WWII Vet an illegal citizen...

[Rocky]

giving in state tuition to someone who may or may not really be in state will be MORE than a pell grant FWIW. thats what im getting at. (OR OTHER, means other benefits) lets say someone graduated from a high school and MOVES, then goes back to the state they graduated from just to get a cheaper tuition. <----- do you see what im saying, im not being rude or stupid there were just SO many ways that this could have gone bad.

BTW didnt the houses revision of the bill kind of have a gray area to where they could have recieved pell grants? I know the senate version was absolutely not but didnt the house version somehow have it to where there was a possibility of it? which im not even adding that in my argument, i just remember seeing that on a pro-amnesty page at one point in time. once again thanks and please dont post me a bunch of links.

but listen I know these children did nothing wrong, and its not their fault that their parents did something illegal to get them here and God Bless their parents for wanting a better life, i have no problems with what the bill itself promotes (except what i stated above) BUT with allowing something like this there will be bad coming from it and you know as well as i do that more illegals would have come in waiting for revisions of the Dream Act to pass, once again i cant blame them but it would have to end somewhere before it turned into an all out amnesty.

[CoeburnCane]

No links here, just allow me to point out something, Rocky.

You're talking about some bad things coming from the DREAM Act. It's not the legislation's fault, it's not the people who wrote it's fault...it's really just a function of people finding loopholes that give them advantages in any piece of law. You thumbing your nose at the DREAM Act shouldn't be your first order of business if we're talking legislation with loopholes that's constantly abused. If nothing else--your first order of business should be the corporate tax code, and sealing up some of the silly tax shelters that are allowed to multi-billion dollar corporations each year that allow them to not pay in taxes as one would assume, but instead--get enough tax lawyers/accountants to find them enough credits/breaks/loopholes to where the government ends up paying them a hefty refund.

But--I digress. I know R13's frustrating, but your angst and worry is misguided in this particular circumstance. It's a law--it's going to have flaws, and no matter how close to perfect it looks as it goes through Congress, when it passes...someone WILL find a way to circumvent parts of it, no question about it.

[R13]

Wrong again, the bill does not provide for in-state tuition, another myth passed around. It leaves it completely up to the states to decide whether to charge them in or out of state tuition and of course they have to reside there to begin with - they only debate is that since they aren't legal and officially have a place of residence, which would they be charged? Again, the bill did not allow it, they couldn't even in the first place since it's up to the states to decide that. I understand you don't like the links because they throw out your whole argument, but I'm going to post them when it's a matter of facts and figures...



...the legislation that passed the House on Dec. 7 does not mention in-state tuition, and no version ever considered would mandate or force states to offer DREAM Act participants in-state rates. That's an opinion shared by Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokeswoman for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, and by Steve Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that opposes the DREAM Act.


The version of the DREAM Act that passed in the House -- as well as prior versions that were debated -- did not include language requiring states to offer DREAM Act participants in-state tuition. The closest a version of the DREAM Act came was to propose repealing a federal rule that some have interpreted as preventing states from offering in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. But that version never came to a vote.

Moreover, 11 states already offer in-state tuition, so rates in those places -- including California and Texas -- couldn't go lower.

As for the other states, the only real argument is that passing the DREAM Act could have the consequence of forcing them to offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants as well. And we guess it could. But there's no definitive evidence that it would, just conjecture and speculation. And it certainly isn't expressed in the bill language.

http://politifact.com/florida/statem...ans-lower-tui/

That's from an independent site I visit frequently, so can't write that off as biased. You said "you said there were no funds set aside for them (pell grant or other) and you were wrong on that" - that's what you said I was wrong at, I took that as implying that you claimed there was funds set aside for them(pell grants or such). Even though your argument now claims there was no money set aside for them, just that it lowered tuition rates...though that is wrong too.



I'm pretty sure from what you said, you don't know what the bill does or how it works. Do you think that there isn't some process and you just qualify for it? Uh no, there's strict rules and guidelines and a long process to even be considered for the program. So I don't know where you're getting that they wouldn't have any knowledge about these kids, the exact opposite actually, which is a lot of information and the bill states and all that information is to be provided to all local, state and federal law enforcement - you don't qualify if you have broke the law and will be removed if you do. You seem to think this is some loosely controlled program, couldn't be further from the truth. They even have to pay application fees up to 2200+ bucks, it's actually TOO strict in my opinion and makes it harder for the lower income immigrants.

Your example of them moving, then moving back doesn't even make sense...if you live in the state, you can qualify for in-state tuition, you moving and coming back doesn't make a difference. If you live in VA and want to go to a state that's in Texas, you'd have to pay out of state tuition. So as long as they live in VA, why wouldn't they pay in-state tuition for a school in VA? I don't think it works as what you're saying, that you only qualify if it's your homestate...I believe most have rules such as you have to prove residency for at least 12 months prior or will set up permanent status in that state in the future. But it varies from state to state though those are the typical ones, but there are many ways to prove either. So if these kids have lived in the state, why shouldn't they be eligible for in state tuition? Even though the bill doesn't provide for it, I myself believe they should.

And paying them to go to school? Again, where are you getting this? What would we be paying? Here's another fun link for you...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12015/hr6497.pdf

That's the CBO report on this bill, know what it says? That it would reduce the deficit by 2.2 billion dollars over the next ten years. There's no fee the taxpayers would be paying for each student of anything, all it does is add more people to the workforce later on who will be paying taxes and into SS. Not passing the bill is costing us money, not the other way around.


The question isn't "do you think the dream act is good or bad?", which is a loose question that opinion comes into play, you're talking about something that is either there or isn't, so I'll post the facts/language of the bill if you're going to argue something that isn't in the bill. A lot of things are a matter of opinion, but people think that EVERYTHING is just a matter of opinion, but there are issues that influence that opinion that deal with facts that aren't debatable - which is the case of many issues in politics. This particular part happens to be one of them when talking about your claims.

[centennialdawg]

I am just wondering where this thread got "hi-jacked" into what it is now? It was originally meant for a WW II veteran and his "problem" with proving his heritage.

[Rocky]

I am just wondering where this thread got "hi-jacked" into what it is now? It was originally meant for a WW II veteran and his "problem" with proving his heritage.

somebody somewhere compared it to a mexican jumping the fence and things went all to hell. then it got compared to the dream act, then this.......... same way things always happen on this board.

[Rocky]

"I'm pretty sure from what you said, you don't know what the bill does or how it works."

*sigh* because i got my info from the immigration acts website and it "was wrong". its speculation of what could have happened. listen we dont have to agree or disagree on anything but when you make smartass comments like the one above thats when people get pissed off at you. I dont care on the other hand, it just kills me that you think that anyone who even sits in between on issues is the personification of a tea party member. Thanks for the info though, ill compare it to what i have looked at before and figure out what is going on FOR MYSELF, i dont need to agree with what every other centrist tells me.

If you aren't a liberal at 20 you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative at 40 you have no brain.
WINSTON CHURCHILL

so where do i sit? thank you very much for your insight though R13 i appreciate it man.

[R13]

It's not my problem how you took that because I'm through with the tussle back and forth with explaining myself when everyone takes comments like that as cockiness or calling them stupid...when I've really never called anyone stupid on here, I've said somethings they've posted and said were stupid because I do...it's usually outlandish things. When you posted all of what you have on it, then what else am I supposed to think? The comment never said you were dumb or wasn't capable of understanding it, just that you don't or just going off the myths surrounds the bill.

No one called you a tea-party member or anything, but what you have claimed were conservative claims and didn't have any basis to them, then in the first comment you brought it up you said I was wrong about that.