Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Population, Immigration, and the Drying of the American Southwest (Backgrounder)
2. Child Tax Credits for Illegal Immigrants (Memorandum)
3. Opaque DHS Border Study Implies Diminishing Returns for BP Staff Increases (Blog)
4. Between Calderon's Rhetoric and Border Reality (Blog)
5. Paying Illegal Immigrants to Go Home (Blog)
6. Dean Baker on Immigration's 'Mixed Bag' (Blog)
7. About That Recent Decline of Illegal Immigrants... Part II: Illegal Tide Rising Again? (Blog)
8. Good News: The Department of Justice Hires 24 More Immigration Judges (Blog)
9. About That Recent Decline of Illegal Immigrants... Part I: Illusionary Hiatus? (Blog)
10. Running, Not Running from, Hispanics in 2012 (Blog)
11. 'Let My People Stay!' – Iraqi Prime Minister Discourages Emigration (Blog)
12. The White House Should Welcome Arizona's Assistance (Blog)
13. Politico's Advice Regarding Wooing Hispanics, Part II: Tokenism (Blog)
14. Politico's Advice Regarding Wooing Hispanics, Part I: Pander to Their Narrow Self- Interest (Blog)
15. Washington State Takes Baby Step on Illegal Aliens and Driver's Licenses (Blog)
California court rules illegal immigrants can pay in-state tuition
Illegal immigrants can qualify to pay cheaper in-state tuition rates at California public universities, the state's Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The California Supreme Court's unanimous decision reversed a ruling by the state Court of Appeals and allowed the state's higher education institutions to continue their policy of allowing certain unlawful immigrants to pay in-state rates. The lower court had ruled that such immigrants, even if they lived and studied in California, should be treated as "nonresidents" when it came to how much they paid to go to these schools.
The Supreme Court decision addressed federal laws, which appeared to restrict some education-related benefits for illegal immigrants, and state laws, which appeared to authorize such people to receive in-state rates if they qualified.
A California state law, which took effect in January 2002, said those "without lawful immigration status" -- if they qualify on other grounds -- can get in-state tuition rates if they have "filed an application to legalize his or her immigration status."
But the plaintiffs in the case pointed to a federal law that stated illegal immigrants cannot qualify "for any postsecondary education benefit" (in this case, lower tuition rates) if other U.S. citizens didn't get the same benefit.
In its decision, the California Supreme Court found that federal law did not trump state law in this case. U.S. citizens from outside California, it pointed out, could receive in-state tuition as long as they attended high school in California for three or more years and either graduated from a high school or got their GED in California.
The court further stated that illegal immigrants should be treated like anyone from outside California, calling it significant that not all illegal immigrants would qualify for in-state tuition rates, just those who met the criteria.
"We conclude the exemption [from paying full, nonresident tuition rates] is not based on residence in California," the California Supreme Court decision said. "Rather, it is based on other criteria."
The decision applies to 112 community colleges, 33 universities and two independent postgraduate schools in California's public postsecondary education system.
Source
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment