• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

In-State tuition for undocumented students

94Deac said:
One thing people overlook is the billions that illegals contribute to federal withholdings via payroll taxes (in the cases where their employers actually follow the law and make those withholdings and payments to the Treasury). They'll never get to claim those unless and until they become legal. But we're talking state-funded education and the fact is many illegals are not paying real estate taxes due either to living in already subsidized housing, or housing in someone else's name. We're talking broad generalizations here and I temper all my considerations on this with the conditional "if." What is clear is that this issue has little room for absolutes or black/white thinking. And RJ's hyperbole aside, he does touch on the issue at heart: children have no say in whether they're brought here.

However, RJ, you should be wary of equating not being provided a taxpayer-funded education with "punishment."
Click to expand...

It's the ILLEGALS' money that's paying those real estate not the owners' cash. That money out of their pockets not from the owners.

Illegals can't subsidized housing. That's another big hole in your premise.

Illegals buy goods and services in state that create tax revenues.
 
i don't mean to go all PC on y'all, but can we please stop using this ridiculously dehumanizing language of "illegals"?
 
RJKarl said:
It's the ILLEGALS' money that's paying those real estate not the owners' cash. That money out of their pockets not from the owners.

Illegals can't subsidized housing. That's another big hole in your premise.

Illegals buy goods and services in state that create tax revenues.
Click to expand...

Lessors pay the taxes, not renters. It's a pass-through, absolutely. But the lessor has to pay the same amount on a property whether it's 100% occupied or 50%. So it's indirect at best. And the subsidized housing isn't in the illegals' names- there's someone who has legal residency or citizenship on that lease or title. Again, I think you're arguing with the wrong guy here. But that's never kept you from a good rant.
 
TownieDeac said:
i don't mean to go all PC on y'all, but can we please stop using this ridiculously dehumanizing language of "illegals"?
Click to expand...

And in the context of this discussion, you'd prefer what? Spics? Mexicans? Wetbacks? There are more than a few here who'd like that, I'm sure. It's not like we're addressing an assembly in front of the capital. It's a message board. It's a term which applies and appeals to brevity. So again, your preference is what?
 
it's like "blacks"

just say "black people"

again, sorry for going PC, and i know it's a message board and a convenient placeholder/shorthand

but we are talking about people
 
94Deac said:
Lessors pay the taxes, not renters. It's a pass-through, absolutely. But the lessor has to pay the same amount on a property whether it's 100% occupied or 50%. So it's indirect at best. And the subsidized housing isn't in the illegals' names- there's someone who has legal residency or citizenship on that lease or title. Again, I think you're arguing with the wrong guy here. But that's never kept you from a good rant.
Click to expand...

What they could do and do are different.

To say the undocumented don't pay into the education system simply isn't true. Their dollars do go there.
 
94Deac said:
Then what's all this talk about "in-state" vs "out-of-state" tuition? I know we're all spoiled private school brats but I'm seeing a big difference in numbers here. I do get your point but there's still a gulf of difference.
Click to expand...

A remnant and a way to justify higher tuition rates for some students.
 
RJKarl said:
What they could do and do are different.

To say the undocumented don't pay into the education system simply isn't true. Their dollars do go there.
Click to expand...

You'd argue with a clock.

94Deac said:
My concern is the taxpayer issue. If you're paying into the pool that funds public schools, that's one thing. If you're undocumented and not paying, that's an unfair advantage.
Click to expand...
 
Illegals is fine. It's the logical way to differentiate between those who are here legally and those who are not.

Too many people are sucked in by all the DREAM Act talk without any real idea of what that entails, or why it's even a good idea. It's not like this is a new thing where parents bring their kids in. First, it is a blanket amnesty. And while the idea is to not penalize the kids, you end up rewarding them rather than simply not penalizing them. Then, in the future as permanent residents and US citizens, they will be able to petition for the very parents that really should be verboten for life. So barring some kind of offense that gets the parents a lifetime banishment from immigration benefits, the parents end up rewarded in the end too.

Second, there is an abundant amount of fraud here. You see it when truckloads of documents containing illegal diplomas and such are seized (this has happened). The diplomas in this case are to establish eligibility for the DREAM Act. You see it with the flood of illegals coming over now in anticipation of an amnesty. It's nice to say, well, let DHS catch the fraud, but that's living in a dream world. Some of it is caught, but it's so widespread as to be impossible. It tasks all resources beyond expectations, and will create more backlogs just as it did the last couple times there was an amnesty.

Third, I reiterate what I just said, which is that this is the THIRD amnesty since the mid-80s. Reagan had his great experiment, then Clinton tacked one on at the end of his Presidency that expired at the end of April 2001. There have been calls for an amnesty since that one, starting almost immediately with Dubya. This is ridiculous. They spun the LIFE Act (2001) so successfully as NOT an amnesty that they actually think it wasn't an amnesty. Well, it was and you cannot have an amnesty every 15 years simply because you're ill prepared to deal with illegal immigration. You can cloak it up as being something nice for kids, but that's just a smokescreen. The politicians are utterly clueless about immigration, except as a source of potential votes.

The practical realities of immigration are that we need to discourage illegal immigration. We do that by beefing up enforcement (as always), not even talking about an amnesty plan, and restricting certain classes of legal immigration (notably ones based on familial relationships rather than employment). This is not the same country it was in the 1890s, eager for settlers and to expand westward. Your tired, poor, and huddled masses is a nice soundbyte, but not realistic.
 
Or, you just go with my plan of amnestying any current illegal who has not commited a crime, but as the even trade we parachute one of our domestic life-sentence criminals into the former illegal's country of origin.
 
Illegal immigration just seems like another political debate where there are two very far sides and somewhere in the middle is the right answer. Side 1, deport everyone that is here illegally, women, sick, elderly, children, anyone and everyone. Side 2, grant everyone amnesty and pretend that all these people didn't break the law. The middle should be anyone that is here illegally that goes and serves in the military, goes to college, or some other domestic service with no criminal record should be granted amnesty, everyone else deported no questions asked, that's probably the middle of both sides.
 
TownieDeac said:
it's like "blacks"

just say "black people"

again, sorry for going PC, and i know it's a message board and a convenient placeholder/shorthand

but we are talking about people
Click to expand...

Thanks man. Glad you cleared it up for everyone.
 
In response to ELC, I think that determining eligibility with self provided documents, such as diplomas, is a very naive/stupid system. There is an electronic and paper record for student in the state, including graduation status.
 
IMO illegals should not receive in- state tuition subsidies. On the other hand I prefer educated illegals to uneducated ones.
 
I think the states that give in-state tuition to DACA students deserve some credit. Sadly, NC is not one of them.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
In response to ELC, I think that determining eligibility with self provided documents, such as diplomas, is a very naive/stupid system. There is an electronic and paper record for student in the state, including graduation status.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. And it is how things work in the federal government. For the purposes of determining in-state tuition, the states may have their own ways of doing things. They probably also are more easily able to verify records. The feds do not have the resources, reasons, manpower, or jurisdiction to verify such things nationwide. There may be circumstances where the reasons or jurisdiction are provided, but only after much heavy lifting and an abundance of red tape.
 
West End Deac said:
I think the states that give in-state tuition to DACA students deserve some credit. Sadly, NC is not one of them.
Click to expand...

I think you're going to be hard pressed to find a GOP state that will recognize Obama's unilateral DACA move. It was dubious from a legal standpoint, most certainly lacking from an ethical standpoint, and continues to be a cause of immigration problems along the border.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top