first off lots of them have temporary work cards so they are not necessarily criminals and secondly it unlikely many of they had much to do with politics other than possible voting (if they were into politics, they would probably not emigrate as they would have a sense of pride and vision for their country) and most of them probably have no idea or at best a vague idea of what laws govern the rights of immigrates in Mexico which probably isn't a national issue in Mexico like it is here.

Also Vicente Fox isn't the President of Mexico anymore.

you are right, vincent isnt president ANYMORE but he was while a lot of this was hitting its peak.  also, i want to clarify that i didn't mean the children were INTENTIONAL criminals, but they are victims of their parents criminal hood- so i must apologize about that it really was out of line.  no child should have to suffer ever.  please forgive me.

but i want to reiterate that i didnt say every MEXICAN i said every ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT.  every illegal immigrant here is by definition a hypocritical criminal.  and the south america thing i heard on a news show, so it might be biased, but they specifically said that "if you try to enter south america via mexico you will be shot on spot".  ill look for some sources.

also, you guys are right on the residency thing- that's what i meant, she wasn't a resident of said county so she couldn't put her child there. 

[Titus]

So you're for interpreting the illegal immigration laws as strict liability laws? I'd say yes, but for adults. Then put the burden on the adults to put a reason as to why they illegal immigrated. Kids, however, make no willing decision. I can't interpret strict liability laws on kids.

What is a kid supposed to? Kick and scream to prevent from going to America? Well, gee that requires them to A) understand the law, B) be capable of refusing, and C) be able to support themselves in the event they actually succeed in staying behind while their parents go. Somehow, I don't think a child is really capable of that, even in the most prosperous of countries.

I'd say yes on the in-state tuition but only in cases where the child had no choice in coming across the border. If a child had a choice, then the kid has the choice to pay the out-of-state tuition or get deported. Setting an age requirement (such as attending a high school), seems to be the best way to do this. Worse case scenario, the bill for the difference between in-state/out-state tuition should be sent to the people who smuggled the child across the border.

[blackpowerman]

the children need to be deported back along with their parents.  that's just the way it needs to be.  the children didn't commit the crime.

as far as inheriting titles-  if a parent dies and leaves the kid a fortune, the kid isn't going to say "oh no, i didnt earn this, i dont deserve it".  or if the parent is some big name celeb, the kid will more than likely live off their parents name.  you gotta take the good with the bad.  its only fair. 

[philibusters]

the children need to be deported back along with their parents.  that's just the way it needs to be.  the children didn't commit the crime.

as far as inheriting titles-  if a parent dies and leaves the kid a fortune, the kid isn't going to say "oh no, i didnt earn this, i dont deserve it".  or if the parent is some big name celeb, the kid will more than likely live off their parents name.  you gotta take the good with the bad.  its only fair. 

The inheriting titles was meant to illustrate that the constitutional framers had a distaste for parents legal status being passed on to their children, most of them as wealthy men themselves probably didn't even think about whether things like wealth should be allowed to transfer down, they just assumed it should, and would probably not like the inheritance tax much today

I also agree children of illegals need to be sent back if their parents are deported.  No so much cause of the children's status though, but because you can't deprive children of their parents and parents of their children--any government that did that in my opinion would seriously undervalue family life.