Illegal Immigrants Get Preference Over US Citizens

There's a Federal law that governs educational rights for illegal immigrants. Specifically, public elementary and secondary schools must allow illegal immigrants to enroll, presumably because educated illegal immigrants are better than uneducated illegal immigrants. The same law also prohibits states from providing illegal immigrants any tuition breaks that are not available to all U.S. citizens. South Dakota, in effect, couldn't charge more money to a North Dakota resident then they do to an illegal immigrant.

The law makes sense, except it never would have occurred to be to provide lower tuition to illegal immigrants than to American citizens.

It turns out that four states have found a way to bypass the law. These states offer in-state tuition not based on state of residence, as is common custom, but rather by the state the student attended high school. Since by Federal law a state cannot prohibit an illegal immigrant from attending high school in the state, the student automatically qualifies for in-state tuition regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The four states are California, New York, Texas, and Utah, which rank 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 6th respectively for illegal immigrant populations (GAO report).

Why bring this up? Aren't we all sick of hearing what California is doing anyway? Because Maryland just passed a bill to do the same thing, and the Governor has already stated he would sign it.

In-state tuition has always been problematic for young adults heading off to college. If you move to a new state, you're automatically charged out of state tuition. Even switching your driver's license and becoming a legal resident of your new state won't grant you the benefits that long-time residents enjoy. This can be particularly frustrating as most teenagers have no ability to choose where they live prior to college.

The comments button is below. I promise I won't delete comments... I just want one, honest good answer from anyone who has it. Why on Earth should a person who sneaks their family across the border illegally get lower tuition than a legal resident who chooses to move into Maryland to attend college? Someone, please, explain it to me.

Labels: education, immigration, Maryland

Permalink

The Swamp Fox

Hi, folks, just thought I would introduce myself, I was asked by the Nervous Rodent to give him a hand while he is occupied with other commitments. I am a guest blogger from The Commons at Paulieworld (paulieworld.com/commons), and have known the Rodent and Mrs. Rodent for about 3 years. I posted a few articles at The Commons in its previous form, three of them were on the Second Amendment, they were Lawsuits against Firearm Manufacturers for the Criminal or Negligent Misuse, Militias and the Second Amendment, Concealed Carry and the Right to Self Defense. I also posted a few things I found around the web on various subjects, some political and some humorous. I will post on occasion when I have something to say, and probably even when I don’t. At The Commons I am the resident Second Amendment expert, not that I am an expert in the sense that some are, Chris Cox of NRA comes to mind, but I guess I am the expert over there. My nom de plume is The Swamp Fox; I didn’t take this name it was given to me by the web master over at The Commons, some of us who post to The Commons live rather public lives or have other reasons for needing a nom de plume. If you go to The Commons you will see that all of our nom de plumes have a Revolutionary War theme. But, why don’t I let you read what he (Paulie) said of me instead of trying to tell you. The Swamp Fox = Namesake is Col Francis Marion, led a guerilla war against the British in the South. Our resident Second Amendment expert and perhaps the only true libertarian on our masthead. Some of my posts will be by someone who wishes to remain anonymous; I will come up with an alias for them when the time comes. I will sometimes post because of an outrage committed by some politician, or some other thing I find outrageous, other times I will be amazed at some nit wittery, or just feel like venting my spleen, if for no other reason then I can. I will try to keep a civil tongue in my head, as I have no wish to offend, and think that if you must curse to get your point across then you don’t have much of a point in the first place. I hope you will read what I have to say and if you agree, give me some feed back, and if not take me to task for it, but I only ask that either way you are polite. I hope to help the Rodent keep you entertained and make you think a little, and maybe once in a while get a laugh out of you. You can even curse me, but, hey, please, just don’t do that on the Rodents pages. I always try to end with a quote, they may or may not be germane to the issue at hand, but I like to sometimes change things up. I never know which quote is going to strike my fancy, so it could be anyone from Saltus to Ted Nugent to Samuel Clements to the Dali Lama to Joseph Goebbles. Thank you for reading what I have to say, now and in the future. Enjoy.
"Illegitimus non carborundum" (don't let the bastards grind you down)
The Swamp Fox

Labels: Swamp Fox

Permalink

Iranian Mentality

As I'm sure you have all heard by now, last week Iran captured two British RHIBs with fifteen Sailors and Marines aboard. You may or may not have heard that this isn't at all unprecedented; Iran has aggressively claimed waters it doesn't own for many years, and has "captured" British and Iraqi servicemembers it claims were in its territory. In some cases, they have even crossed into Iraq and fired on American troops, thankfully without hurting any. This particular incident, however, is unique in that Iran doesn't seem inclined to return the Brits any time soon. There's reporting that Iran has moved them to Tehran, and is preparing for long-scale negotiations.


The question each of us should be asking ourselves is "What does Iran think it has to gain?" There was a lot of speculation that the capture was meant to influence the sanctions vote last week. That's ridiculous -- the capture was only a day before the vote, and previous captures have resulted in a release within two or three days. Britain, at the time of the vote, had no reason to believe Iran wouldn't release the servicemembers by Monday.

A lot of Iranian press has talked about various Iranian "diplomats" kidnapped by Americans, and a possible prisoner exchange. The Iranian Majles has been considering adopting a bill requiring that the Brits only be released when these Iranians are released (although it's doubtful the Council of Guardians would allow such a bill). The "kidnapped" Iranians include a defector whom the West would never force to return to Iran, and a number of imprisoned Iranians caught red-handed providing explosives to terrorists in Iraq. I don't see either President Bush nor PM Tony Blair as being willing to release them at this point, especially with Iran continuing to defy the UNSC.

So what's Iran's problem? The first problem is that this wasn't a pre-planned capture, as many have speculated. The timing was awful, and the choice of British over Americans was careless. The erratic response shows a lack of coordination, and various branches of the convoluted Iranian government are still trying to sort each other out and come to a consensus on what to do.

The next problem is that this crises couldn't have come at a worse time for Iran. Engaged in a game of brinkmanship with the West, Iran would view a release of the Brits as a sign of weakness. The Iranian leadership has an attitude not too different from inner-city gangs -- it's all about appearance. They instruct the IRGC to harass multi-national forces and occasionally "capture" foreign forces, because they think it makes them look "tough." This time, however, the nuclear crises has left them without a nice out. No exit strategy, as it were.

So what will Iran do next? It's hard to predict such an irrational beast. The most likely scenario is they will hold onto the prisoners until the nuclear crises defuses, try them for made-up crimes in a kangaroo court, and sentence them to some long incarceration -- then quietly commute it to time served and let them go without any attention.

What if the crises doesn't defuse? We all remember the Iranian hostage crises; Iran's played this game before. Iran won the last crises by waiting for the next election and releasing them as a sign of goodwill to Ronald Reagan. But unlike Reagan, who saw no problem in treating enemies like friends just to stab the Soviet Union in the eye, I don't see any of the contenders for the White House or 10 Downing Street as being willing to work with Iran. And frankly, I don't see either Bush or Blair as being willing to tolerate a hostage situation lasting into elections.

So if Iran doesn't quietly let these fifteen Brits go, what happens next? The Nervous Rodent predicts a series of strikes against IRGC, leadership, and nuclear facilities to continue until the Brits are released. The problem is Iran isn't very good at giving up when it's outmatched... When you believe God is on your side, you tend to think you'll survive any fight. Iran is likely to retaliate outside its own borders, which is a sure trigger for war.

The ball is in Iran's court. They've kicked out the inspectors, and they've captured the Brits. You'd think they would have seen what happened to their neighbors when they refused the demands of the civilized world, but this isn't a rational country. It's a country powered by emotion and prestige, and they aren't going to back down. Whatever Iran does, it's going to be a bumpy ride.


In other news, events are conspiring to keep me off blogging. I'll be unable to blog for the most part over the next few months. Rather than leave the blog idle as before, I've invited a friend (The Swamp Fox) to make some guest posts. Please give him a warm welcome!

Labels: iran, nukes, terrorism, UK

Permalink

RIP COPA

In 1996, the Communications Decency Act was passed, making it illegal to make obscene or indecent material available on the Internet where a minor could access it. The nascent Internet community reacted, with an estimated five to ten percent of online websites switching to black backgrounds (including Yahoo!) for 48 hours, and a massive "blue ribbon campaign" that saw blue ribbons on thousands of homepages for several months.

The law was never enforced, as a federal panel of judges enacted an injunction against it, and by the next year it had been overturned completely. A horrible law that died a quick clean death.

So, given Congress's penchant for attempting to pass an unconstitutional law by ramming it down the public's throat, the measure was pushed through Congress the following year (1998) under a new name, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). COPA limited the restrictions to commercial enterprises, but clarified the obscenity requirements to include all nudity, including female breasts. Medical health sites were among the many outraged by the new law, which would have required a credit card or other proof of age to access information on how to perform cancer self-exams.

The law was, once again, subject to an immediate injunction. The following year, the law was struck down. However, unlike the CDA, it was not quickly killed. The Attorney General chose to appeal the ruling, and by 2004 the Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the unjunction, but referred the case to a lower court for trial.

The Department of Justice then issued subpeonas to various Internet search engines for search records. All search engines complied except for Google, which successfully fought the subpeona as illegal. The trial finally commenced, and this Thursday, a verdict was reached. COPA is finally dead, having been found to facially violate both the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. said in his ruling "[P]erhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."

I have only two worries. The first is the inevitable third try Congress will attempt now that COPA is dead. The second is that this judge appears to think that you have to be eighteen to have free speech.

Labels: free speech, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink