What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

From today's Boston Globe:

Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren acknowledged for the first time late Wednesday night that she told Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania that she was Native American, but she continued to insist that race played no role in her recruitment.

“At some point after I was hired by them, I . . . provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,’’ she said in a statement issued by her campaign. “My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I’m proud of it and I have been open about it.’’
Click to expand...

No wonder the symbol for the Democratic party is a <strike>mule</strike> donkey!
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Twitch Boy said:
Edwards not guilty on one charge, mistrial declared on the other five.

*fail horn*
Click to expand...

I would love to hear an interview with the jurors to find out how they were able to justify that verdict.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Priceless said:
I would love to hear an interview with the jurors to find out how they were able to justify that verdict.
Click to expand...

Didn't really follow this much, but from what I'm gathering he was more guilty of being a feminine hygiene product than of breaking the law.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Old Pio said:
The "proximity" argument has no bearing here. The issue is residency. A kid who lives in California has no more claim to pay in-state tuition at the U of A than a kid from Rhode Island. The kid in "the next state over" pays in-state tuition in that state.

And if the children of illegal aliens don't pay in state tuition, what do they pay? Or do you just prohibit them from attending state schools? And is it in the long term best interests of a state to erect barriors for these kids (who have been graduated from state high schools) to get access to higher education? And is it fair to punish the children of illegals? Children who had nothing to do with the illegality? Every one of these kids should move toward citizenship as fast as possible. And if that means we have to simplify or compress the process, we should at least consider it.

IMO, the first order of business in dealing with illegal immigration is to stop it. The question of what we do with the millions of illegals and their kids who are already here is a much larger, more complicated problem. Rounding up 10 or 12 million people and shipping them out would be a legal, ethical, logistical quaqmire. I doubt we could afford it, even if we tried. It would, however, usher in a golden age for the open borders crowd and the ACLU.

In formulating our policy here, we should be careful not to cut off our nose to spite our face. At some point, we'll have enough bus boys and leaf blowers. Then what? Wouldn't we be better off if at least some of these young people got an education that prepared them for 21st century jobs and for citizenship, too? For the most part, having been graduated from state high schools, these young people are indistinguishable from other kids of Latino heritage, except for their immigration status. That's an important distinction, to be sure, but these kids aren't exactly Hester Prynne.
Click to expand...
You missed my point. To me a kid from the next state over, or three over, deserves a break on tuition before an illegal kid does.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Bob Gray said:
You can do better than that comeback. I know you can. Maybe try something that's true.
Click to expand...
Not true? You point out how true it is in your next post:

Bob Gray said:
You missed my point. To me a kid from the next state over, or three over, deserves a break on tuition before an illegal kid does.
Click to expand...
An illegal kid?
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Bob Gray said:
You missed my point. To me a kid from the next state over, or three over, deserves a break on tuition before an illegal kid does.
Click to expand...

I understand how it seems to you. However, an out of state kid deserves exactly zero consideraton for in-state tuition in the "next state over." Zero. This is a non sequitor and has nothing to do with the question of what we're going to do with these kids of illegals. Apples/Oranges
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Bob Gray said:
You missed my point. To me a kid from the next state over, or three over, deserves a break on tuition before an illegal kid does.
Click to expand...
Isn't the in-state vs. out of state tuition difference based upon an assumption that the in-state student (or more likely his/her family) is already contributing to the school indirectly through sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc...? If that's the case, it seems to me anyone in the state ought to get that break, whether they're a citizen or not.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

ScoobyDoo said:
It just makes me sad that someone that intelligent can be that stupid at the same time. I renounce my admiration.
Click to expand...

She is stuck with the lies she told. In the same way Teddy was stuck with the lies he told after Chappaquiddick.

Just as her first instinct when this story broke was to play the gender card, now she's playing the "granny" card. None of this has anything to do with her qualifications for the senate, which are evidently extensive, unless you think truth telling is optional, and sytem gaming is admirable.

And she's going to tough it out, claiming a heritage for which there's no proof. And the Cherokees, among others, are on her five yard line.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061135629&pos=breaking
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Old Pio said:
I understand how it seems to you. However, an out of state kid deserves exactly zero consideraton for in-state tuition in the "next state over." Zero. This is a non sequitor and has nothing to do with the question of what we're going to do with these kids of illegals. Apples/Oranges
Click to expand...
I understand that you don't share my opinion so you'd give zero consideration to whether a student is a U.S. citizen from another state or not. I don't share your opinion. I'd rather give a tuition break to a kid from the next state over than I would to a kid who isn't from any state legally.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

SJHovey said:
Isn't the in-state vs. out of state tuition difference based upon an assumption that the in-state student (or more likely his/her family) is already contributing to the school indirectly through sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc...? If that's the case, it seems to me anyone in the state ought to get that break, whether they're a citizen or not.
Click to expand...
I understand the point you are making. There are differing arguments about how much an illegal folks in a given state contribution financially to the state compared to the benefits they receive.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Bob Gray said:
I understand that you don't share my opinion so you'd give zero consideration to whether a student is a U.S. citizen from another state or not. I don't share your opinion. I'd rather give a tuition break to a kid from the next state over than I would to a kid who isn't from any state legally.
Click to expand...

So, in your mind, the distinction between living or not living in a state is irrelevant. Then why not eliminate two tier tuition altogether? I understand you want to punish these kids of illegals, but what you're suggesting simply makes no sense. And if you're going to give tuition breaks to out of state kids, shouldn't you demand reciprocity from other states? It seems fairly simple to me, citizenship and residency are two different matters. You apparantly want to conflate them.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Bob Gray said:
Yes. I think that's an easy to understand concept, at least until now.
Click to expand...

In the past you have referred to them as "anchor babies" have you not? And your contention was that they were not to be considered legal US citizens. As such, it would seem to me that they are not to be afforded in-state tuition. Or has your opinion evolved since that debate?
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

As colleges and universities receive less and less state support, the rationale for two-tiered pricing will start to erode. But we're not there quite yet. Extending in-state rates to out of staters can still make sense in certain circumstances, though. It allows small states to specialize and not duplicate each others' strengths. So state A can send students to state B for an MBA, and state B kids can go to state A for a JD. Or something like that.

I've seen this in action.
http://www.nebhe.org/programs-overview/rsp-tuition-break/overview/
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

amherstblackbear said:
As colleges and universities receive less and less state support, the rationale for two-tiered pricing will start to erode. But we're not there quite yet. Extending in-state rates to out of staters can still make sense in certain circumstances, though. It allows small states to specialize and not duplicate each others' strengths. So state A can send students to state B for an MBA, and state B kids can go to state A for a JD. Or something like that.

I've seen this in action.
http://www.nebhe.org/programs-overview/rsp-tuition-break/overview/
Click to expand...

When I went to Lake State I had a scholarship that paid the difference between instate and out of state (I am originally from Indiana), so essentially I paid in-state. At Southern Illinois, they offer instate tuition to students from certain counties in Indiana (the far southwest area), Kentucky (western), and Missouri (souteast). Im pretty sure its only certain counties but when I double checked the annoucnement about it, it never specified that it was only certain counties.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Awhile back, there was discussion about how difficult it was to terminate teachers for cause....here are some statistics from New York City:


In the 2009-2010 school year, DOE brought dismissal charges against 176 teachers for misconduct, and 23 were fired. In ’10-’11, 223 were charged — with only 38 fired.

These aren’t cursory investigations. The city spends months establishing guilt — and, in the event, the department has only a 15 percent success rate in getting bad teachers off the city payroll.
Click to expand...


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ng_pervs_zkQQsZS58mykZfHS8k1yLK#ixzz1wV2HTK9s
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Proud2baLaker said:
When I went to Lake State I had a scholarship that paid the difference between instate and out of state (I am originally from Indiana), so essentially I paid in-state. At Southern Illinois, they offer instate tuition to students from certain counties in Indiana (the far southwest area), Kentucky (western), and Missouri (souteast). Im pretty sure its only certain counties but when I double checked the annoucnement about it, it never specified that it was only certain counties.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I almost became a Saluki, but that's a story for another day. Bob's point is, his opposition to granting in-state tuition to the children of illegals is so comprehensive, that he would prefer to grant that status to kids in other states instead solely because they're native born. Now that's not a realistic choice. It's never going to happen. He hasn't yet answered the questions of what rate, if any, the children of illegals SHOULD pay. Out of state? Or should they be barred from enrolling in state schools altogether? That attitude just strikes me as pretty extreme. Charging people who've lived virtually their entire lives in a state and who have been graduated from a high school within that state "out of state" tuition rates seems Draconian. Alternatively, granting in-state rates to out of state kids (solely because they were born here) strikes me as, well, silly.

And you don't have to be a bleeding heart to believe that attitude is unnecessarily harsh. Just check with the Governor of Texas, whom nobody suggests is a bleeding heart. Ten or fifteen years from now, these kids will have become citizens and with their degrees will be able to take their places in a 21st century economy. And with those degrees they will be far more likely to contribute to that society rather than be a burden on it. I believe it's possible to hold these views without minimizing or downplaying the importance of citizenship.

To me, it's a matter of recognizing the realities. And while repeating anti-illegal immigration slogans and taking a hard line is satisfying in the short term, it offers no solutions to the problems. Illegal immigration is unquestionably damaging to our country. But I also believe that erecting unnecessary barriors to the children of illegals also damages our country. There has to be a middle ground between the open borders crowd, for whom citizenship and national boundaries are just irrelevant "details," and the harsh, "I don't give a d*mn, they're illegal" approach. And we had better find it pretty quick.

(note: except where indicated, this is not aimed at Bob).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top