Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
*But not New Mexico. They don't have school there because the radioactive muties are attracted to congregations of humans.

What is it with you and New Mexico? Did you lose a football game to them or something?

 Breotan wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Why shouldn't they be getting state aid or resident tuition? In many cases, they're paying state taxes(if not y'know, with an actual job that pays taxes but through things like sales or property taxes) and reside at an address within the state.

If I were to sneak across our northern border and show up to a Canadian university, the last thing I can expect is to be allowed to enroll in classes. In fact, the most likely thing that will happen is my being bussed to the border, being declared persona non gratis for at least six months, and frog-walked to the US side of the border. Same with showing up unannounced to a university in Mexico, except the trip to the border will be less pleasant.

The US has one of the most permissive immigration/visa systems in the world. I don't see why expecting people to follow the law is somehow controversial. Someone from Canada comes south, gets permanent resident status and wants to take night classes at the local community college? Knock yourself out. Some girl from India wants to come here on a H1b visa and work at Microsoft? More power to her. Some chap from Argentina wants to study at a US university? Let him get a student visa and then come on up. Someone sneaking across a border or overstaying a tourist visa needs to be shown the door. If they want to come back, let them do so legally.

So your only three examples are Canada, India, and Argentina?

What about someone from a country where their documentation was destroyed or they never got issued any of it in the first place? That's not exactly unheard of, y'know.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And what makes a US citizen ENTITLED to that spot? The fact that they applied?

Citizenship makes them entitled to compete with other citizens/legal immigrants/student visa holders for that spot. Please don't conflate legal and illegal immigration when making your counter-arguments.

Yeah, except we all know that's not what happens is it?

Mommy and Daddy throw money at the university to get Jr in despite poor grades or someone who can throw a football or shoot a ball into a hoop gets a full ride scholarship while a kid from the ghetto who was a STEM or arts prodigy gets passed over.

But hey. Legal! Illegal! Rabble rabble rabble!

 Frazzled wrote:
The fact they are receiving instate tuition means their tuition is being subsidized. Interesting a US citizen from California or a legal resident from England (I hear the Engs are lovely this time of year) would typically have to pay 2x - 10x what that person would pay.

That only applies to a citizen from California going to school in Oregon, Texas, or any other state not called California. And, IME, most students attending an US university who were born/raised in a country such as England (to use your example) can definitely afford to pay the 2-10x tuition of an in-state tuition student.


And to address the other argument, I also find it asinine because one does not simply "show up" to a college, start attending random classes and then graduate. There is a whole process that goes into getting into a school in the first place and, with the exception of private schools, I've found the public universities to be not-very-questioning when it comes to prospective students.

 Frazzled wrote:
The fact they are receiving instate tuition means their tuition is being subsidized. Interesting a US citizen from California or a legal resident from England (I hear the Engs are lovely this time of year) would typically have to pay 2x - 10x what that person would pay.

Serious question, do you think people who are illegal immigrants are just stealing everything?

Part of the subsidization of in-state tuition comes from taxes on purchases/services within the state. So unless they're entirely self-sufficient, growing everything they need and living from streams or whatever--they're paying part of that subsidization.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Part of the subsidization of in-state tuition comes from taxes on purchases/services within the state. So unless they're entirely self-sufficient, growing everything they need and living from streams or whatever--they're paying part of that subsidization.

And, as of the last article on the subject that I read (admittedly, 2 years ago now) in the state of California, undocumented immigrants are "Worth" about 2 billion in state/local taxes. In some jurisdictions within California, they provide the bulk of the tax input for that location, so it's not like they are contributing what amounts to nothing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The fact they are receiving instate tuition means their tuition is being subsidized. Interesting a US citizen from California or a legal resident from England (I hear the Engs are lovely this time of year) would typically have to pay 2x - 10x what that person would pay.

Serious question, do you think people who are illegal immigrants are just stealing everything?

Part of the subsidization of in-state tuition comes from taxes on purchases/services within the state. So unless they're entirely self-sufficient, growing everything they need and living from streams or whatever--they're paying part of that subsidization.

Not at all! They should not be allowed to work/get any benefits/attend school/reproduce here until they become legal

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats To drugs for winning the war on drugs.

Odd response after getting shredded by Captain Jake.

Lets be real, Canada is legalizing drugs - and it's looking grim for the US. I really hope Sessions and Co. slows down the state by state legalization.

The sooner Sessions and his antiquated mindset and authoritarian policies are gone from the DoJ the better off we'll be as a country.

I'm personally extremely anti-weed, but yes - the majority of Session's policies are garbage.

 d-usa wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats To drugs for winning the war on drugs.

Odd response after getting shredded by Captain Jake.

Lets be real, Canada is legalizing drugs - and it's looking grim for the US. I really hope Sessions and Co. slows down the state by state legalization.

WHen we measure the impact of violent crimes by how they might affect our taxes, then it's best to walk away rather than try to debate with any sort of serious reply. I've learned that it's better to let people believe what they want rather than get myself worked up on the internet.

You've been worked up for the entirety of this thread

 Kanluwen wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Who is getting away with helping student athletes commit sexual assault? That's a fine whataboutism hand grenade to throw into the discussion.

Sure but in the end it is as relevant as the idea that somebody being hired to essentially help an illegal immigrant or a child of illegal immigrants get into a state college, by the books, being involved in a RICO offense.

And for the record? Look into sexual assaults on college campuses and the nature of "blame the victim". But you probably already know about that and just wanted to start an argument, as always.

Nobody is denying that sexual assaults by student athletes don't happen. You threw out the assertion that faculty members that have helped students get away with sexual assault aren't being punished for that transgression. You haven't supported that assertion with any evidence. Yes, there have been instances, like recently at Baylor, where coaches have tried to cover up crimes by student athletes and allegations against student athletes but the coaches and faculty members who were implicated in that kind of cover up behavior were fired. I haven't heard of any instance where a faculty member was found to have helped cover up crimes committed by athletes and then allowed to keep his/her job at the school. That would be rather newsworthy I would think.

Not sure how it's my fault that you chose to toss out a whataboutism argument about sexual assault cover ups into a discussion about unlawful residents getting financial aid without any support to your assertion. I didn't start this tangent, you did.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Who is getting away with helping student athletes commit sexual assault? That's a fine whataboutism hand grenade to throw into the discussion.

Sure but in the end it is as relevant as the idea that somebody being hired to essentially help an illegal immigrant or a child of illegal immigrants get into a state college, by the books, being involved in a RICO offense.

And for the record? Look into sexual assaults on college campuses and the nature of "blame the victim". But you probably already know about that and just wanted to start an argument, as always.

Nobody is denying that sexual assaults by student athletes don't happen. You threw out the assertion that faculty members that have helped students get away with sexual assault aren't being punished for that transgression. You haven't supported that assertion with any evidence. Yes, there have been instances, like recently at Baylor, where coaches have tried to cover up crimes by student athletes and allegations against student athletes but the coaches and faculty members who were implicated in that kind of cover up behavior were fired. I haven't heard of any instance where a faculty member was found to have helped cover up crimes committed by athletes and then allowed to keep his/her job at the school. That would be rather newsworthy I would think.

Not sure how it's my fault that you chose to toss out a whataboutism argument about sexual assault cover ups into a discussion about unlawful residents getting financial aid without any support to your assertion. I didn't start this tangent, you did.

Yeah, in reply to Frazzled trying to claim that a university hiring someone to strictly deal with illegal immigrants/DACA shielded immigrants was the university committing a RICO offense.

Try to keep up.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So your only three examples are Canada, India, and Argentina?

Only? What a loaded word. Would you have felt better if I had used China or Kenya instead? Same logic applies. Only... feh. How about, "just a few that I came up with to make my point"?

 Kanluwen wrote:
What about someone from a country where their documentation was destroyed or they never got issued any of it in the first place? That's not exactly unheard of, y'know.

You act like there's no policies in place to handle situations like this. And yes, in some cases it may be "tough luck" for some people. Non-citizens do not have a civil or human right to come to the US and get an education. They can do it with government permission only. Same applies should I want to study at a university in a foreign country.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And what makes a US citizen ENTITLED to that spot? The fact that they applied?

Citizenship makes them entitled to compete with other citizens/legal immigrants/student visa holders for that spot. Please don't conflate legal and illegal immigration when making your counter-arguments.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, except we all know that's not what happens is it?

Sure it does. When I went to college there were a bunch of people in the ESL classes who were here on student visas. Others were immigrants who came here with their parents.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Mommy and Daddy throw money at the university to get Jr in despite poor grades or someone who can throw a football or shoot a ball into a hoop gets a full ride scholarship while a kid from the ghetto who was a STEM or arts prodigy gets passed over.

But hey. Legal! Illegal! Rabble rabble rabble!

See, skyth? THIS is a straw man argument.

 Breotan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
*But not New Mexico. They don't have school there because the radioactive muties are attracted to congregations of humans.

What is it with you and New Mexico? Did you lose a football game to them or something?

I once drove from Permian to Cloudcroft. There were far more vultures then people. Only later I learned it was the vultures the radioactive used to track us during the journey.

My boy has a peice of glass from White Sands. You know how you make glass in New Mexico...?

BOOM

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The fact they are receiving instate tuition means their tuition is being subsidized. Interesting a US citizen from California or a legal resident from England (I hear the Engs are lovely this time of year) would typically have to pay 2x - 10x what that person would pay.

Serious question, do you think people who are illegal immigrants are just stealing everything?

Stealing? Why stealing? How about, "they're not in the country legally and should be sent home instead of receiving a subsidized education"?

Serious question from me regarding the rest of your post. Why do you insist on conflating legal immigration with illegal immigration?

That only applies to a citizen from California going to school in Oregon, Texas, or any other state not called California. And, IME, most students attending an US university who were born/raised in a country such as England (to use your example) can definitely afford to pay the 2-10x tuition of an in-state tuition student.

Exactly. A US citizen from another state has to pay out of state tuition. An illegal alien doesn't there (and in California). They also jump in front of legal foreign immigrants and students. How is that fair to them?

And to address the other argument, I also find it asinine because one does not simply "show up" to a college, start attending random classes and then graduate. There is a whole process that goes into getting into a school in the first place and, with the exception of private schools, I've found the public universities to be not-very-questioning when it comes to prospective students.

You didn't say why its asinine. Nor did you say why its fair.
(I actually did just effectively just show up to my JR. college and start taking classes. The California community college system is awesome.)

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Why shouldn't they be getting state aid or resident tuition? In many cases, they're paying state taxes(if not y'know, with an actual job that pays taxes but through things like sales or property taxes) and reside at an address within the state.

If I were to sneak across our northern border and show up to a Canadian university, the last thing I can expect is to be allowed to enroll in classes. In fact, the most likely thing that will happen is my being bussed to the border, being declared persona non gratis for at least six months, and frog-walked to the US side of the border. Same with showing up unannounced to a university in Mexico, except the trip to the border will be less pleasant.

The US has one of the most permissive immigration/visa systems in the world. I don't see why expecting people to follow the law is somehow controversial. Someone from Canada comes south, gets permanent resident status and wants to take night classes at the local community college? Knock yourself out. Some girl from India wants to come here on a H1b visa and work at Microsoft? More power to her. Some chap from Argentina wants to study at a US university? Let him get a student visa and then come on up. Someone sneaking across a border or overstaying a tourist visa needs to be shown the door. If they want to come back, let them do so legally.

So your only three examples are Canada, India, and Argentina?

What about someone from a country where their documentation was destroyed or they never got issued any of it in the first place? That's not exactly unheard of, y'know.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And what makes a US citizen ENTITLED to that spot? The fact that they applied?

Citizenship makes them entitled to compete with other citizens/legal immigrants/student visa holders for that spot. Please don't conflate legal and illegal immigration when making your counter-arguments.

Yeah, except we all know that's not what happens is it?

Mommy and Daddy throw money at the university to get Jr in despite poor grades or someone who can throw a football or shoot a ball into a hoop gets a full ride scholarship while a kid from the ghetto who was a STEM or arts prodigy gets passed over.

But hey. Legal! Illegal! Rabble rabble rabble!

If somebody wants to legally immigrate to the US and had their identification and documentation from their previous nation of residence destroyed/lost then I'm sure the state department has procedures to try to remedy that situation. Losing your ID/paperwork or having it destroyed by your previous home nation doesn't mean you should try to illegally immigrate into the US.

Now you're being willfully ignorant of how athletic scholarships work. Unless the kid from the ghetto who happens to be a STEM or arts prodigy was also trying to get an athletic scholarship to the school that kid is not losing an attendance spot to an athlete. IE every FBS school has 85 football scholarships. Those scholarships are only going to football players and exist only to be awarded to football players, non football players aren't competing against football scholarship athletes for an admissions spot. If having students that were STEM or arts prodigies generated massive revenue for schools, increased the number of applications and increased the amount of alumni donations the same way successful football teams do then you'd probably see more schools spending money sending their STEM and arts faculty on recruiting trips trying to woo high school prodigies to accept STEM and arts scholarship offers.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Part of the subsidization of in-state tuition comes from taxes on purchases/services within the state. So unless they're entirely self-sufficient, growing everything they need and living from streams or whatever--they're paying part of that subsidization.

And, as of the last article on the subject that I read (admittedly, 2 years ago now) in the state of California, undocumented immigrants are "Worth" about 2 billion in state/local taxes. In some jurisdictions within California, they provide the bulk of the tax input for that location, so it's not like they are contributing what amounts to nothing.

Thats a whole separate issue in comparison to the amount of money they are consuming via services. Frankly thats effectively the wealthy just shifting the cost of the poor onto society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Who is getting away with helping student athletes commit sexual assault? That's a fine whataboutism hand grenade to throw into the discussion.

Sure but in the end it is as relevant as the idea that somebody being hired to essentially help an illegal immigrant or a child of illegal immigrants get into a state college, by the books, being involved in a RICO offense.

And for the record? Look into sexual assaults on college campuses and the nature of "blame the victim". But you probably already know about that and just wanted to start an argument, as always.

Nobody is denying that sexual assaults by student athletes don't happen. You threw out the assertion that faculty members that have helped students get away with sexual assault aren't being punished for that transgression. You haven't supported that assertion with any evidence. Yes, there have been instances, like recently at Baylor, where coaches have tried to cover up crimes by student athletes and allegations against student athletes but the coaches and faculty members who were implicated in that kind of cover up behavior were fired. I haven't heard of any instance where a faculty member was found to have helped cover up crimes committed by athletes and then allowed to keep his/her job at the school. That would be rather newsworthy I would think.

Not sure how it's my fault that you chose to toss out a whataboutism argument about sexual assault cover ups into a discussion about unlawful residents getting financial aid without any support to your assertion. I didn't start this tangent, you did.

Yeah, in reply to Frazzled trying to claim that a university hiring someone to strictly deal with illegal immigrants/DACA shielded immigrants was the university committing a RICO offense.

Try to keep up.

I said had interesting permutations related to a potential RICO offense.

 Frazzled wrote:
Looky looky. Wow. Thats...bad.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Yeah, not a good place to be only ~70 days into office.

Methinks his ability to push a real agenda beyond whatever he can do with EO's is done, before he can even really get started to boot.

The lack of ability of this administration to competently utilize the reigns of state has been...well, embarrassing. Even if one is onboard with Trump's agenda, the dude and his people seem to have problems doing simple things like wording EO's to avoid legal challenges or who does what at which agencies and how the different branches interact to properly push their agenda and the like.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Who is getting away with helping student athletes commit sexual assault? That's a fine whataboutism hand grenade to throw into the discussion.

Sure but in the end it is as relevant as the idea that somebody being hired to essentially help an illegal immigrant or a child of illegal immigrants get into a state college, by the books, being involved in a RICO offense.

And for the record? Look into sexual assaults on college campuses and the nature of "blame the victim". But you probably already know about that and just wanted to start an argument, as always.

Nobody is denying that sexual assaults by student athletes don't happen. You threw out the assertion that faculty members that have helped students get away with sexual assault aren't being punished for that transgression. You haven't supported that assertion with any evidence. Yes, there have been instances, like recently at Baylor, where coaches have tried to cover up crimes by student athletes and allegations against student athletes but the coaches and faculty members who were implicated in that kind of cover up behavior were fired. I haven't heard of any instance where a faculty member was found to have helped cover up crimes committed by athletes and then allowed to keep his/her job at the school. That would be rather newsworthy I would think.

Not sure how it's my fault that you chose to toss out a whataboutism argument about sexual assault cover ups into a discussion about unlawful residents getting financial aid without any support to your assertion. I didn't start this tangent, you did.

Yeah, in reply to Frazzled trying to claim that a university hiring someone to strictly deal with illegal immigrants/DACA shielded immigrants was the university committing a RICO offense.

Try to keep up.

That's just you admitting that it was a textbook example of whataboutism that you didn't support then and have no support to offer now. Adding on condescension to it doesn't change that.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats a whole speartae issue i the amount of money they are consuming via servicing.

Oh, my God! Frazzled is having a stroke. That or his dog is helping him type.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Looky looky. Wow. Thats...bad.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Yeah, not a good place to be only ~70 days into office.

Methinks his ability to push a real agenda beyond whatever he can do with EO's is done, before he can even really get started to boot.

The lack of ability of this administration to competently utilize the reigns of state has been...well, embarrassing. Even if one is onboard with Trump's agenda, the dude and his people seem to have problems doing simple things like wording EO's to avoid legal challenges or who does what at which agencies and how the different branches interact to properly push their agenda and the like.

Agreed on all counts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats a whole speartae issue i the amount of money they are consuming via servicing.

Oh, my God! Frazzled is having a stroke. That or his dog is helping him type.

Tbone was infamous for helping me type.

 Breotan wrote:

See, skyth? THIS is a straw man argument.

Whataboutism.

I just called you on your argument about people just jumping the border to go to school in Canada/Mexico when the argument is about people that came to the US as children, have been in the US a significant amount of time, know almost nothing of their original country, and are culturally American.

In other words, you made a dishonest argument and I called you on it. Just admit it and move on.

 skyth wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

See, skyth? THIS is a straw man argument.

Whataboutism.

I just called you on your argument about people just jumping the border to go to school in Canada/Mexico when the argument is about people that came to the US as children, have been in the US a significant amount of time, know almost nothing of their original country, and are culturally American.

In other words, you made a dishonest argument and I called you on it. Just admit it and move on.

FUndamentally there is no difference. They are not US citizens nor permitted legal residence. They have no more legal relationship to the US then they have to Canada.

I've seen the argument that Trump is already a lame duck president, having burned his political capital by daring the GOP to vote against the AHCA. He has signed no legislation worth mentioning, has nothing in the works, a White House full of infighting, and a giant cloud over his head with Russia.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Looky looky. Wow. Thats...bad.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Yeah, not a good place to be only ~70 days into office.

Methinks his ability to push a real agenda beyond whatever he can do with EO's is done, before he can even really get started to boot.

The lack of ability of this administration to competently utilize the reigns of state has been...well, embarrassing. Even if one is onboard with Trump's agenda, the dude and his people seem to have problems doing simple things like wording EO's to avoid legal challenges or who does what at which agencies and how the different branches interact to properly push their agenda and the like.

I think it actually helps Republicans in the midterms to have Trump crash and burn. An unpopular outsider Trump means that both parties can run candidates that oppose what Trump is doing. We're already seeing this happen as Trump is openly asserting that he'll go looking for Democrat votes to pass legislation since the Republican party can unify enough support to pass his bills and instead of the Republican water carriers in the media blaming the internal intransigent ideologues in the Party they are blaming Paul Ryan. Granted, Ryan's health care bill was awful but the Republican infighting made it DOA instead of reworking the bill being possible. The Party won't go after moderates or the Freedom Caucus that hated the bill from the beginning when they can just go after Ryan the way they did Boehner and Kantor. If that pushes Trump towards Democrats and allows Democrats in the Senate to get a lot of concessions from Trump while still being able to blame Trump for any problems caused by the legislation that's a win for them while also being a win for purist Republican who can run against Trump for not being conservative enough. A morbidly ineffectual/incompetent Trump presidency can be spun to help candidates from both parties in the midterms.

 skyth wrote:
I just called you on your argument about people just jumping the border to go to school in Canada/Mexico when the argument is about people that came to the US as children, have been in the US a significant amount of time, know almost nothing of their original country, and are culturally American.

In other words, you made a dishonest argument and I called you on it. Just admit it and move on.

There is nothing wrong with the point I made. The discussion in this forum has been going around to all sides of the illegal immigration topic, not just the narrow scope you want to argue.

That being said, were I to sneak into a foreign country with my family, live there for five or ten years, and finally get a deportation order; I should fully expect my children to have to head back to the US with me even if they don't identify with American culture or have any friends there. It is neither immoral nor abhorrent for the deporting country to expect that, too.

 Frazzled wrote:

They aren't de facto citizens of Canada. They are de facto citizens of the state in question.

They are not citizens of the US either, so we should follow the same standard.

Come on Frazz. Don't you know what de facto means? The people in question are de facto citizens, not people still wet from the Rio.

Children residing in Canada have a right (in fact required by law) to go to school, even if their parents are undocumented immigrants. I don't know about university though.

Just like in the US.*

Why draw a distinction for these people pursuing higher education then?

*But not New Mexico. They don't have school there because the radioactive muties are attracted to congregations of humans.

No New Mexico means no Roswell. No Roswell means the History channel loses 50% of it's content. Why do you hate the History channel?


edit: fix quote derp

 Frazzled wrote:

They aren't de facto citizens of Canada. They are de facto citizens of the state in question.

They are not citizens of the US either, so we should follow the same standard.

Come on Frazz. Don't you know what de facto means? The people in question are de facto citizens, not people still wet from the Rio.

Of course I do. I went to law school and lernt more gooder. And as for Latin. Senator, I knew Romulus and Senator you're no Romulus.
I just disagree with you and follow the actual law. They are no more citizens of the US then they are of Canada. So pony up!

Children residing in Canada have a right (in fact required by law) to go to school, even if their parents are undocumented immigrants. I don't know about university though.

Just like in the US.*

Why draw a distinction for these people pursuing higher education then?

Why does Canada?

*But not New Mexico. They don't have school there because the radioactive muties are attracted to congregations of humans.

No New Mexico means no Roswell. No Roswell means the History channel loses 50% of it's content. Why do you hate the History channel?

I...I have no come back for that. Your point stands unchallenged.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

They aren't de facto citizens of Canada. They are de facto citizens of the state in question.

They are not citizens of the US either, so we should follow the same standard.

Come on Frazz. Don't you know what de facto means? The people in question are de facto citizens, not people still wet from the Rio.

Children residing in Canada have a right (in fact required by law) to go to school, even if their parents are undocumented immigrants. I don't know about university though.

Just like in the US.*

Why draw a distinction for these people pursuing higher education then?

*But not New Mexico. They don't have school there because the radioactive muties are attracted to congregations of humans.

No New Mexico means no Roswell. No Roswell means the History channel loses 50% of it's content. Why do you hate the History channel?


edit: fix quote derp

The difference with higher education is that nobody is required by law to attain a higher education. Every resident minor in the USA is required to get a K-12 education either via public school, private school or home schooling. After that nobody has to pursue any further education. Since K-12 is mandatory it's funded via taxes, you never get a bill from a public K-12 school. Public universities also get funding from state and federal taxes but especially at this time, they are also heavily dependent on tuition revenue so every student has to pay either out of pocket or via loans or grants or scholarships. With the ever increasing cost of tuition you get conflicts arising from who qualifies for what types of aid to defray the cost. I haven't seen any studies showing that there are a large number of illegal residents trying to attend public universities and I don't think it's putting the system in any danger but politics is all about generating reasons to make people go to the polls and vote for you so molehills are made into mountains and relatively benign issues are stoked up to trigger fear, outrage and indignation.

Found some stats that support my assertion that this isn't a major problem:

Pew Research claims that 7% of K-12 students nationally are children of illegal residents/immigrants. The state with the highest percentage of illegal immigrant/resident K-12 students is Nevada with 17.6% Texas is second highest with 13.4%
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/17/children-of-unauthorized-immigrants-represent-rising-share-of-k-12-students/

The National Center for Education Statistics claims that in 2016 20.5 million students will attend colleges and universities. In 2014 40% of 18-24 year olds attended college or university.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

 d-usa wrote:
I've seen the argument that Trump is already a lame duck president, having burned his political capital by daring the GOP to vote against the AHCA. He has signed no legislation worth mentioning, has nothing in the works, a White House full of infighting, and a giant cloud over his head with Russia.

I found an article about tax cuts that makes similar points.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TAX_OVERHAUL_THEN_AND_NOW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-28-03-50-11

Essentially the article details why President Trump is unable to affect change the way President Reagan did. It shows just how much work President Trump has ahead of him if he wants to actually accomplish anything.

We're only two months into his Presidency but I agree with you that unless something changes, he will very likely be a one-term President.

 Breotan wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I just called you on your argument about people just jumping the border to go to school in Canada/Mexico when the argument is about people that came to the US as children, have been in the US a significant amount of time, know almost nothing of their original country, and are culturally American.

In other words, you made a dishonest argument and I called you on it. Just admit it and move on.

There is nothing wrong with the point I made. The discussion in this forum has been going around to all sides of the illegal immigration topic, not just the narrow scope you want to argue.

Actually, the original point and discussion was only about the types I was talking about. Other people, including you, have been using dishonest arguments to try to conflate them.

It is neither immoral nor abhorrent for the deporting country to expect that, too.

Actually, it is.

 skyth wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I just called you on your argument about people just jumping the border to go to school in Canada/Mexico when the argument is about people that came to the US as children, have been in the US a significant amount of time, know almost nothing of their original country, and are culturally American.

In other words, you made a dishonest argument and I called you on it. Just admit it and move on.

There is nothing wrong with the point I made. The discussion in this forum has been going around to all sides of the illegal immigration topic, not just the narrow scope you want to argue.

Actually, the original point and discussion was only about the types I was talking about. Other people, including you, have been using dishonest arguments to try to conflate them.

It is neither immoral nor abhorrent for the deporting country to expect that, too.

Actually, it is.

Since everything you stated is just your opinion, we only have to reply with...'says you."

 Frazzled wrote:
They are no more citizens of the US then they are of Canada.

Except for all intents and purposes they are. Why are you so hung up on a technicality?