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.