Georgia to Take Up Bill Barring Undocumented Immigrants From Colleges:
The Georgia Senate is expected to take up Senate Bill 458 on Monday's floor session that, if passed, would ban undocumented immigrant students from state colleges and universities. It must pass out of the Senate by Crossover Day on Wednesday or the legislation dies. The bill would bar undocumented immigrants from all state colleges, universities and technical schools and also makes tweaks to other state laws having to do with illegal immigration.
Supporters of the bill say it's necessary to preserve state-funded education for citizens and legal residents. Opponents say the bill unfairly denies motivated students the opportunity to further their education.
Already a university system policy bars university immigrants from any state school that has rejected academically qualified students in the prior two years.
The measure, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Barry Loudermilk, would require all the state's public universities to verify the immigration status of their applicants using a federal database and to deny admission to those who cannot prove that they are in the country legally.
Last month, a similar proposal was temporarily suspended in the legislature after a public audience at which opponents of the bill jammed the hall.
Democratic state Rep. Pedro Marin called it a "criminal" measure for destroying the dreams of young people who are only guilty of having been brought to this country when they were children by their parents.
The state's five most-selective public institutions - the University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, Georgia College and State University, the Medical College of Georgia and Georgia State University - already reject undocumented applicants under a rule adopted by the Board of Regents in 2010.
Previously, all of Georgia's public universities admitted undocumented immigrants but required them to pay tuition at out-of-state rates.
According to official figures, of the 318,000 students enrolled in the state university system, just 300 are undocumented.
Mexican-born Yiovani Diaz, who has spent 16 of his 19 years living in the United States, says the measure is unfair to young people like him who regard Georgia as their home.
Diaz is currently attending Freedom University, an initiative created by several professors from the University of Georgia to provide an educational alternative to undocumented students.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Secure Communities by the Numbers, Revisited (Memorandum)
2. Jessica Vaughan Discusses Identity Theft on FOX News Boston (Video)
3. Small Nations Show U.S. How Immigration Policies Should Work (Blog)
4. California's Drive to Give Illegal Aliens Driver's Licenses (Blog)
5. National Sheriffs Association Supports E-Verify Mandate, 287(g), and Full Enforcement (Blog)
6. H-1B Question: What Is the Real Demand for High School Turkish Teachers? (Blog)
7. Sheriff Joe on Sheriff Joe (Blog)
8. Language Divisions or Language (Re)Unification? (Blog)
9. The Rodney Dangerfield of Professions? (Blog)
10. Two New Takes on 'Birth Tourism' (Blog)
11. Return of the Pharisees (Blog)
12. US-VISIT About to Be Another Obama Casualty (Blog)
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