Flatliner pubs, send your kids to Flatland U. [Archive]

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 01:14 AM

We don't need Texas pub Lamar Smith and Iowa pub Steve King coming to California to argue in front of our courts that their kids are discriminated against because they have to pay out-of-state tuition in California. No, they aren't discriminated against. We treat them like everyone else: Go to a California high school for 3 years and graduate and you qualify for in-state tuition.

Lamar, you have UT San Antonio right there in your district. Send em there. Or there's always that fine institution UTEP just down the road. Cheap tuition I'm sure. We don't need your kids going to UCLA and taking all that education with them back to South Texas. That might be dangerous for all concerned.

And Steve King, you've got all those fine institutions in those Iowa corn fields. And if they can't hack it, maybe they can go to Northwest Missouri State where you became a college drop-out.

Steve King, you need to stay in Iowa and be concerned with all those kids who are being raised in warehouses due to gay marriages, as you warned your constituents. Just stay out of California, or else the real Steven King will send Christine to run over your holier-than-thou a$$.

olevetonahill

11/16/2010, 01:23 AM

yermom

11/16/2010, 01:26 AM

does Texass not have in-state tuition?

what am i missing here?

oh, ok, nevermind, i kinda remember something about this now

Leroy Lizard

11/16/2010, 01:30 AM

does Texass not have in-state tuition?

what am i missing here?

oh, ok, nevermind, i kinda remember something about this now

An interesting story.

I mean, if they are arguing in front of the courts and their argument is baseless, then the courts will rule accordingly so what's to bitch about?

olevetonahill

11/16/2010, 01:32 AM

does Texass not have in-state tuition?

what am i missing here?

oh, ok, nevermind, i kinda remember something about this now

Dave, What jauns not saying here is this is a Group that is suing the state over the illegals gettin the instate tuition .

Ya know Kinda the same thing that the Libs in Cal are doing to AZ and other states, Puttin their nose where it dont really belong . But its ok if the Lib Cali folk do it , But dont let a Conservative group come to Cal and start any **** :D

olevetonahill

11/16/2010, 01:36 AM

Heres one article you can read it fer yerself

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/us/16immig.html

Collier11

11/16/2010, 01:42 AM

The fact that any illegal alien would get anything other than basic human rights is ridiculous

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 01:47 AM

jaun , Why dont ya tell the Paul Harvey version of the story

This all about ILLEGALs gettin Reduced Instate tuition at all Cal Schools. all they have to do is be in the country illegally for 3 years while they go to a Ca. highschool illegaly then they can pay less to attend a Ca. college :D

Jose: "Gee, I think I'll sneak across the border and go to high school for 3 years so I can go to UC Berkeley and only pay in-state tuition."

... sorry olevet, that is pub fiction.

olevetonahill

11/16/2010, 01:47 AM

But according to the Cali Libs they should also get Federal Grants and student loans :rolleyes:

olevetonahill

11/16/2010, 01:49 AM

Jose: "Gee, I think I'll sneak across the border and go to high school for 3 years so I can go to UC Berkeley and only pay in-state tuition."

... sorry olevet, that is pub fiction.

No, its not. You know as well as anyone that the Illegals come across and live and work here for years and send their kids to school . I really dont GAS its Yalls Problem out there not mine

TheHumanAlphabet

11/16/2010, 01:51 AM

No surprise here, SanJoaquin, I disagree with you vehemently. Why should a person of no standing in this country get a benefit that is better than a person from another state?

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 01:59 AM

Not all of us are on sabbatical, I need to get some sleep. Later,...

Leroy Lizard

11/16/2010, 02:01 AM

Not all of us are on sabbatical, I need to get some sleep. Later,...

Wuss.

SicEmBaylor

11/16/2010, 02:02 AM

Leroy Lizard

11/16/2010, 02:06 AM

Jose: "Gee, I think I'll sneak across the border and go to high school for 3 years so I can go to UC Berkeley and only pay in-state tuition."

... sorry olevet, that is pub fiction.

Pub fiction?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/15/2010-11-15_california_supreme_court_upholds_law_allowing_i llegal_immigrants_instate_tuition.html

Illegal immigrants in California can continue to receive the same in-state tuition breaks that other students get to attend public colleges, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday.

Students who spend at least three years in California high schools are eligible for the tuition breaks, the Los Angeles Times reports - a decision cheered by the state's estimated 25,000 illegal immigrants.

olevetonahill

11/16/2010, 02:13 AM

Sheat i bet theres far more than 25,000 ilegals there. hell theres prolly that many workin at the chicken plant over in Heavner :P

Leroy Lizard

11/16/2010, 02:19 AM

Sheat i bet theres far more than 25,000 ilegals there. hell theres prolly that many workin at the chicken plant over in Heavner :P

Yeah, the 25,000 quote seems far too low. I would think LA County has that many.

sooner59

11/16/2010, 02:19 AM

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Are you f***ing kidding me? The state's estimated 25,000 illegal immigrants? I think they missed a few zeros on the tail end of that number.

And I'm with Collier. If you are illegally in this country, you should receive basic human rights and no other rights given to actual citizens of this country. What is so hard about just becoming a legal citizen? If our country is so great that you want to enjoy the same rights and opportunities as citizens, then f***ing become one. And I understand the in-state/out-of-state tuition thing for citizens, but once you start giving people perks who are not even citizens of this "country", much less your pathetic state, then denying actual U.S. citizens those same perks, you seriously a shame to this country. I'm about ready for California to break off into the Pacific.

Hell, I bet if an illegal alien wanted a circumcision for their child in San Francisco, they would gladly let them do it and give the f***ing kid a happy meal with a toy in it afterward. :rolleyes:

SicEmBaylor

11/16/2010, 02:22 AM

SicEmBaylor

11/16/2010, 02:24 AM

Anyway, I'm going to neg SJS for defaming the good name of Rep. King who is a gallant crusader in the holy war against infidel messicans.

olevetonahill

11/16/2010, 02:27 AM

like I said IDGAS what they do out there .

jaun Ill make ya a deal . You stay the hell out of Okie Politics and Ill stay out of Cals Fair enough ?

sooner59

11/16/2010, 02:27 AM

I disagree with you. Why would you want them to become legal citizens? They're a threat to our nation's western European heritage. I want them ALL to go. Every immigrant...legal or otherwise. Get out. Don't pass G0 and do not collect your $200.00 from Uncle Sam. Just go. Now. Seriously. GTFO.

That is one solution. I just mean, if they are "going" to be here, they need to be on record, paying taxes, and following state and federal regulations just like other people living here.

olevetonahill

11/16/2010, 02:33 AM

Theres 2 groups IMHO that really need to have Immigration Curtailed sharply.
Thats the Latino and the Muslim. set some dayum limits on how many can enter the USA

Collier11

11/16/2010, 02:33 AM

epic fail SJS

Leroy Lizard

11/16/2010, 02:34 AM

yermom

11/16/2010, 02:51 AM

i don't understand why they get to go to high school, personally

olevetonahill

11/16/2010, 02:56 AM

i don't understand why they get to go to high school, personally

I dont either Bro .
Seems Like Schools are required to Report all Illegal activity then they should have to report the Illegals to the Border Patrol .

Leroy Lizard

11/16/2010, 03:13 AM

I dont either Bro .
Seems Like Schools are required to Report all Illegal activity then they should have to report the Illegals to the Border Patrol .

That would make sense. We're talking about California, right?

Scott D

11/16/2010, 06:54 AM

i don't understand why they get to go to high school, personally

probably the whole "schools get more federal monies for having more bodies" program.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 09:09 AM

Good morning out-of-state rabble rousers.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 09:30 AM

1. That 25,000 refers to one estimate of the number of California Public Higher Ed students benefit from in-state tuition.... not the total number of persons illegally present in the state. In any case, it's about 1% or less of the total of public higher ed students in Calif.

2. I agree, that if any student is deported he or she should not qualify for in-state tuition.

3. vet, about me staying out of OK politics, well, I don't go back to OK to lobby against some of the silly laws and public policy matters in OK. But as an OU alum, the reputation of that institution will always have a bearing on me, professionally.

4. Funny though, I received 12 years of public school educaton in OK and 9 years of higher education at OU at an in-state tuition rate, and then I left the state. So states need to think about their educational investments.

I would guess it's highly likely that the most talented and highest achieving of the students who are illegally present are likely to stay in California the rest of their lives. Many will qualify for adjustment of status without leaving the U.S. through Section 245i of federal law. Others will qualify through marriage. As long as they are not deported, it makes sense to educate them. It will pay economically.

We outlawed affirmative action in CA public universities so merit is the trump card. If you are among those with the highest aptitude, acheivers or with special talents you may be accepted to a UC, and those above average accepted to a CSU.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 10:31 AM

Pub fiction?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/15/2010-11-15_california_supreme_court_upholds_law_allowing_i llegal_immigrants_instate_tuition.html

Fiction that it is an incentive for migration. Sure, if their kids have a college-bound drive, they might take advantage of it, but in-state tuition was not the reason for relocating in CA. Also they do not qualify for federal or state grants like the Pell Grant or Cal Grant.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 10:37 AM

I've met Rep. Steve King on 3 separate occasions. He's a gentleman, a great conservative, and anyone should be proud to have him as their representative.

Me with Rep. Steve King
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/SicEmBaylor/YCT/Convention05009dasddd-1.jpg

1. Since I've never met you in person, Sic 'em, I must ask, which one is you and which is Rep. King?

2. What happened to your states rights advocacy?

3. Rep. King's reasoning baffles me ... here is an anti-gay marriage quote from him:

“I think that if we can’t defend marriage, that it becomes very hard to defend life,” King said. “Marriage is the crucible by which we pour all of our values and pass them on to our children, and that is how the culture is renewed each time. So, if we lose marriage — for instance, if our children are raised in warehouses, so to speak. There have been civilizations that have tried to do that. The Spartans did that. They took the children away and taught them to be warriors. It’s a good way to defend a country, but not much of a way to run a civilization.

WTF?

CrimsonJim

11/16/2010, 12:11 PM

lol...another debate about illegal aliens. SURPRISE!

What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand??!!

Collier11

11/16/2010, 01:55 PM

but they got feelings and stuff

sooner59

11/16/2010, 02:00 PM

They took er jerbs!

http://www.meh.ro/thumbnail/2009_12/meh.ro3066.jpg

Leroy Lizard

11/16/2010, 03:36 PM

2. I agree, that if any student is deported he or she should not qualify for in-state tuition.

Do you want them deported?

Otherwise your statement rings hollow.

GrapevineSooner

11/16/2010, 04:19 PM

Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is also in favor of granting in-state tuition (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20101116deval_patrick_to_address_annual_immigrant_ luncheon_1/srvc=home&position=6) to illegal aliens in his state.

As a supporter of state's rights, well...they can do what they want.

Still, they're going to grant something to somebody who isn't even a citizen of the United States that neither I, nor my children will be able to get.

Unless we move to Massachusetts, of course.

Shouldn't the idea be to incentivize legal immigration?

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 05:39 PM

lol...another debate about illegal aliens. SURPRISE!

What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand??!!

Well, CJ, the California Supreme Court (6 out of 7 were republican appointees) unanimously ruled that charging them in-state tuition is LEGAL as long as they met the set standard of 3 years of high school in California and graduated.

Just what part of LEGAL do you not understand?

What we have here are some out-of-state students who never lived a day in California until they become college students, who want Californians to subsidize their higher education.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 05:40 PM

Do you want them deported?

Otherwise your statement rings hollow.

If they are meritorious, give them visas.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 05:43 PM

Shouldn't the idea be to incentivize legal immigration?

Yes, I believe they have to promise to apply for U.S. citizenship as soon as they are eligible. Sometimes it takes 20 or 30 years of waiting in line to get the green card, and then 5 years later, one is eligible for citizenship.

sooner59

11/16/2010, 05:46 PM

Well, CJ, the California Supreme Court (6 out of 7 were republican appointees) unanimously ruled that charging them in-state tuition is LEGAL as long as they met the set standard of 3 years of high school in California and graduated.

Just what part of LEGAL do you not understand?

What we have here are some illegal students who live in California, benefiting from high schools funded by American tax payers until they become college students, then want Americans to subsidize their higher education.

FIFY.

sooner59

11/16/2010, 05:52 PM

NormanPride

11/16/2010, 06:02 PM

Wait... why aren't these people being deported if we know they're here illegally? I mean... isn't that what you're supposed to do?

SicEmBaylor

11/16/2010, 06:14 PM

1. Since I've never met you in person, Sic 'em, I must ask, which one is you and which is Rep. King?

2. What happened to your states rights advocacy?

3. Rep. King's reasoning baffles me ... here is an anti-gay marriage quote from him:

“I think that if we can’t defend marriage, that it becomes very hard to defend life,” King said. “Marriage is the crucible by which we pour all of our values and pass them on to our children, and that is how the culture is renewed each time. So, if we lose marriage — for instance, if our children are raised in warehouses, so to speak. There have been civilizations that have tried to do that. The Spartans did that. They took the children away and taught them to be warriors. It’s a good way to defend a country, but not much of a way to run a civilization.

WTF?

1. I'm on the right.

2. OHHH, you're worried about States' Rights now? Let me get this straight, in terms of the Arizona law you deny the legitimacy of the law because illegal immigration is a FEDERAL issue. BUT, here you're making the argument that this is a states' rights issue for California? So, basically you agree with states' rights when it fits your purpose.

For the record, I do believe California has every right to pass this law. If they want to give out subsidized education to illegals with their citizens' tax dollars then that's their issue. HOWEVER, that doesn't stop me from saying it's a ridiculous and idiotic law.

3. I don't agree with King on the gay marriage issue, but what he's trying to say is that the breakdown of the traditional family unit can lead to untold social problems such as that experienced by Spartan society where the state and serving the state was more important than the individual family unit which was not valued at all. His point is that successful societies require placing a very high value on the basic family unit.

sooner59

11/16/2010, 06:15 PM

Wait... why aren't these people being deported if we know they're here illegally? I mean... isn't that what you're supposed to do?

I'm with ya for cryin out loud. But California seems to see money signs when they see new people and forget about the law.

A. Do you not have to show some sort of identification (student OR parent) to attend HS?

B. In college, you have to have legal documentation of residence to get in-state tuition, but you don't even have to be in this country legally?

C. Where are these illegal students getting the money to pay for college? Is it from family here illegally not paying taxes? Is it federal grants/loans/etc? Because does it not seem like it would be illegal to provide illegal aliens with federal funding generated from tax dollars?

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 07:01 PM

What we have here are some illegal students who live in California, benefiting from high schools funded by American tax payers until they become college students, then want Americans to subsidize their higher education.

"illegal students" No, they are not illegal students. The courts have ruled that it is not illegal for them to be students.

Agriculture, food prep, hotel & restaurant, construction, maintenance, etc. are areas in which their families contribute to the $1.8 trillion Calif economy. They are 9% of the workforce. Whether they buy or rent, the property taxes paid by them or their landlords are the same. The sales tax they pay is the same.

The families of out-of-staters do not contribute to the Calif economy in the same way.

dwarthog

11/16/2010, 07:14 PM

I'm with ya for cryin out loud. But California seems to see money signs when they see new people and forget about the law.

A. Do you not have to show some sort of identification (student OR parent) to attend HS?

B. In college, you have to have legal documentation of residence to get in-state tuition, but you don't even have to be in this country legally?

C. Where are these illegal students getting the money to pay for college? Is it from family here illegally not paying taxes? Is it federal grants/loans/etc? Because does it not seem like it would be illegal to provide illegal aliens with federal funding generated from tax dollars?

Based on their deficit, I would say this isn't working out well for them.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 07:17 PM

1. I'm on the right.

2. OHHH, you're worried about States' Rights now? Let me get this straight, in terms of the Arizona law you deny the legitimacy of the law because illegal immigration is a FEDERAL issue. BUT, here you're making the argument that this is a states' rights issue for California? So, basically you agree with states' rights when it fits your purpose.

For the record, I do believe California has every right to pass this law. If they want to give out subsidized education to illegals with their citizens' tax dollars then that's their issue. HOWEVER, that doesn't stop me from saying it's a ridiculous and idiotic law.

3. I don't agree with King on the gay marriage issue, but what he's trying to say is that the breakdown of the traditional family unit can lead to untold social problems such as that experienced by Spartan society where the state and serving the state was more important than the individual family unit which was not valued at all. His point is that successful societies require placing a very high value on the basic family unit.

1. Sic 'em is a fine-looking young man.

2. I've never been the states right advocate you've been. I was just calling you on it. Glad to hear you are consistent here.

3. glad to hear you don't buy into Steve King's gay marriage position.

CrimsonJim

11/16/2010, 07:34 PM

Well, CJ, the California Supreme Court (6 out of 7 were republican appointees) unanimously ruled that charging them in-state tuition is LEGAL as long as they met the set standard of 3 years of high school in California and graduated.

Just what part of LEGAL do you not understand?

What we have here are some out-of-state students who never lived a day in California until they become college students, who want Californians to subsidize their higher education.

They are ILLEGAL aliens, period. California can deem them "legal students" all they want, it doesn't change the fact that they are in this country ILLEGALLY.

So, oh master of circular logic, What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand??!!

SanJoaquinSooner

11/16/2010, 07:40 PM

I'm with ya for cryin out loud. But California seems to see money signs when they see new people and forget about the law.

A. Do you not have to show some sort of identification (student OR parent) to attend HS?

They must show proof of residency, like a gas & electric bill with an address in the district. You do not need a U.S. birth certificate or passport.

B. In college, you have to have legal documentation of residence to get in-state tuition, but you don't even have to be in this country legally?

You have to show you've attended high school in Calif for three years and you graduated, in order to qualify for in-state tuition. High School transcripts do this.

C. Where are these illegal students getting the money to pay for college? Is it from family here illegally not paying taxes? Is it federal grants/loans/etc? Because does it not seem like it would be illegal to provide illegal aliens with federal funding generated from tax dollars?

Their families are 9% of the workforce in Calif. They make money. Meg Whitman's maid of 9 years earned $23/hour which was reported to the IRS - so she paid taxes just like anyone else would.

If you use your legal sister's or cousin's or friend's social security number or buy one off a dead puerto rican then you can get on a payroll and be I-9 verified.

They buy cars and homes and all sorts of $hit. Well, those who are resourceful can do it. Not everyone is, so many go back home.

Those illegally present are not eligible for federal grants/loans.

sooner59

11/17/2010, 12:00 AM

They must show proof of residency, like a gas & electric bill with an address in the district. You do not need a U.S. birth certificate or passport.

You have to show you've attended high school in Calif for three years and you graduated, in order to qualify for in-state tuition. High School transcripts do this.

Their families are 9% of the workforce in Calif. They make money. Meg Whitman's maid of 9 years earned $23/hour which was reported to the IRS - so she paid taxes just like anyone else would.

If you use your legal sister's or cousin's or friend's social security number or buy one off a dead puerto rican then you can get on a payroll and be I-9 verified.

They buy cars and homes and all sorts of $hit. Well, those who are resourceful can do it. Not everyone is, so many go back home.

Those illegally present are not eligible for federal grants/loans.

That is definitely illegal. And the way things are looking, its only a matter of time before they are getting Pell Grants and subsidized loans.

sooner59

11/17/2010, 12:11 AM

I get that they work. I get that they go to school to better themselves. However, I would venture to say a vast majority do NOT have their earning reported to the IRS. And I will never believe that they DESERVE these things unless are in the country legally. That is where I stand. I just have not heard one good argument for giving all these rights and benefits to illegal aliens. Most arguments come from the Mexican community, which holds no water to me. Why argue that you deserve something when there is a clear avenue to get it and you are just not willing to take the step? That would be like if Mexico was the land of opportunity and not the U.S. and I sneak across the border, and protest that I deserve everything that Mexican citizens are entitled to. All I would have to do is become a legal citizen of Mexico, but I refuse to do so and argue for my rights anyway. It makes no sense and I would be in the wrong.

yermom

11/17/2010, 12:20 AM

you really think it's easy to go through the legal channels?

SanJoaquinSooner

11/17/2010, 12:21 AM

They are ILLEGAL aliens, period. California can deem them "legal students" all they want, it doesn't change the fact that they are in this country ILLEGALLY.

So, oh master of circular logic, What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand??!!

That they are illegally present does not mean out-of-state students should pay at an in-state tuition rate. The folks who brought the lawsuit thought so, and the Calif supreme court said, "No way, Jose."

Collier11

11/17/2010, 12:21 AM

The thing that SJS seems to be intentionally missing is that it doesnt matter what they do once they get here...they arent supposed to be here and by law should be deported

You dont get to pick and choose which laws you follow to fit your argument

Collier11

11/17/2010, 12:22 AM

you really think it's easy to go through the legal channels?

Doesnt matter, they are illegal

yermom

11/17/2010, 12:26 AM

i'm just saying it's not about being willing to take a step to become legal. it's not like it's just some form you have to fill out

olevetonahill

11/17/2010, 12:27 AM

SanJoaquinSooner

11/17/2010, 12:27 AM

It is obvious that if California can push all of those illegal students through the system and get them college degrees, it will help stimulate their economy in the long run. That still doesn't make it right. If they are going to allow illegal aliens to attend high school, those students should be required to go the the legalization process while in high school so when they graduate, they are American citizens and on par with other high school graduates around the country if that is the way California wants to do it. Hell, you are doing them a favor.

that would be great but the bureaucracy moves a bit slower - like 20 or 30 years just to become eligible for a green card. And then 5 more years for naturalization.

the fast track to citizenship is to marry a U.S. citizen. takes just a year or so to get a green card and then 3 more years for citizenship. but if you are applying based on being a brother or sister of a U.S. citizen, then it may take decades.

Collier11

11/17/2010, 12:28 AM

Just cus the avenues to get legalized are long and strenuous doesnt give them an out to just do what they want...well it wouldnt if our govt would enforce their own laws

olevetonahill

11/17/2010, 12:31 AM

Hell C11 theres a long line and wait at the Drivers examiners place , Im just gonna go ahead and drive with out a license. Well hell look at that line in front of the Insurance place, **** it Im just gonna drive with out insurance .

SanJoaquinSooner

11/17/2010, 12:31 AM

So jaun yer saying out of state students shouldnt get the lower rate ? But Out of Country folk should ?:confused:

anyone who attends a Calif high school for three years (and graduates) qualifies, including out-of-state and out-of-country. that's the law.

CrimsonJim

11/17/2010, 12:35 AM

What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand??!!

olevetonahill

11/17/2010, 12:36 AM

anyone who attends a Calif high school for three years (and graduates) qualifies, including out-of-state and out-of-country. that's the law.
I find this part highly amusing ;)

Yup and if ya sneak over the ****ing Border yer an Illegal alien THATS THE LAW also. Go ahead and pic and choose :rolleyes:

SanJoaquinSooner

11/17/2010, 12:37 AM

Just cus the avenues to get legalized are long and strenuous doesnt give them an out to just do what they want...well it wouldnt if our govt would enforce their own laws

The California Supreme Court didn't say persons illegally present couldn't be deported. That's up to the feds. It simply said the law defining in-state tuition eligibility is legal.

Collier11

11/17/2010, 12:44 AM

What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand??!!

"Dumbazz, the word illegal contains the word legal, therefore you are wrong" SJS

:D

SanJoaquinSooner

11/17/2010, 12:52 AM

I find this part highly amusing ;)

Yup and if ya sneak over the ****ing Border yer an Illegal alien THATS THE LAW also. Go ahead and pic and choose :rolleyes:

Yeah, I've never denied that unfortunate fact. Too bad we never got around to reforming worker visa laws so they would have come legally with biometric visas. We had a white-hot smoking economy for 25 years such that anyone with a 2nd grade education to get as many jobs as he wanted. Twelve million migrated as a result when there were only 90,000 or so worker visas. Thank God for severe recessions - I guess?? to slow migration down.:confused:

But it's not the school's responsibility to deport any more than it's a gas station's obligation to refuse to sell you gas if your license plate is expired.

olevetonahill

11/17/2010, 12:56 AM

jaun a serious question, Was yer wife and Illegal before you married her ?

SanJoaquinSooner

11/17/2010, 01:03 AM

Just cus the avenues to get legalized are long and strenuous doesnt give them an out to just do what they want...well it wouldnt if our govt would enforce their own laws

The U.S. deports around 400,000 per year. But the top priority isn't going to be on those who have lived here since they were toddlers and are exemplary students who have otherwise lived the straight and narrow. The priority is more on the dopeheads and drunk drivers and those stupid enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

sooner59

11/17/2010, 01:13 AM

Yeah, I've never denied that unfortunate fact. Too bad we never got around to reforming worker visa laws so they would have come legally with biometric visas. We had a white-hot smoking economy for 25 years such that anyone with a 2nd grade education to get as many jobs as he wanted. Twelve million migrated as a result when there were only 90,000 or so worker visas. Thank God for severe recessions - I guess?? to slow migration down.:confused:

But it's not the school's responsibility to deport any more than it's a gas station's obligation to refuse to sell you gas if your license plate is expired.

Then the Feds should make it a law for the citizenship status be known and verified upon admission to any educational institute receiving federal funds. If found violating this law, the school may lose federal funding, and the school may face charges for violated said law. And any applicants found to be illegal aliens should by law be reported, so they can be deported. I'm sorry, I just don't think everyone in the world should be allowed to stroll over here ignoring the established laws and doing as they wish and getting handouts. This country can not support a skyrocketing population based upon the high birth rates and lower death rates due to medical advancements as people are living much longer today, and the average age continues to rise. This is draining social security, medicare, etc. Its not getting any better, and in fact getting worse as it is....not even taking into account the amount of money it costs the government to support rising numbers of illegal aliens. Its a strain on the country's infrastructure.

TheHumanAlphabet

11/17/2010, 01:20 AM

anyone who attends a Calif high school for three years (and graduates) qualifies, including out-of-state and out-of-country. that's the law.

Doesn't still make it not a bull**** law. Illegal in the U.S. is STILL ILLEGAL. I wouldn't get that kind of treatment in Australia or Japan, why do you think someone should be treated better here. Boot them the hell out.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/17/2010, 01:23 AM

jaun a serious question, Was yer wife and Illegal before you married her ?

She was legal when I married her.

olevetonahill

11/17/2010, 01:29 AM

Just figured the way yer all up in the Illegals asses that she musta been .

SicEmBaylor

11/17/2010, 01:30 AM

SanJoaquinSooner

11/17/2010, 01:33 AM

Doesn't still make it not a bull**** law. Illegal in the U.S. is STILL ILLEGAL. I wouldn't get that kind of treatment in Australia or Japan, why do you think someone should be treated better here. Boot them the hell out.

I don't know anything about colleges in Australia or Japan - if they admit foreigners.

SCOUT

11/17/2010, 01:36 AM

Just cus the avenues to get legalized are long and strenuous doesnt give them an out to just do what they want...well it wouldnt if our govt would enforce their own laws

The process of becoming legal is a strenuous process for a reason. The idea is that a person must present a reason as to why they should be accepted in the US. For example, in the late 90's and early 00's a computer science degree was an automatic. That has since changed. The reason? Unemployment has gone up, particularly in that job class.

See, if US citizens can't find jobs then the number of foreign workers needed is reduced. The number of visas issued is reduced in order to stimulate domestic job growth.

Illegals circumvent this entire system. I can already hear the, "Americans won't do those jobs..." crap. SJS already pointed out that the illegal maid was making $23 per hour. I will do the math for you, that is just south of fifty grand a year. Do you think any of the 10% currently unemployed would be willing to stoop to the lowly level of 50 G's per year?

Sure taxes and benefits would make that take home lower for a legal worker, but that just speaks to the problem of illegals suppressing legal wages through the avoidance of actual costs.

Look immigration can be difficult but things worth doing often are. Skipping through the process illegally should never be rewarded. If it is, immigration policy is just words on a useless piece of paper.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/17/2010, 01:36 AM

Off subject. I ate at this Mexican restaurant tonight, and I noticed a sign posted on the wall next to the register informing patrons that a VALID US ID was required if paying by check.

I found that somewhat ironical like.

Funny you mentioned that. I ate at a Japanese restaurant this evening, with my daughter, and they had a sign that said they don't accept checks.

sooner59

11/17/2010, 01:50 AM

Funny you mentioned that. I ate at a Japanese restaurant this evening, with my daughter, and they had a sign that said they don't accept checks.

They will accept cats, though. :eek:

SanJoaquinSooner

11/17/2010, 02:04 AM

The process of becoming legal is a strenuous process for a reason. The idea is that a person must present a reason as to why they should be accepted in the US. For example, in the late 90's and early 00's a computer science degree was an automatic. That has since changed. The reason? Unemployment has gone up, particularly in that job class.

See, if US citizens can't find jobs then the number of foreign workers needed is reduced. The number of visas issued is reduced in order to stimulate domestic job growth.

Illegals circumvent this entire system. I can already hear the, "Americans won't do those jobs..." crap. SJS already pointed out that the illegal maid was making $23 per hour. I will do the math for you, that is just south of fifty grand a year. Do you think any of the 10% currently unemployed would be willing to stoop to the lowly level of 50 G's per year?

They circumvented the system because the system was broken. We had 25 years of full employment with 100,000 new jobs created every month
but only 90,000 H2A and H2B visa per year and about the same amount of H1B visas for the highly skilled like the C.S. guys you're talking about. They were running out of visas the first month of the year. And they did nothing to adjust for increased demand, for the most part.

the highly skilled situations can sometimes be dealt with through savvy lawyers, etc. I worked with a PhD statistician who's student visa had run out and couldn't get an H1B because the yearly allotment was all gone. She got a J-visa instead and pulled gov't strings back home to get out of the requirement to return home for at least two years.

The lower skilled workers usually don't have attorneys, friends in gov't to pull strings. They hear, "we got a job for you if you can find a way to get here and you have a working SSN."

From 83 to 07 anybody could get as many jobs as one wanted, because there were so many.

on the maid issue, presumably, Meg Whitman hired the most qualified maid available. that's the way it should be. the best should get the job. merit should rule. It should be employers who decide who gets visas, not gov't bureaucrats. limited gov't.

SCOUT

11/17/2010, 10:44 AM

So, if you don't like the system, ignore it? Sorry but that isn't an acceptable solution.

The number of visas are adjusted each year. There have most definitely been shortages of visas in the past, but that is by design. It keeps demand for domestic jobs higher.

Look, the system isn't perfect by any stretch and I will never deny that. However, you have to have rule of law otherwise chaos reigns. People who don't like the way our laws work should not be allowed to simply ignore them without consequence.

NormanPride

11/17/2010, 11:05 AM

I still cannot fathom that California passed a law to give benefits to a group of people that are currently breaking federal law.

yermom

11/17/2010, 11:29 AM

yermom

11/17/2010, 11:36 AM

I still cannot fathom that California passed a law to give benefits to a group of people that are currently breaking federal law.

i'm not really sure what in-state tuition rules really accomplish, but if you don't exclude other countries from it, what are you really doing?

i guess if you can prove you've been in school in California for 3 years, someone has failed for a while before the got to college

i'm sure the California schools don't want to become the INS enforcers though, especially for kids that are able/willing to further their education

of course, i'm not sure how you go to college without a SSN without admitting you aren't a citizen. it seems like non-citizens shouldn't get the benefit of federally funded schools

sooner59

11/17/2010, 12:37 PM

I had to provide my social security number to attend OU. In fact, for my first year or two, student ID numbers were their social security number. Then they realized how stupid that was and issued new IDs with new numbers.

SCOUT

11/17/2010, 01:01 PM

but when the law is hopeless to enforce, maybe it needs to be reworked

see prohibition

I totally agree that immigration reform is needed. I am just saying that breaking a law that you think isn't good isn't a workable solution.

Collier11

11/17/2010, 01:08 PM

Exactly, just cus 59 doesnt like the fact that you cant hook up with 15 year olds, should he go ahead and do it? :eek: :D

sooner59

11/17/2010, 01:10 PM

Dude! I told you that in confidence. :(

CrimsonJim

11/17/2010, 01:20 PM

but when the law is hopeless to enforce, maybe it needs to be reworked

see prohibition

The law is not hopeless to enforce, it's just not being done...what the reason is for that completely escapes me. You can't tell me that when most of the general public knows who is legal and who is not, that the law could not be enforced if they wanted to.

CrimsonJim

11/17/2010, 01:36 PM

That they are illegally present does not mean out-of-state students should pay at an in-state tuition rate. The folks who brought the lawsuit thought so, and the Calif supreme court said, "No way, Jose."

Nice attempt to deflect...yet again. Trying to curtail the conversation to a snippit of the big picture doesn't fly. Why you are such a big supporter of ILLEGAL immigration just baffles me. You can come up with all the reasons/excuses you want, it doesn't change or hide the fact that these people are breaking the law, period.

tommieharris91

11/17/2010, 01:38 PM

Know who else had closed borders? Nazi Germany. Their borders expanded pretty rapidly, though.

StoopTroup

11/17/2010, 02:04 PM

The law is not hopeless to enforce, it's just not being done...what the reason is for that completely escapes me. You can't tell me that when most of the general public knows who is legal and who is not, that the law could not be enforced if they wanted to.

There are going to be folks who would turn their backs for people who are being hunted down for deportation. I understand why we got all paranoid when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Possibly what we did then to Japanese Americans was wrong but what might of happened to them if they'd not been rounded up might have been worse. You can see that many of us can't agree on what should be done and the politicians are using it for themselves. McCain has flip flopped on his own views so many times he looks desperate and now his own Wife seems divided on the issues.

We need leaders who will make decisions that don't spread hate....don't open our borders for a free pass and doesn't create a system that hunts humans down....instead one that educates them and gives them no choice but to become an American and learn that our laws are for all to follow. No more loopholes. If you want to live here you aren't going to get deported your going to pay taxes in the upper tax brackets though. Don't like it. Leave. Remember though....if you leave...you won't get a chance to be put on the list for a chance to get your US Citizenship....you'll go to the back of the line. I don't like the idea of creating more Gov't jobs but we have plenty of folks who are computer savvy and could be hired to help teach and process everyone who wishes to get the education they need to become a Citizen. We could even leave it to Contractors too with Gov't inspection and final clearance for passing the US Citizenship Classes.

What I'm suggesting might not even be the best idea or even possible....what I am saying is that I believe we are smart enough to solve this problem.

Collier11

11/17/2010, 02:31 PM

Since it probably is impossible to deport all of the illegals, why not do something like this...

If you are illegal and you can prove that you are a hard working citizen who pays taxes and doesnt get in trouble, you get automatic citizenship.

If you dont come forward, you have crimes on your record, or you are working under the table and you get caught, see ya.

That takes care of alot of those who are currently in the country.

Then, we start all over with those who are trying to get into the country

I realize it wont fix the problem but it couldnt hurt, right?

NormanPride

11/17/2010, 03:12 PM

maybe if we built this big wall...

Collier11

11/17/2010, 03:15 PM

make em all listen to Miley Cyrus on repeat for 24 hours, then they can decide if they still want to come over

Scott D

11/17/2010, 03:51 PM

The law is not hopeless to enforce, it's just not being done...what the reason is for that completely escapes me. You can't tell me that when most of the general public knows who is legal and who is not, that the law could not be enforced if they wanted to.

Truthfully, where is the incentive? Short of withholding federal money due to student populations on "count day", what incentive do schools have to potentially overburden the system with giving over documentation to INS showing that there are illegals going to school there?

Ike

11/17/2010, 05:07 PM

What I'm suggesting might not even be the best idea or even possible....what I am saying is that I believe we are smart enough to solve this problem.

No.

We are certainly smart enough to find any number of solutions to this problem. But we are too damn stubborn and egotistical to come to some sort of an agreement on any one solution. So we'll either get no solution, or a hodge-podge of partial solutions that will likely be counterproductive. 'Tis the new American way!

SicEmBaylor

11/17/2010, 05:29 PM

maybe if we built this big wall...

1. Build a Wall
2. At least triple the BP presence.
3. Issue a "shoot to kill" order for ANYONE trying to cross illegally.
4. Levy MASSIVE fines against anyone who employs illegals.
5. Seize assets of any business that knowingly hires illegal labor.
6. Deny ALL assistance to anyone who is here illegally INCLUDING publicly financed medical care.
7. Further restrict LEGAL immigration.
8. Eliminate legal immigration entirely and eliminate the process of naturalized citizenship entirely.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/17/2010, 07:47 PM

Nice attempt to deflect...yet again. Trying to curtail the conversation to a snippit of the big picture doesn't fly. Why you are such a big supporter of ILLEGAL immigration just baffles me. You can come up with all the reasons/excuses you want, it doesn't change or hide the fact that these people are breaking the law, period.

You're a funny dude.. I started the thread CJ. ... about the whining out-of-staters wanting in-state tuition. I didn't deflect, but rather, got back to the topic I raised. The Calif Supreme Court said tough sh1t.

I gotta run and do a few things early this evening, then I'll start addressing some of the lamebrain reasoning of you keystone cops.

CrimsonJim

11/17/2010, 07:57 PM

The discussion, as it always does, has moved beyond your OP. Steer it as you might, you have lost control of the ship. Keep up with the conversation or move aside. :D

p.s. I'm glad you find me so amusing. ;)

SanJoaquinSooner

11/18/2010, 02:11 AM

So, if you don't like the system, ignore it? Sorry but that isn't an acceptable ... you have to have rule of law otherwise chaos reigns. People who don't like the way our laws work should not be allowed to simply ignore them without consequence.

Actually when the laws of supply and demand don’t jive with the system, it’s not chaos we get, but rather a black market that follows its own Darwinian laws – not unlike the illegal drug black market. And that leads to all sorts of corruptions of the system. Washington completely ignored the insatiable demand of labor from 1983 to 2007 that led to 12 million illegally present (now down to 10.8 million due to the recession), resulting in a corrupt black market of labor. Five percent of the nation’s workforce are illegally present. Border patrol agents are bribed, social security agents are bribed, DMV agents are bribed, fake documents a cottage industry, and on and on. Landlords dependent on households made up of illegal or partially illegal residents. Various sectors of the business world dependent of workers illegally present. Sane immigration reform could have avoided this. Instead we got what we deserved.

The law is not hopeless to enforce, it's just not being done...what the reason is for that completely escapes me. You can't tell me that when most of the general public knows who is legal and who is not, that the law could not be enforced if they wanted to.

It is being done. About 400,000 deportations per year which is about 4% of the estimated 10.8 million illegally present. 4%. How does that compare to crimes like possession of pot? There are about 20 million pot smokers in the U.S. What % would you guess are convicted of possession each year? More or less than 4%? I bet waaayyy less.

How about speeding? What % of speeders get a ticket each year? I bet less than 4%.

Breaking copyright laws via computer downloading? What % convictions?

Alcohol drinkers underage convictions? More or less than 4%?

Any 15 year-old school boy can tell you an "enforcement-only" strategy to law breaking will not solve the problem. Not even the Germans could make that work, Sic 'em.

But speaking of pot smoking, it was fascinating to go over to read the comments on the thread about the California pot initiative that did not pass. Compare the comments over there to the comments in this thread:

this thread
... if our govt would enforce their own laws

pot thread
... please explain to someone who doesnt smoke pot anymore although I may or may not have a few times in college

Well Collier, you may or may not have spent time in prison for possession of pot, but I’m guessing you didn’t. The gov’t just didn’t enforce their laws.

this thread

Yup and if ya sneak over the ****ing Border yer an Illegal alien THATS THE LAW also. Go ahead and pic and choose :rolleyes:

pot thread
Unlike an Ex Pres. I did Smoke the Pot and INHALE ...

Hey vet, go ahead --- pic and choose!!!

this thread
Then the Feds should make it a law for the citizenship status be known and verified upon admission to any educational institute receiving federal funds. If found violating this law, the school may lose federal funding, and the school may face charges for violated said law....

pot thread
It makes normal food the best thing you have ever eaten. And it makes good food give your taste buds an orgasm. It makes you lazy and less likely to leave your house and endanger others. Mostly because you have everything you need at home (or could get delivery) or you are too paranoid to leave the house so you just stay at home and snack and watch funny stuff on tv, or watch Planet Earth because it blows your mind. Music is better, and everything around you is more interesting.

You can't overdose, you will just fall asleep. Some people say it makes them sick, but only if they do it after drinking. Nothing really evil about it. Just makes you feel good....

Sooner59 do you have a split personality? Those surely can’t be the same two people otherwise. Maybe we should drug test all students and teachers as long as we’re checking for green cards. Any school with a student who tests positive loses all federal funding. How about it? I bet you never went to prison for pot smoking did you, 59?

College kids break all sorts of laws, both criminal and civil, and it's interesting how some folks get holier-than-thou and self-righteous over the ones they don't break but can rationalize the ones they themselves break.

Collier11

11/18/2010, 02:25 AM

Wow that was really a bad attempt

XingTheRubicon

11/18/2010, 09:27 AM

SanJoaquinSooner

11/18/2010, 09:28 AM

It will be interesting to see if this student gets deported. Or maybe it acts as a catalyst for passage of the DREAM Act. Given our recession hangover, the odds are against it.

Pedro Ramirez is best known as Fresno State's student body president.

Far less public is his status as an undocumented immigrant -- at least, until this week. That's when an anonymous e-mail, sent to The Bee and other media outlets, prompted Ramirez to confirm publicly that fact.

Now he's helping organize an on-campus rally Friday in support of the federal DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act. The legislation pending in Congress would allow some longtime residents like him to become legal U.S. residents after spending two years in college or the military.

Ramirez, 22, of Tulare said he was born in Mexico and brought across the border by his family when he was 3. It was only as a high school senior that Ramirez learned his situation and grasped what that meant.

He couldn't get a job. He couldn't join the military. He couldn't qualify for public financial aid.

The e-mail that prompted Ramirez to acknowledge his status questioned why he wasn't being paid as Associated Students president. Ramirez said he waived the pay of about $800 a month because he knew he couldn't collect it.

Ramirez said he didn't realize there would be a salary when he ran last spring. Associated Students qualifications do not address citizenship status, so Ramirez was not prohibited from running for office, officials said.

Wednesday, Fresno State President John Welty issued a statement saying that Ramirez notified him and others about his immigration status shortly after the election.

Ramirez said he is paying for college through private scholarships that don't ask about residency status and odd jobs such as mowing lawns.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/11/17/v-print/2163552/fresno-state-student-president.html

SanJoaquinSooner

11/18/2010, 09:30 AM

Wow that was really a bad attempt

Hey Collier, better stick with the burglar alarm sales profession. You have no future as a film critic.

TUSooner

11/18/2010, 09:50 AM

1. Build a Wall
2. At least triple the BP presence.
3. Issue a "shoot to kill" order for ANYONE trying to cross illegally.
4. Levy MASSIVE fines against anyone who employs illegals.
5. Seize assets of any business that knowingly hires illegal labor.
6. Deny ALL assistance to anyone who is here illegally INCLUDING publicly financed medical care.
7. Further restrict LEGAL immigration.
8. Eliminate legal immigration entirely and eliminate the process of naturalized citizenship entirely.

And chicks don't dig this enlightened politcal theory (which seems to includes shooting children and their mothers)? Go figure!

But at least you are honest and not hypocritical about the sham legal / illegal distinction of the other immigrant haters.

Yes, there is a distinction, mainly a paper one, but face it, the howling nativists around here have trouble hiding their true feeling behind it for long. Before you know it, they're talking about "undesireables" and the threat posed by "hispanics." Don't belive me? Ask 'em how they feel about opening the legalization process to otherwise law-abiding aliens who are here without authorization.

But I'm not here to punch the tar baby; y'all carry on and rant away without me.

Crucifax Autumn

11/18/2010, 09:55 AM

Bigger font sizes make me believe anything.

texaspokieokie

11/18/2010, 09:57 AM

CA has plenty o money. i don't know why they charge tuition at all.

(as a side note, when i lived there more than 40 yrs ago, jr. colleges were
tuition free).

CrimsonJim

11/18/2010, 10:02 AM

Bigger font sizes make me believe anything.

You always were gullible like that.

SCOUT

11/18/2010, 11:53 AM

Actually when the laws of supply and demand don’t jive with the system, it’s not chaos we get, but rather a black market that follows its own Darwinian laws – not unlike the illegal drug black market. And that leads to all sorts of corruptions of the system. Washington completely ignored the insatiable demand of labor from 1983 to 2007 that led to 12 million illegally present (now down to 10.8 million due to the recession), resulting in a corrupt black market of labor. Five percent of the nation’s workforce are illegally present. Border patrol agents are bribed, social security agents are bribed, DMV agents are bribed, fake documents a cottage industry, and on and on. Landlords dependent on households made up of illegal or partially illegal residents. Various sectors of the business world dependent of workers illegally present. Sane immigration reform could have avoided this. Instead we got what we deserved.

Using normal font is sufficient for me. Anyway, you are making a a poor argument in my opinion. To summarize: We had bad policy so it is the governments fault that millions of people chose to ignore the laws of the land. You point out the fault of agents taking bribes, DMV agents and so on, but seem to willfully ignore the people making the bribes!

The agents taking bribes should be held accountable just as those breaking our immigrations laws should be held accountable. You seem very fond of trying to justify bad behavior by directing attention to other bad behavior.

There is plenty of blame to go around. I believe we need to have a fundamental re-evaluation of the entire countries immigration policy. This should include the complexity, the country allotments, enforcement and deterrence. With that said, we should uphold the laws that we have on the books. That goes for the agents taking bribes, the people here illegally and yes...pot.

SCOUT

11/18/2010, 11:56 AM

And chicks don't dig this enlightened politcal theory (which seems to includes shooting children and their mothers)? Go figure!

But at least you are honest and not hypocritical about the sham legal / illegal distinction of the other immigrant haters.

Yes, there is a distinction, mainly a paper one, but face it, the howling nativists around here have trouble hiding their true feeling behind it for long. Before you know it, they're talking about "undesireables" and the threat posed by "hispanics." Don't belive me? Ask 'em how they feel about opening the legalization process to otherwise law-abiding aliens who are here without authorization.

But I'm not here to punch the tar baby; y'all carry on and rant away without me.

I will happily answer your hypothetical. I think we need to completely re-evaluate the way we view and approach immigration. If after careful study the findings are to open the legalization process, then I have absolutely no concern with that.

It doesn't matter to me one iota whether an immigrant here illegally is Hispanic, Canadian or Nigerian. They should follow the same legal processes as everyone else.

Nice straw man though.

NormanPride

11/18/2010, 12:17 PM

I don't really get why SJS is in favor of this. All I get from the posts are "well they want to, so..." or "Well they're here anyway..." or "Well, this guy's really nice, so..."

I mean, if that's what the arguments boil down to it's pointless to argue. The fact of the matter is that you don't see any other state benefits out there that are expressly given to federal lawbreakers. There's no "murderer's health subsidy" or "drug trafficker's home project" or even "Tax Evasionist's Free Lunch Program". Just the fact that the state acknowledges their existence and gives them benefits is wrong.

I know it's not always a dangerous law to break, and it's not the same as murdering and drug trafficking (though there have been cases). I also think that if they're already in college they should automatically qualify for temporary citizenship to go to school like everyone else. But it just boggles my mind that organizations just don't care.

Ideally, I'd treat these people just like I would any other person trying to go to college from out of the country. They're not US citizens, no matter how much time they've spent here. It's the same thing for kids who are here because their parents live in the states for business.

CrimsonJim

11/18/2010, 12:31 PM

Give it up folks. SJS is pro-illegal immigration and you are not going to change his mind. I mean seriously, it's not their fault. It's the system's fault. http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif

sooner59

11/18/2010, 12:35 PM

Sooner59 do you have a split personality? Those surely can’t be the same two people otherwise. Maybe we should drug test all students and teachers as long as we’re checking for green cards. Any school with a student who tests positive loses all federal funding. How about it? I bet you never went to prison for pot smoking did you, 59?

College kids break all sorts of laws, both criminal and civil, and it's interesting how some folks get holier-than-thou and self-righteous over the ones they don't break but can rationalize the ones they themselves break.

If they had to pick between verifying a social security number and drug testing for every college student, which one gets priority? Forget politics and just look at money. The cost is next to nothing to ask for a social security number, plug it in the computer and have it verified. The cost would be staggering to drug test every college student. And what would it do? I would say at least 75% of the all of the smartest people I have ever met have smoked pot at least once. But if they did it once, they shouldn't get a college degree I guess. :rolleyes:

And before you talk about illegals getting college degees, I'm all for it. :D

http://www.decal-orations.com/images/graphics/u/un/universidad_de_guadalajara.png

You smoke pot, you run the risk of receiving punishment. I disagree with the law against it, but as it is, you get caught, you get punished. And no you don't go to prison for smoking pot. You would have to have a large amount or be distributing. However, if you are in this country illegally, you also run the risk of getting caught and getting punished. Difference is, the punishment is deportation. Screening for illegals entering college is easy....if they would do it. Given some are going to come up with social security numbers as you said early. You can't catch all of them easily I guess. But at least the school couldn't be accused of looking the other way. The way things are nowadays, I'm sure if drug screenings cost nothing, school would still not do it if they didn't have to, just as they don't look into U.S. citizenship if they do not have to. But the government would like to screen if they could. It just not feasible monetarily.

My main point is, whatever you do in this country as a citizen that breaks the law, you run the chance of getting caught and being punished, regardless of the crime. Same should happen for illegal aliens, except that them stepping foot on our soil was a crime if they did not go through the legal steps to do so.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think should be the policy regarding the presence of illegal aliens, them receiving benefits from U.S. entities, them receiving medical care with no insurance (and unable to pay cash), most not paying any taxes to the state of California or the U.S. government, etc.? And what benefits and burdens do you foresee?

Collier11

11/18/2010, 12:54 PM

Hey Collier, better stick with the burglar alarm sales profession. You have no future as a film critic.

youre just not good at this, at all

sooner59

11/18/2010, 01:00 PM

CA has plenty o money. i don't know why they charge tuition at all.

(as a side note, when i lived there more than 40 yrs ago, jr. colleges were
tuition free).

Might wanna ask Ahhhnold how their state's economy is doing. :eek:

SanJoaquinSooner

11/18/2010, 02:12 PM

Bigger font sizes make me believe anything.

Thankfully, Sic 'em left "Triple the number of font police" off his masterplan so I threw caution to the wind.

My apologies, though. I personally don't like reading small font if the message is relatively long.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/18/2010, 02:16 PM

Give it up folks. SJS is pro-illegal immigration and you are not going to change his mind. I mean seriously, it's not their fault. It's the system's fault.

t3GnWTy8Ebg

SanJoaquinSooner

11/18/2010, 02:20 PM

Gotta get back to work but several good questions asked to which I will respond.

sooner59

11/18/2010, 02:32 PM

Its not that I hate people (well some people give me a reason to)....I just become concerned about the long term viability of this country and its ability to stay at the top. There is a reason that there are immigration laws. They aren't anti-mexican laws, its for any citizen from any country. It just happens that most of them at this point are from Mexico.

Scott D

11/18/2010, 04:02 PM

this thread makes me giggle, because 100 and some odd years ago if they had the internet it'd be incessant bashing of the Irish..and for some reason that amuses me.

SCOUT

11/18/2010, 04:12 PM

this thread makes me giggle, because 100 and some odd years ago if they had the internet it'd be incessant bashing of the Irish..and for some reason that amuses me.

While the Irish were most certainly persecuted, the reason wasn't because they were illegal. People just didn't like that they were catholic and Irish. The Know Nothing Party being some of the more notorious haters.

Scott D

11/18/2010, 04:35 PM

There was plenty of the "zomg these immigrants are taking our jobs!' angst back then.

SicEmBaylor

11/18/2010, 04:44 PM

this thread makes me giggle, because 100 and some odd years ago if they had the internet it'd be incessant bashing of the Irish..and for some reason that amuses me.

The big difference though is that the Irish were at least western European.

SicEmBaylor

11/18/2010, 04:49 PM

And chicks don't dig this enlightened politcal theory (which seems to includes shooting children and their mothers)? Go figure!

But at least you are honest and not hypocritical about the sham legal / illegal distinction of the other immigrant haters.

Yes, there is a distinction, mainly a paper one, but face it, the howling nativists around here have trouble hiding their true feeling behind it for long. Before you know it, they're talking about "undesireables" and the threat posed by "hispanics." Don't belive me? Ask 'em how they feel about opening the legalization process to otherwise law-abiding aliens who are here without authorization.

But I'm not here to punch the tar baby; y'all carry on and rant away without me.

I agree you somewhat have a point. The distinction between legal and illegal is really not all that an important one if you're concerned about certain cultural or even economic issues. Because, in the end, even if they're legal you could still apply the same arguments about them taking jobs.

SCOUT

11/19/2010, 12:15 AM

There was plenty of the "zomg these immigrants are taking our jobs!' angst back then.

That isn't entirely true. In fact, the common phrase was "Irish Need Not Apply." The Irish were considered dirty, poor, and uneducated and they were unwelcome because of their status and religion. There was nothing illegal about their presence.

I do find it odd that you relish the ancestral agony of other races though.

yermom

11/19/2010, 12:21 AM

SCOUT

11/19/2010, 12:25 AM

SicEm nails this though. they might have been legal, but they were just letting them in at first. the Irish needed a boat to get here, the Latinos don't

ideologically, there isn't a lot of difference between the way we look at illegals and the Irish back then

Except that the conversation was about legality of status. He concludes with, "Because, in the end, even if they're legal you could still apply the same arguments about them taking jobs."

That may well be true, but they would not be entitled to legal benefits such as in-state tuition (OP) or any other manner of benefits.

The Irish entered legally under the system that existed at the time. It is apples and oranges.

yermom

11/19/2010, 12:31 AM

but why are they illegal in the first place?

if all the illegals were magically legal, would this still be a problem? why don't you want that?

SicEmBaylor

11/19/2010, 12:31 AM

Except that the conversation was about legality of status. He concludes with, "Because, in the end, even if they're legal you could still apply the same arguments about them taking jobs."

That may well be true, but they would not be entitled to legal benefits such as in-state tuition (OP) or any other manner of benefits.

The Irish entered legally under the system that existed at the time. It is apples and oranges.

Oh, I agree. There's little comparison to legal Irish and illegal hispanics.

SicEmBaylor

11/19/2010, 12:32 AM

but why are they illegal in the first place?

if all the illegals were magically legal, would this still be a problem? why don't you want that?

Because I don't like immigrants.

SCOUT

11/19/2010, 12:35 AM

but why are they illegal in the first place?

if all the illegals were magically legal, would this still be a problem? why don't you want that?

If they had magically followed the legal process, they would not be overwhelming our infrastructure. The immigration reform of 1924 and 1986 were put in place because free form immigration was strangling our country.

I don't want any and all immigration because it isn't a viable solution. It would be great if everyone could live in a free economic and political society, but there are very few of those available.

My fear is the same as that of a lifeguard. I am afraid that the drowning victim is going to pull me down with him.

yermom

11/19/2010, 12:35 AM

Because I don't like immigrants.

i wasn't just referring to you

it's more of a rhetorical question. we tend to not like people different from us.

yermom

11/19/2010, 12:37 AM

If they had magically followed the legal process, they would not be overwhelming our infrastructure. The immigration reform of 1924 and 1986 were put in place because free form immigration was strangling our country.

I don't want any and all immigration because it isn't a viable solution. It would be great if everyone could live in a free economic and political society, but there are very few of those available.

My fear is the same as that of a lifeguard. I am afraid that the drowning victim is going to pull me down with him.

that was passed most likely because of the Irish :D

the drowning victim is Mexico, and unless we start shooting people at the border, i'm not sure what there is to do, really

this seems like a good reason why that "rising tide raises all boats" BS is wrong

SCOUT

11/19/2010, 12:45 AM

that was passed most likely because of the Irish :D

the drowning victim is Mexico, and unless we start shooting people at the border, i'm not sure what there is to do, really

this seems like a good reason why that "rising tide raises all boats" BS is wrong

Them and those dirty Eye-Talians. You are right, the drowning victim is Mexico and we are the well intentioned lifeguard.

Immigration will never be easy, think of it in the terms of a very broad analogy. If you were on a sinking ship (Mexico) and there was a perfectly good ship just north of you, would you swim for it? Sure you would. The problem is that if everyone from your ship went to that other ship, it would sink too. No individual is worried about that. They are only concerned with themselves and their families. Well, I am on that other ship and I want to help as many as I can, I just don't want to sink my ship in the process.

Any before anyone calls me racists (again), you are more than welcome to change Mexico to Uganda, Cuba, Haiti, Ireland, England, Uzbekistan, Russia, China, Korea, Japan, Iceland, Italy, Chile, Uruguay, Norway or even Alaska.

**If I missed the country of your origin, you were meant to be included, but forces outside of my control prevented me.

Scott D

11/19/2010, 12:47 AM

That isn't entirely true. In fact, the common phrase was "Irish Need Not Apply." The Irish were considered dirty, poor, and uneducated and they were unwelcome because of their status and religion. There was nothing illegal about their presence.

I do find it odd that you relish the ancestral agony of other races though.

What am I relishing? I'm finding amusement in that the date has changed, the persecuted 'race' has changed, and it's still the same basic issue at the heart of the matter.

It's much how I find amusement in the "zomg fire coach (insert name here)" threads, especially when they wistfully call for past coaches to replace them when if the internet was around, there likely would have been "omg fire coaching legend (insert name here) threads."

SicEmBaylor

11/19/2010, 12:48 AM

Them and those dirty Eye-Talians. You are right, the drowning victim is Mexico and we are the well intentioned lifeguard.

Immigration will never be easy, think of it in the terms of a very broad analogy. If you were on a sinking ship (Mexico) and there was a perfectly good ship just north of you, would you swim for it? Sure you would. The problem is that if everyone from your ship went to that other ship, it would sink too. No individual is worried about that. They are only concerned with themselves and their families. Well, I am on that other ship and I want to help as many as I can, I just don't want to sink my ship in the process.

Any before anyone calls me racists (again), you are more than welcome to change Mexico to Uganda, Cuba, Haiti, Ireland, England, Uzbekistan, Russia, China, Korea, Japan, Iceland, Italy, Chile, Uruguay, Norway or even Alaska.

**If I missed the country of your origin, you were meant to be included, but forces outside of my control prevented me.

I really really don't want anymore filthy Alaskans entering the country. Next thing you know they'll be considering a run for President.

SCOUT

11/19/2010, 12:50 AM

What am I relishing? I'm finding amusement in that the date has changed, the persecuted 'race' has changed, and it's still the same basic issue at the heart of the matter.

and for some reason that amuses me.

We can define relish if you like, but I promise that amuses falls in that category. If you would like to compare the persecution of that time and the Irish to this time and the Mexicans, you will find they are light years apart.

I appreciate the intent of your joke, but the facts don't support it.

Scott D

11/19/2010, 12:54 AM

yermom

11/19/2010, 12:55 AM

the amusing thing is that the Irish are now "us" instead of "them"

SCOUT

11/19/2010, 01:10 AM

I'm not taking pleasure in it, I'm finding amusement in it. I gave up on the illegal immigration issue long ago. I mean we both know that Mexicans aren't the only illegal immigrants, just the largest nationality of them. The rest of the illegals don't matter as much because they aren't Mexican.

I have to say that I am offended by that implication. I am opposed to the 40,000 illegal Irish that are here today, just as I am the Mexicans.

You may single a nationality out, but I sure don't.

SCOUT

11/19/2010, 01:17 AM

I have to say that I am offended by that implication. I am opposed to the 40,000 illegal Irish that are here today, just as I am the Mexicans.

You may single a nationality out, but I sure don't.

Oh and to clarify, my Grandfather came here from Ireland in 1926 and was treated pretty poorly. I have relatives who would love to follow his lead today, but don't have the education or skills to come here. I wish they could, but that isn't how the law works.

sooner59

11/19/2010, 01:25 AM

yermom

11/19/2010, 01:31 AM

SanJoaquinSooner

11/19/2010, 01:35 AM

I don't really get why SJS is in favor of this. All I get from the posts are "well they want to, so..." or "Well they're here anyway..." or "Well, this guy's really nice, so..."

I mean, if that's what the arguments boil down to it's pointless to argue. The fact of the matter is that you don't see any other state benefits out there that are expressly given to federal lawbreakers. There's no "murderer's health subsidy" or "drug trafficker's home project" or even "Tax Evasionist's Free Lunch Program". Just the fact that the state acknowledges their existence and gives them benefits is wrong.
.

The in-state tuition is not expressly given to federal lawbreakers. It is given to those who completed 3 years of high school in California and graduated. It includes anyone from Maine who sent their kids to a California boarding high school for 3 years, but it no doubt also includes pot smokers, probably a few date rapists, and some tax evaders, and lots of copyright violators and underage drinkers. Hopefully, not too many murderers. It is estimated to include about 500 who are illegally present and attending one of the 10 UC schools.

It does not include students who never attended high school in California. They must pay out-of-state tuition. I'm sure some of these students violate federal and other laws, but their tuition is not determined by that.

SicEmBaylor

11/19/2010, 01:42 AM

Anybody else ever do the family tree research? I did as a project as an undergrad. I learned a lot from it. I could only trace my mom's side back to around 1900, but on my dad's side I am Native American (1/8 Chickasaw) and I can also trace another part through him to 1790 to my ancestor George Washington (sooner59). -Last name was withheld to protect the innocent (heh).

My father's family were Welsh and came over in the late 1790's. My mother's family and my 4th Great GFather arrived in Virginia from Scotland in 1772 and eventually joined the Continental Army. He was given land in Georgia as payment for his service, so he moved his family out there. I'm not entirely sure what kind of crop he raised, but eventually he built up a respectable sized farm. We still have a copy of the family's slave roster, and at its height the property had 120 or so hands.

Now, he had several sons one of whom moved to Alabama and established his own place with his own family. It was never as large as his father's though from what I understand.

My Great-Great-Great Grandfather had 5 sons, 4 of whom proudly served the Confederate Army during the war including my Great-Great Grandfather (1st Lt. Co.A, 15th Alabama Infantry.) The 5th son joined the Union army and to this day his ancestors are shunned by the rest of the family and never ever invited to family reunions.

After the war, in an effort to escape reconstruction, my Great-Great Grandfather moved his family to Texas into the Ft. Worth area where they settled for a couple decades before moving into SE Oklahoma. My Great Grandfather served in Europe during WWI and came home and settled in Antlers where my Grandfather was born. My Grandfather was an old-Army cavalry Sgt. that served in the 1st Cavalry Division through the Pacific until the end of the war. He had 4 brothers. One of whom was killed in Normandy just north of St. Lo on July 4th. Two others fought in Korea. My Grandfather has 3 children....one boy and two girls including my mother. My Uncle served in Vietnam in the Marine Corps then came home and got his BA from the University of Texas and his Law Degree from OU. He became a fairly noted defense attorney in SE OK, but was killed in a car wreck in 1985.

Anyway, family history is interesting and ****. One of the other children that my 4th Great-Grandfather had eventually produced a woman who started a liberal arts school in Georgia named Berry College. I'm a collateral descendent of hers.

SCOUT

11/19/2010, 01:43 AM

unless you are full-blooded Native American, your ancestors immigrated here

i guess i don't really understand the stance that the country is now magically closed and any further changes to the culture or population are out of bounds

How many places on earth suffer from the guilt that we do? For the sake of transparency, I have already stated that my family got here just a short time ago.

Property ownership is pretty complicated. Do the Romans really own Europe still or did they give that up. If so, when? How about the Moors (Moops)? The Mongolians have a pretty big claim in the area too. I mean pretty much anybody who was anyone had claim to that land back in the day.

Is there a dividing line? Land conquered after X has to pay restitution. If so, what is X?

How about people like me? My family didn't come here until long after the land thing was settled. The only land grabbing that involved my family was England taking the land of my family. Hey, wait... does England owe me money now???

Anyway, I will again say that it isn't magic. It is a matter of sustainability.

SicEmBaylor

11/19/2010, 01:49 AM

unless you are full-blooded Native American, your ancestors immigrated here

i guess i don't really understand the stance that the country is now magically closed and any further changes to the culture or population are out of bounds

Actually, this is total bull****. First of all, there is no such thing as a "native american." Human beings aren't native to N. America they just came here earlier than Europeans but they're no more native to the land than anyone else. I get so sick of hearing that crap.

Secondly, American colonists did not "immigrate." There was no defined political jurisdiction to immigrate to. They were COLONISTS, conquerers even, but not f'in immigrants.

SicEmBaylor

11/19/2010, 01:50 AM

How many places on earth suffer from the guilt that we do? For the sake of transparency, I have already stated that my family got here just a short time ago.

Property ownership is pretty complicated. Do the Romans really own Europe still or did they give that up. If so, when? How about the Moors (Moops)? The Mongolians have a pretty big claim in the area too. I mean pretty much anybody who was anyone had claim to that land back in the day.

Is there a dividing line? Land conquered after X has to pay restitution. If so, what is X?

How about people like me? My family didn't come here until long after the land thing was settled. The only land grabbing that involved my family was England taking the land of my family. Hey, wait... does England owe me money now???

Anyway, I will again say that it isn't magic. It is a matter of sustainability.

THIS. x2.

yermom

11/19/2010, 01:50 AM

i don't feel guilty about it, it's supposed to be a melting pot, right?

i honestly believe that if Mexicans were white and spoke English, this wouldn't be a problem.

i don't really buy sustainability that much. i think the top-heavy nature of our wealth in this country hurts that more than the illegals do

but really, what fraction of people you know want the jobs/life that day laborers have?

SanJoaquinSooner

11/19/2010, 01:51 AM

Contrary to CJ's claim, I am not pro-illegal immigration. I am anti-illegal immigration. I favor free movement of capital and labor. I favor employers deciding who is best qualified for jobs. If a Mexican is best qualified, the employer should be able to get a biometric visa for them easily. The employer should decide, not the gov't. The gov't should be able to screen for terrorists and child molestors. If they could screen immigrants at Ellis Island in 15 hours and pass them on through (98% passing) then it shouldn't take 15 years now.

The best way to reduce illegal immigration is to expand the access to legal immigration as well as easier access to non-immigration visas.

If all other variable are held constant (e.g., economic conditions) the number of legal and illegal migrations are inversely related.

When the bacero program was in force, illegal immigration dramatically decreased because there was a legal access to migration. and they went back home during the off-season.

There are very few illegal Canadians in the U.S. because they don't need a visa to cross the border legally (unlike Mexicans) and they have easier access to work visas.

SicEmBaylor

11/19/2010, 01:58 AM

i honestly believe that if Mexicans were white and spoke English, this wouldn't be a problem.

I would still have some issue with it because they're still not American, and I still don't want new people stinkin' up the place.

HOWEVER, it would be different. This country was built and created by English speaking Anglos. What have the hispanics managed to create? A corrupt filthy ****hole.

So, yes, it would be different if Mexicans were English speaking Anglos because assimilating them into our English speaking Anglo culture would be a lot different than trying to assimilate millions of Spanish speaking hispanics who neither have the desire to fix their own country or the capacity to do so.

SicEmBaylor

11/19/2010, 02:00 AM

There are very few illegal Canadians in the U.S. because they don't need a visa to cross the border legally (unlike Mexicans) and they have easier access to work visas.

This is absolute bull****. The reason there aren't more illegal Canadians has nothing to do with the ease at which they can cross their border.

In case you haven't noticed, Canada is a prosperous westernized Anglo-French/western European country with a stable government and a strong belief in the rule of law. THAT is why you don't have Canadians flooding the United States illegally.

yermom

11/19/2010, 02:01 AM

SanJoaquinSooner

11/19/2010, 02:01 AM

I've reconsidered a long-held position of mine about the Union victory in the Civil War.

I now think we should let Mississippi secede from the United States. Kind of a token bone thrown to the Sic 'ems out there. Let them take it and fix everything they think is wrong with the U.S. I can't think of a reason for not letting Mississippi go. It has no NFL teams nor any important NCAA teams. No major airport hubs. I don't think I'll ever need a tourist visa.

Leroy Lizard

11/19/2010, 02:04 AM

Contrary to CJ's claim, I am not pro-illegal immigration. I am anti-illegal immigration. I favor free movement of capital and labor. I favor employers deciding who is best qualified for jobs. If a Mexican is best qualified, the employer should be able to get a biometric visa for them easily. The employer should decide, not the gov't.

That would be true if they flew in to do their job every day and then flew back. But the fact that they have to settle here to work means that their involvement in the community transcends their relationship with an employer. If they use our roads, hospitals, and schools, then it isn't up to just the employer to decide whether they should be here.

Sorry, but your philosophy is unfounded. There is no rational reason to believe that the relationship between a member of a community and the community begins and ends with the employer.

Amazingly enough, I thought you were totally against the idea of companies running the country, but here you want companies to decide the legality of foreign workers.

Leroy Lizard

11/19/2010, 02:06 AM

sooner59

11/19/2010, 02:07 AM

Hey Sicem, my ancestor that spoke of in the 1790s....that line was from Wales as well. Settled in Pennsylvania, made it down to Missouri, then into Oklahoma.

On a side note. For the reasons that I have problems with illegal immigration....yes, i have problems with white english speaking people coming here illegally. I don't care if they are Canadian or British or Australian. Its about economic stability dealing with healthcare, social security, tax revenues, etc. I tend to believe the system that we have set up has a carrying capacity and our current structure does not allow for the amount of change needed to accommodate that. Am I 100% happy with that. No. But that is reality at this point.

SicEmBaylor

11/19/2010, 02:13 AM

Hey Sicem, my ancestor that spoke of in the 1790s....that line was from Wales as well. Settled in Pennsylvania, made it down to Missouri, then into Oklahoma.

We could be distant kin-folk. Mazel tov!!! :D

SanJoaquinSooner

11/19/2010, 02:28 AM

This is absolute bull****. The reason there aren't more illegal Canadians has nothing to do with the ease at which they can cross their border.

In case you haven't noticed, Canada is a prosperous westernized Anglo-French/western European country with a stable government and a strong belief in the rule of law. THAT is why you don't have Canadians flooding the United States illegally.

Sic 'em, I swear. There are very few residents of Beverly Hills illegally visiting Disneyland each year.... not because they are affluent, but because it's legal for Residents of Beverly Hills to go to Disneyland.

Canadians can cross legally without a visa. Mexicans can't.

If they had to wait 15 or 20 years to get a visa, there would be many illegal Canadians. They come to shop and visit extended family and work and get medical care and become stand-up comedians and work on Saturday Night Live and travel to tourist traps.

SicEmBaylor

11/19/2010, 02:35 AM

Sic 'em, I swear. There are very few residents of Beverly Hills illegally visiting Disneyland each year.... not because they are affluent, but because it's legal for Residents of Beverly Hills to go to Disneyland.

Canadians can cross legally without a visa. Mexicans can't.

If they had to wait 15 or 20 years to get a visa, there would be many illegal Canadians. They come to shop and visit extended family and work and get medical care and become stand-up comedians and work on Saturday Night Live and travel to tourist traps.

Yeah but then they go home. They generally don't stay here indefinitely, leech off our social programs, and then parade in the streets waving Canadian flags demanding that their illegal actions be accommodated.

sooner59

11/19/2010, 02:35 AM

To be fair, there are fewer Canadians that actually "stay" here. Canada>>>Mexico.

BOOM! Brilliant idea. Build a direct, legal transportation system from the south to north border and make it non-American territory. Mexican can go directly to Canada if they want. Or Canadians to Mexican, but I doubt that would happen much.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/19/2010, 02:44 AM

That would be true if they flew in to do their job every day and then flew back. But the fact that they have to settle here to work means that their involvement in the community transcends their relationship with an employer. If they use our roads, hospitals, and schools, then it isn't up to just the employer to decide whether they should be here.

Sorry, but your philosophy is unfounded. There is no rational reason to believe that the relationship between a member of a community and the community begins and ends with the employer.

Amazingly enough, I thought you were totally against the idea of companies running the country, but here you want companies to decide the legality of foreign workers.

sounds like an argument against interstate hiring as well.

As I've argued with you before: Universities are allowed to do exactly what I've advocated. They can hire professors from other countries by deciding one is more qualified than all other candidates - even if the professor plans to use our roads.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/19/2010, 02:51 AM

To be fair, there are fewer Canadians that actually "stay" here. Canada>>>Mexico.

.

Too hard and expensive for Mexicans to cross often so they stay permanently now, unlike the days of circular seasonal migrations when it was very easy to cross. The irony of tight borders.

Leroy Lizard

11/19/2010, 02:51 AM

sounds like an argument against interstate hiring as well.

That makes no sense at all.

As I've argued with you before: Universities are allowed to do exactly what I've advocated. They can hire professors from other countries by deciding one is more qualified than all other candidates - even if the professor plans to use our roads.

And as I pointed out before, you are wrong. Universities do not have the freedom to hire anyone they wish. No way, no how.

sooner59

11/19/2010, 02:59 AM

Too hard and expensive for Mexicans to cross often so they stay permanently now, unlike the days of circular seasonal migrations when it was very easy to cross. The irony of tight borders.

Its too hard to make good grades nowadays, so I think I will just cheat. I mean my parents didn't have to learn physics and calculus, so why should I have to go by the rules?

Is there a difference?

SanJoaquinSooner

11/19/2010, 09:33 AM

And as I pointed out before, you are wrong. Universities do not have the freedom to hire anyone they wish. No way, no how.

You're right, they can't hire known terrorists and convicted felons from other countries. Gee, you got me.

SanJoaquinSooner

11/19/2010, 09:45 AM

Its too hard to make good grades nowadays, so I think I will just cheat. I mean my parents didn't have to learn physics and calculus, so why should I have to go by the rules?

Is there a difference?

I don't buy the analogy at all. Did your parents get A's in physics without taking any tests?

Canadians don't need visas and Mexicans do. I am not advocating the breaking of rules. I am advocating changing the rules.

Yes, there is a difference.

Scott D

11/19/2010, 11:42 AM

I would still have some issue with it because they're still not American, and I still don't want new people stinkin' up the place.

HOWEVER, it would be different. This country was built and created by English speaking Anglos. What have the hispanics managed to create? A corrupt filthy ****hole.

So, yes, it would be different if Mexicans were English speaking Anglos because assimilating them into our English speaking Anglo culture would be a lot different than trying to assimilate millions of Spanish speaking hispanics who neither have the desire to fix their own country or the capacity to do so.

there are probably more illegal Canadians than you know of. Unfortunately Justin Bieber isn't one of them. Canada is one of the gateways that illegals from countries other than Mexico take to get into the US.

yermom

11/19/2010, 11:44 AM

Its too hard to make good grades nowadays, so I think I will just cheat. I mean my parents didn't have to learn physics and calculus, so why should I have to go by the rules?

Is there a difference?

you can just work hard in school and succeed. becoming legal isn't really the same

the idea is that if the border controls are strict, why risk going home and crossing again?

NormanPride

11/19/2010, 12:22 PM

The in-state tuition is not expressly given to federal lawbreakers. It is given to those who completed 3 years of high school in California and graduated. It includes anyone from Maine who sent their kids to a California boarding high school for 3 years, but it no doubt also includes pot smokers, probably a few date rapists, and some tax evaders, and lots of copyright violators and underage drinkers. Hopefully, not too many murderers. It is estimated to include about 500 who are illegally present and attending one of the 10 UC schools.

It does not include students who never attended high school in California. They must pay out-of-state tuition. I'm sure some of these students violate federal and other laws, but their tuition is not determined by that.

Ahh... see, I thought this law was in place expressly granting their right to in-state tuition. If it's just the schools not caring then whatever. It's not their job to police it, right?

Leroy Lizard

11/19/2010, 01:22 PM

You're right, they can't hire known terrorists and convicted felons from other countries. Gee, you got me.

To be hired by a university, the U.S. has to grant the applicant permission to enter the country, just like with all employers. If you're a Communist or have tuberculosis, you're not likely to get in.

Profs are more likely to be granted permission simply because they are looked upon as a benefit to the U.S. as a whole, not simply because the university wants them. Ergo, the university is not an example that supports your argument one iota.

So this bull**** that you keep floating around that the university determines who gets in and who doesn't is just that -- bull****.

sooner59

11/19/2010, 06:05 PM

I don't buy the analogy at all. Did your parents get A's in physics without taking any tests?

Canadians don't need visas and Mexicans do. I am not advocating the breaking of rules. I am advocating changing the rules.

Yes, there is a difference.

You said:

Too hard and expensive for Mexicans to cross often so they stay permanently now, unlike the days of circular seasonal migrations when it was very easy to cross. The irony of tight borders.

I was referring to where you said it used to be one way, now its tougher. Just because its doesn't tickle your fancy doesn't mean you now have the right to break the rules.

Collier11

11/19/2010, 06:08 PM

So a 10 year old kid and a 40 year old man were walking thru a dark, creepy forest.

The kid looks to the man and says, "gee mister, it sure is scary in here"

To which the old man replies "youre telling me, I have to walk out of here alone"

NormanPride

11/19/2010, 06:09 PM

40 is old?

SanJoaquinSooner

11/19/2010, 06:12 PM

To be hired by a university, the U.S. has to grant the applicant permission to enter the country, just like with all employers. If you're a Communist or have tuberculosis, you're not likely to get in.

Profs are more likely to be granted permission simply because they are looked upon as a benefit to the U.S. as a whole, not simply because the university wants them. Ergo, the university is not an example that supports your argument one iota.

So this bull**** that you keep floating around that the university determines who gets in and who doesn't is just that -- bull****.

Leroy, you're talking about maybe 1 out of every 200 applicants who might be disqualified. You're arguing like an 8th grader. There are OU professors who were raised Communist, weened on the milk of their communist mothers' breast who were impregnated by their communist fathers. They got H1B visas and if were granted tenure got green cards and maybe, if they desired, earned citizenship. There were tons of eastern europeans who came over as professors after 1989.

How many universities filed permanent residency sponsorships were denied due to tuberculosis? Select any epsilon greater than zero, and I bet the answer is less.

The truth is, if a university says a foreigner is the most qualified for the job, the visa gets approved in 99% of the cases as long as it is doesn't lowball the salary.

sooner59

11/19/2010, 06:18 PM

My organic chemistry prof at OU was an honorary Captain in the Red Army. I thought that was interesting.

SicEmBaylor

11/19/2010, 06:43 PM

My organic chemistry prof at OU was an honorary Captain in the Red Army. I thought that was interesting.

That reminds me of my dad's genetics professor at OSU who was Hitler Youth.

Leroy Lizard

11/19/2010, 06:59 PM

Leroy, you're talking about maybe 1 out of every 200 applicants who might be disqualified. You're arguing like an 8th grader. There are OU professors who were raised Communist, weened on the milk of their communist mothers' breast who were impregnated by their communist fathers. They got H1B visas and if were granted tenure got green cards and maybe, if they desired, earned citizenship. There were tons of eastern europeans who came over as professors after 1989.

First of all, the fact remains that universities do not call the shots. They just don't. If the U.S. denies access, the university is out of luck. If you say otherwise, you're wrong.

Few professors are denied because (1) the university wouldn't be going after them if they didn't bring a lot of value to research, which benefits the U.S. as a whole and (2) universities don't wast time going after those that are going to be denied in the first place.

BTW, being raised a Communist is much different than being a member of the Communist Party.