May 18, 2013 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Voth said that woman told her, "I love my students. I tell them you can become anything you want to be."...
Not in Kansas!
When are Kansans going to realize they elected a bunch of idiots to represent them?
thought I would never say this, but this is racism, that's all it is. i use to believe these kids should not recieve in state tutition. these kids are our kids. they live in this state. i suspect most kansans do not care or agree with our legislators.
I see nothing "racial" about it. Why do you think so?
illegal is illegal. what part of that are you people not getting? sure the schools love them. more students to receive money for. that you and I are paying the bill for. Racism? Only if you slant it towards the fact most illegals are mexican. not racism, just cold hard fact. there is no reason in hell that these illegals would not fill out the proper paperwork and become legal. the fact they don't want to just proves they think they are above the law. and another thing. if they are here, earning American dollars, they damn sure need to speak English. America, the land of the free illegals, that we are paying the bill for. Not the way it should work.
Should we require people to learn to type in English as well?
If these students are graduating from a Kansas high school and earning admission into a public university in Kansas, they do speak and write English, oletimer. Maybe better than you do.
And yes, they can't just "fill out the proper paperwork and become legal." Congress, under pressure from self-righteous types that take the position you do, "illegal is illegal," have prevented the creation of pathways to citizenship for illegals. Instead, they are required to leave the country and then get in line for application for ermigration--where their former illegal status is held against them. When President Obama tried to help the most vulnerable of them, those who were brought to the US as children, the radical right wing screamed bloody murder.
The schools would receive more money if these students have to pay out-of-state tuition rates. Assuming they could come up with more money. Most cannot. Which of course means many will stay poor. And as part of this law, the students are required to seek citizenship, in return for getting in-state tuition (which they are happy to do).
"Rep. Allan Rothlisberg, R-Grandview Plaza, talked about drug cartels filling the prison system and said he was offended when phone messages have a Spanish language option.
"This is an English-speaking country," Rothlisberg said." I think they have slanted it.
With all the Americans out of work, how in the world could anyone boast compassion for law breakers at the expense of those who actually belong here. This is simply a money grab for who ever is catering to these illegals, whether it is those who want to secure funding by educating them or those who want to exploit them for cheap labor.
Speaking of money grabs, Kansas has relatively low unemployment compared to other states, and we're going to hand extra money to the Kochs - who will not use it to hire more people. If we can afford to do that, we can afford to give a discount on tuition to people who are here because their parents dragged them here.
The young adults in question were brought to the US as children by parents who were seeking work. Clearly, the parents found work; they were hired by employers who don't give a damn about all the Americans out of work. Those employers could have hired Americans, if they were willing to pay a living wage, provide proper workplace safety, and benefits, and if they were willing to have a unionized workforce. But those employers aren't willing to do any of those things, so they hire illegals, who will take whatever they are paid and who don't dare complain about mistreatment. Instead of blaming the illegal workers' children, Cant, blame the illegal employers and their political allies.
Awfully mighty powers you think Obama has, but if he were to grab a magic wand and suddenly, poof, they're all citizens, they'd have already completed the requirements for in-state tuition by graduating from a Kansas high school.
Let's be honest, OK? These "immigrants" are not illegal -- they are future democrat voters.
Right on! That is the reason the Dems cater to them. I understand we are now and apparently have been, advertising our "food stamp" program in Mexico. Geezzz! Will we ever learn?
I think that was a Bush 2 program, about 8-9 years old now.
Most illegals who work have taxes taken out of their pay- including state taxes. So they are already paying towards the subsidy given to the universities, and now we want to charge them out of state fees on top of the subsidy they helped pay.
Sounds like double taxation to me.
I though tconservatives were against taxes?
Btw there is no official language in America. Remember this country wasn't settled by just the English- but also by the Spanish. If you have a problem with companies offering Spanish language options blame free market capitalism- they are just catering to a market. Do you complain when you go to a chinese restaurant and see the menu available in catonese or mandarin? Didn't think so.
How do you know most illegals have taxes taken out of their check? We don't even know exactly how many illegals are actually here so how do you know that most are having taxes deducted from their pay check?
Can you name a Spaniard that settled the United States of America? Maybe one that signed the Declaration of Independence. I can't think of one so help me out.
Seeing as how the SPANIARD Christopher Columbus discovered North America in 1492 and the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 that gives me nearly 300 years to find one spanish person that lived in North America during that timeframe. No problem.
Oh here... just do some damn reading yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Migu... <- the first European settlement inside what is now the U.S. in 1526; founded by Spaniard Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón.
As far as taxes - is it your stance that most illegals who are working are working for cash payments? Why would an employer do that when that would directly lead to them not being able to deduct their labor costs? It would cost the employer MORE to pay them cash than if they paid them on their payroll w/ deductions.
Christopher Columbus was Italian who ended up living in Portugal.
He was funded by Queen Isabella & King Ferdinand of Spain to find a new route to the Indies for spices. He discovered North America as a result of that trip.
Also don't forget Juan Ponce de Leon who named Florida when he led the first expedition there.
On a note closer to home, the Plaza in KCMO is modeled off of Seville, Spain.
Y'all need to catch up on your history.
Estelle Irizarry, a linguistic professor at Georgetown University, studied his language and grammar and concluded that Columbus was a Catalan speaking man from the Kingdom of Aragon, an inland region of north-eastern Spain at the foot of the Pyrenees.
Actually, according to Estelle Irizarry, Christopher Columbus was a Ladino speaking man and she believes that he grew up in a Catalan speaking area. That doesn't make him a Spaniard.
which not only has similarities to Catalan, Castilian but also Portuguese and incorporates many loanwords from many other languages. Columbus spent much of his adult life (when not doing the explorer thing) in Portugal.
Estelle Irizarry also believes that Columbus was Jewish and tried to hide his origins.
Also much of her research is based on punctuation - the use "/" in place of "." That does not necessarily indicate a language of origin. Columbus simply could have effected that mode of punctuation simply because he liked how it looked or to further hide his origin. Perhaps he just enjoyed being an International Man of Mystery.
Christopher Columbus was NOT a Spaniard. He was born in Genoa Italy somewhere between August and October 1851. He did not go to Spain until he was in his 30s and he went there for money not for any sense of patriotism for the country of Spain.
He, also, did NOT discover North America. He never set foot on any land that today could be considered North America.
You need to brush up on your history- things have changed in the 20+ years since you were in high school.
See my reply to Kat above.
Columbus was indeed, a Spaniard.
Yes, he was Italian, and he was a murderous tyrant who would have made the Nazis seem civilized.
vertigo had you said this continent was settled by Spaniards I would not have disagreed with you. They, as well as the French were here along with the English. But that isn't what you said. You said settled this COUNTRY.
Big difference and no the Spanish didn't settle this country. Former Englishmen created it and then Americans settled it.
Find it too funny you didn't know Columbus was Italian.
I don't know how many illegals are paying taxes and how many are working for cash and not reporting their income. Also, I do not know if they are using as a SS number and how many deductions they are claiming on their W4. You can reduce to almost nothing the taxes being deducted if you have a lot of deductions.
My point is they are illegal, undocumented and unknown so you cant know with any confidence what they are or are not doing.
The Spanish did, indeed, settle in what is now the SW US, but the US attacked Mexico in order to annex those territories into the US.
But they did not settle this country bozo They settled this land before the US became a country but they did not settle the USA. Big difference.
By your logic we might as well say the Vikings, the French and the Spanish settled the USA. Just not true. The colonist created the USA and Americans along with immigrants, slaves and indentured servants settled it. The Spanish did not.
Yes, various invading groups went to various places. So what's your point?
"The colonist created the USA ..."
So a Spanish colony wasn't a REAL colony because they weren't white and didn't speak English. Noted.
So desperate to find racism. No Vertigo - it has nothing to do with race but understanding what a country is, what a land mass is and what a continent is. The USA is a country. It was not created by the Spanish. The Spanish explored and settle parts of North America including areas which later became the USA but they did not settle the country known as the USA So funny you still believe Columbus was Spanish. He was born in Genoa Italy. I've seen his home.
You've seen what you were told was his home to get your tourist dollars.
Scholars know better.
There are many alternate theories about where Christopher Columbus was born. The general consensus of historians is that Christopher Columbus was born in Genoa, Italy in 1451. Many historical documents written by Christopher Columbus indicate that he was born in Genoa.
You can't settle a country before settling the continent it's on, can you?
Find it not funny at all that you still believe Columbus was Italian when all the latest intel says otherwise. He was a Spaniard- read a new history book for a change. Or see my reply to Katara.
Vertigo - You're suggesting that employers do not pay illegal immigrants cash because they would then not be able to deduct their labor costs. I'm trying to recall when I've read a more out of touch with reality comment. It's been quite a while.
Are you saying employers DO NOT deduct labor costs?
I do. And I have to have proof in case I get audited. My proof is my payroll with ssns/ITINs or 1044s with ssns/ITINs.
No, you're probably right. Most employers don't want to lower their tax bill.
Half of Americans cheat on their income taxes. That's the estimates I've heard. Many businesses that deal in cash will not report all of it and a good way around that is to pay some of your employees in cash. That, combined with the fact that illegal aliens are willing to work under those conditions, sets up a system that is widely employed. Did I say widely? I mean WIDELY.
Well that's just even more dumb on their part.
If they're going to report less income than they actually took in, why not continue to milk the system by reporting actual labor costs and using that deduction to show a loss.
First off, vertigo, I suspect you're just being argumentative here, because it's a well known fact that many businesses using illegal immigrants pay under the table. If you really don't believe that to be true, then you really should get out more. That said, if a business states it's income too low and it's labor costs too high, especially in a business known to conduct much of it's business in cash, then you're just waving a giant red flag, asking the IRS into your life. So they balance things out, paying most of your labor in a legal way, but hiring some illegal immigrants, just enough to offset some of your income that comes in in cash.
BTW - Go to a Home Depot or Sherwin-Williams Paint store in many cities throughout many cities in California, Arizona, Texas, etc. and you will see a hundred day laborers, hoping to get a job from some unlicensed contractor. If hired, do you really believe they're being paid and having appropriate taxes withheld? Nonsense. And what do you think this activity is doing to those legitimately employed in the building trades? Depressing wages in those markets, that's what. The fact is that there is a significant underground economy involving illegal immigrants and unscrupulous employers (as well as another underground economy that does not involve illegal immigrants). Pretending it does not exist does not mean it's not out there.
vertigo made some good points, fred. It's back to you, now.
You obviously don't know Alabama or Florida history.
Kansas has a fairly high sales tax. Anytime anyone buys anything in the state they're sending money to Topkea. Why shouldn't they benefit from the educational system they've helped support?
Can't name a Spaniard who signed the Declaration of Independence, but I can name many communities settled by Spanish / Mexicans, long, long before Kansas ever was. You might have heard of some such as St. Augustine, Florida, San Antonio, Texas, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, California, and many more.
Long before Kansas was a state, these locations thrived, although, often subjugating the Native American population, other times forcing religious conversion. To ignore this contribution is to ignore US history. The founders knew well the Spanish / Mexican presence in the Southwest. President Jefferson even purchased horses from Santa Fe, New Mexico in the early 1800's. (Can't figure out how he got them to Virginia, since the interstate highway was still under construction, so to speak.)
Oh, and as to language, there are many locations in the US where English isn't the dominant language. Cajun Louisiana, Chinese communities in San Francisco, Little Cuba in Miami, SE Asian communities throughout the US, to name a few. Why be afraid of this? Americans fear languages when in fact, US diversity should be embraced. Heck, my father's first language, even though he was second generation born in US, was German. Grandpa gave sermons in German until 1936 when he had two churches and didn't want to write one in English and other in German every Sunday. If you can't speak Spanish or another language besides English now, then try to learn. Then, you can watch Univision and understand, possibly.
Most of the parents have legit (if illegal) paperwork. They get jobs and driver's licenses. No one is going to give that up to "get in line".
The kids, however, don't have the paperwork.
And they do go to our schools. True that schools love them because they bring more funds in. BUT they also spend more funds because you have to have Spanish speaking teachers and special ed.
I am FOR letting the kids have in state tuition if they graduated from a Kansas high school and have attended for several years. Otherwise we continue a sub-class of people.
I agree with your conclusion, but would argue that most of the kids who go to school here, speak English as their language outside of the home and don't really need the focused language instruction by the time they get to high school. Because many haven't had formal training in Spanish, they would suffer tremendously if they would return to their parents' country of origin. I have met several young people who are in this category. They are Americans, culturally, linguistically and socially. One even earned an athletic scholarship at a Kansas university.
Reagan did not believe the way current Repubs believe. He believed that America was the "shining light on the hill". And he believed in freedom.
The current crop of Repubs, unfortunately, believes in no control on businesses, but, ironically, behavioral and thought control over individuals.
Mostly, Reagan believed what he was hired to believe, and he read the lines that were supplied to him. He wasn't a great actor, but he followed direction well.
So soldiers are losing tuition assistance and this is even a question?? Wow!!! Pathetic!!!
Soldiers in Kansas are entitled to in-state tuition. That is already the law. The issue of soldiers' tuition reported last week was something else: because of the sequester, funds that the Army and Air Force used to permit active duty military personnel to be assigned to follow a course of study at a university (usually a Master's degree or a PhD) with tuition, fees, books, and salary fully paid, has been discontinued.
If educating illegals will drive down teacher costs, then go for it.
yeah, those ESL classes and one on one resource rooms and shuttling them back and forth from school to school on school buses during school hours saves us money. Let's not forget waived tuition and free school breakfasts and lunches. Our savings are so great that our own American kids can almost read when they graduate. Can you say dumbed down education in exchange for higher costs? We've already been shaken down for their educational (and all other) needs. Why stop a robbery in progress?
Everyone against this bill should listen to this representative.
I, nor anyone in my family are or ever have been illegal. My grandparents came to this country legally and the rest of us were born here
So the representative while trying to be clever and offer a red herring isn't accurate.
Keep in mind, not all land was taken some was bought when this country was settled.
"Keep in mind, not all land was taken some was bought when this country was settled."
Most of it was land "purchased" under coercion.
Alaska, Louisiana and Manhattan were purchased under coercion? Enlighten me because I don't believe they were.
The primary and/or original inhabitants of any of those territories would not recognize the legitimacy of the "sales" that happened in the fairy tales you hold as history.
Keep changing what you said. You may get it riffht eventually.
You said the land was purchased under coercion - we didn't coerce the Russians, French or Manhattan Indians so you're wrong.
The vast majority of the inhabitants of Alaska or the Louisiana Purchase didn't recognize Russian or French ownership of the land that the US bought-- probably didn't even know about this claimed ownership. And the sale of Manhattan for a bunch of beads is mostly just fairy tale.
Wanna buy a bridge? I have several of them I'd be willing to sell you. I really own them. If you don't believe me, just ask me, and I'll give you all the words of assurance that you want.
Nope I am smart enough to know not to trust you.
The beads may not be true but it was purchased.
And it matters not to you that the modern concept of a real estate transfer was completely foreign and likely incomprehensible to 17th century Native Americans. As long as a fairly tale "sale" can be constructed around the poorly documented transaction, that's good enough for you.
Of course, when the French, Spanish, British, etc. did take lands from it's inhabitants, they were doing exactly what the native inhabitants had been doing amongst themselves since their arrival on this continent. The history of one people's displacement by another people is the history of man and is not limited to any one people nor is it limited to any continent. Every human being on this planet is the descendant of someone who was displaced and someone who did the displacing.
Exactly. They were simply following the established practices for land acquisition in place at the time.
Hard to find any place in the world that didn't belong to someone else first.
"They were simply following the established practices for land acquisition in place at the time."
Established by whom?
"Established by whom?" - By man.
Which one? Do women get a say?
"Which one?" - The first one. Her name was Lucy.
MIght make right, eh?
So if I invade your house and kick you out, does that mean I own it?
I didn't say it was right. I just said it's been true for all peoples for all of man's history.
Come here legally from Nebraska, pay the out-of-state tuition rate. Here as a result of illegal activity, pay the in-state rate. Only thing under this topic I find even more ludicrous is a couple states that give a drivers' license to illegal aliens. Bizzarro world, indeed!
I was following this on Twitter yesterday when my Twitter feed EXPLODED. Ponka We Victors took Kris Kobach head on and told him, "I think it’s funny Mr. Kobach, because when you mention illegal immigrant, I think of all of you.”
Heck, Scott Rothschild tweeted it. Odd that he didn't put it in the article.
I've now seen it in the Capitol Journal, Wichita Eagle and the KC Star. It's being meme'ed to hell and back and it's all over Facebook. I fully expect to see it go national today. Can't wait to see what Huffington Post, Rheality Check and Addicting Info do with it.
When it happened yesterday, I told my husband that I thought I had just seen a potential political star go celestial.
Nice catch, LJW. Not.
Lets think about what Ponka said. She said, in the eyes of native Americans everyone who isn't a Native American is an illegal immigrant. For the sake of discussion lets go with that belief. Look what happened to native Americans who did not control illegal immigration - it nearly destroyed them completely. It did change their life for the worse.
So shouldn't we learn from the past? Doesn't past history tell us that not controlling illegal immigration will result in a change of ones country for the worse?
Thanks Ponka for pointing out why illegal immigration needs to be controlled.
So you're saying that you're proud of being part of "Manifest Destiny" and passing out measles infected blankets? I get ya.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who used to be an "illegal immigrant" themselves just doesn't sit well with you, now, does it?
I have never been nor am I related to anyone who was an illegal immigrant. Why not attack what I said and not try to put words in my mouth?
Did I say I was proud of how the US treated the tribes? Nope. In fact I think it is horrible just like slavery but I didn't do it nor did my ancestors. It is our country's past and one I am not proud of but I can't change what was done.
Doesn't change my point that had the native Americans been able to stop illegal immigration they would have been better off today and we should learn from it.
"In fact I think it is horrible just like slavery but I didn't do it nor did my ancestors."
But you enjoy the benefits that came from all that slavin' and genocidin', but then get all righteously indignant about those evil immigrants sneakin' in just looking for jobs and a place to live, without enslaving or stealing land or killing off anyone already here.
And you benefit from it too. So what does it say about you? Isn't it hypocritical to attack me for enjoying the benefits when you do the same?
I don't think criminals should benefit from their crimes. I support legal immigration, guest worker programs and reforming immigration laws but not violating US immigration law.
Answer me this. Why have I migration laws if you support people ignoring them. Should anyone be allowed to come here without restriction?
"And you benefit from it too. So what does it say about you? "
Yep-- just says I was born here.
"I don't think criminals should benefit from their crimes."
Most of what most of us have comes directly or indirectly from crimes committed in the service of "manifest destiny."
"Should anyone be allowed to come here without restriction?"
Minimal restrictions. That's how it was when your ancestors likely got here.
Gosh the manifest destiny guilt you suffer must be a tremendous burden.
So what would you do with people who didn't follow the minimal restriction rules you'd put in place? Would you allow them to stay and benefit from violating the restrictions you think should be in place?
I don't feel guilty about it-- I just don't deny how utterly idiotic and destructive it was, especially to those who were destroyed by it.
The primary restriction would be that they follow the same laws as everyone else here, and they'd be treated the same as anyone else violating those laws.
OK, apparently someone doesn't like my phraseology.
Ponka was merely telling Kobach, et al, who've benefitted greatly from their ancestors' illegal immigration, not to be such hypocritical jerks.
The immigration system in the US is a mess. The quotas and rules, the blatant political bigotry and favoring of a few business interests over all other interests makes immigration a nightmare of byzantine hoops that does not reflect equality nor justice. Waiting for several years when your family is here, your work is here, and you've spent your entire life as a Kansan, and being rejected as a citizen for a silly twisted abstraction is typical of the shallow and unintelligent "bossing" by shortsighted, superficial people. (Who are more than thoroughly represented in the Kansas Legislature.)
By the way, driving without your seatbelt fastened, jaywalking, more than 3 unrelateds living together in res. neighborhoods, are illegal too. Going to retract the in-state tuition for those "illegals"?
For all of you anti-illegals folks out there, why not go to the real source of the problem in Kansas - the Kansas Chamber of Commerce.
The KCC using their political clout has blocked every attempt to control illegal immigration in Kansas. Bill after bill to require companies to hire citizens, to run status checks via e-verify, or to establish penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegals have been blocked by the KCC. Why? they love cheap labor and don't want to pay the kind of wages citizens demand.
When you drive out all those willing to take very low wage hard labor - meat packing, picking produce, hotel maids, roofers, etc. what will be the effect on you? When those jobs are filled with all legal American citizens demanding a living wage, are you prepared for what will happen when your steak goes from $15/lb to $25? Your lettuce from $1.5/head to $3.
The fact is that your wallets benefit from their labor and lack of wage demands. Our economy is, sadly, dependent on low wage illegal immigrant labor.
So if you don't like it, contact Mike O'Neal, president of the KCC.
Illegal immigration is not happening because they want in-state tuition for their kids; it is happening because you want cheap food and labor. Want to end illegal immigration? Dry up the jobs that benefit from it.
As long as the illegals will sign a note for the taxes they did not pay, the services they use and do not pay for, and the savings of out of state tuition, I am good with in state tuition.
Do they get credit for the $60 billion (plus or minus) that Social Security has which is attributed to bad social security numbers from illegals? Or, withholding paid in on these same social security numbers?
Take the ba out of kobach and you get a Koch!
"Rep. Allan Rothlisberg, R-Grandview Plaza... said he was offended when phone messages have a Spanish language option." Maybe Rep. Rothlisberg should go to a country where only English is spoken. I'm not sure where he'll find one, though. United Kingdom? They have Welsh and Scots. Ireland? The official preference is for Gaelic. Canada? French is equal to English. New Zealand? Maori. Australia? No official language there. South Africa? Polyglot.
Maybe if Rep. Rothlisberg had the experience of mastering a foreign language, he'd be more sympathetic to persons who have to function in a foreign-language environment. He is a walking advertisement for the value of including foreign languages in the required school curriculum.
I'm not offended by a Spanish language option. I'm offended by Rep. Rothlisberg.
In agreement with voevoda. In fact, finding a primary English speaker in London, UK, is sometimes impossible. Rather, you'll run into Chinese, Thai, Spanish, French, Farsi, Romanian, Polish, Russian, Portuguese (Brazilian or Portugal), Indian sub-continent dialects, Arabic, Italian, German and others. I've run into all of these languages, just within a section of the city. Most of these speakers have an understanding of English, not American.
Learning a foreign language is something Americans have tried to get away from in past decades. It should be emphasized in public education, but alas, can't do that when funding is decreasing rather than expanding. I have heard, not confirmed, that in order to receive a high school degree in Netherlands, you must be competent in English. Too bad that requirement isn't in vogue here. Competency in English, I mean.
I'm not opposed as long as they do not qualify for affirmative action preferences. Do they?
Making undocumented Kansas resident students pay out-of-state tuition is intended to do only one thing: Deprive them of an education. Their parents are manual laborers, not executives, doctors, and lawyers who can afford to pay double the cost. When Republicans finally agree to a route to citizenship for undocumenteds rather than face the extinction of the GOP, the investment in helping these young people fulfill their dreams will pay off in spades. Reagan realized this when he granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in 1986. Although nearly everyone reading this benefitted from an affirmative action type of wide-open immigration policy of the 19th and 20th centuries, it's shocking how unwilling some Kansans still are to educate these enthusiastic, hopeful, young future parents of US citizens.
Sorry, I think you are mistaken about everyone benefitting from affirmative action policies. They have only been around 40 years or so and were intended to benefit those groups who had suffered past discrimination in the United States. Don't see how groups coming into the country illegally (or legally) for that matter who suffered no past discrimination should benefit from them in any way. .
Anyone currently under the age of 50 who is paying into social security and hope to get some back should hope and/or pray that we get a ton more immigrants of all kinds. Otherwise, the low birth rate in America combined with simple math will show you that there will simply not be enough people paying into the SS system to create a fund large enough for you to get most (if any) of your SS payments. Do the math.
If a student is 17 and mom and dad brought them here when they were four months old how are they disrespecting laws? They've lived in Kansas their entire life.
"Sen. Carolyn Tyson, R-Parker, said, "How can we be just in giving benefits to those who disrespect our laws?""
Let the "innocents" stay. We've already invested a fortune in their every need since their invasion, er arrival (through no fault of their OR our own). But make the ones who ARE at fault- the parents- return home, or no in state tuition- no nuthin.
Since the parents brought them here" for a better life"- mission accomplished - send the parents packing back to where they came- . No sponsored citizenship for them - ever- ban them from re entry-
Breaking families apart? No way- they will be reunited with all the kin they had no problems tearing themselves away from when they chose to abandon them in their home countries to enter this country illegally.
If it's all too much, the whole family can leave together- I hear they have colleges in other countries.
Let's just do away with the entire out-of-state tuition requirements.
Or, conversely, we could expect these adults, which they are if they are entering college, to act like an adult and be legal. If they are here illegally, then that is exactly what they are. The same would apply if the exact opposite was done and someone from this country snuck across the border and pulled this nonsense in Mexico.
There is nothing wrong, or racist, about expecting people that want to be here to obey the laws. If they were speeding, would you propose forgiving the fine? If they murder someone, do we not lock their butt up in prison? If you are going to expect them to follow all of the laws you have to, then they should follow ALL the laws, not just the ones that you, personally, think are 'unfair' or 'difficult'.
Yes, there is a ton of red tape involved with immigration. Too many people have stuck their fingers in that particular pie and now is kind of looks like the aftermath of American Pie. Scrap the old pie, bake a new one and run it efficiently. Yes, I know that is asking a lot from career politicians who want to have their names tossed out in the media, but still.
Granted, if it were TRULY an issue, the people would elect an entire new group of people that are not entrenched, and are not bought out by any corporation with a few spare bucks. But we all know that is not going to happen. That would require EVERYONE to be involved and that is simply not going to happen. More people vote for American Idol than any given election.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·