Obviously, I expected a bit of a backlash toward the Salas piece and for the anti-illegal-immigration proponents to come out of the woodwork. However, What I saw in my mailbox just hours afterward shocked me:
We Americans are tired of people breaking our laws and then people
like you making excuses for it. We as a country cannot pay for the
third world .You need to come to Phoenix and see what your city will
look like in a few years if we dont [sic] stop the invasion, and that’s what it is. We are losing our soverighnty[sic] as a nation. The American culture is being shoved aside. I am tired of seeing my Flag [sic] burned and the mexican[sic] flag raised. We are tired of listening to people like you. We are fed up with your multi culturalism [sic] crap and left wing lunacy.
Shortly thereafter, I got another email from a man who vehemently disagreed with my assessment, but put this at the end:
One last thing, not that you have done this, but you might have noticed that there are people who will say that anyone who is anti-illegal immigration is a racist. Keep this in mind: I have worked with many ethnic groups in my 54 years of life and I consider myself a very tolerant person. I am not racist for simply wanting my immigration laws enforced. Propaganda includes using the race card and is a misuse of the word. There are millions of American citizens that feel this way. Illegal immigration is only the tip of the iceberg in regard to how the corporate elites and the members of the Builderberg’s and the Rothchild’s of the world want to do away with countries and their sovereignty. The North American Union is well under way which will do away with the US, Canada and Mexico, creating a single entity and illegal immigration is leading the way. The Constitution will cease to exist. Our federal government is ignoring our laws to integrate the Mexican culture into ours and there’s a lot of people in this country who don’t care to see there own culture disappear.
How can you argue that the situation has nothing to do with race and then go on about the threat of “integrating Mexican culture with ours?” How can you say there is no race involved when you have people like Tanya and John Snyder (first email) saying their tired of this “multi-culturalism crap?” I reject the idea that race is not a factor in immigration. Certainly, there are cooler heads that prevail in this debate and obviously see this as an issue that has nothing to do with race, but it’s obviously still part of the problem on both sides of the argument.
However, there was one point that I would like to clarify with this. In my article I made the point that the proposed legislation could open the door to in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants, both illegal themselves and born in this country. This caused a few problems:
I’m confused, I thought children of illegal immigrants that are born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens?
The follow up:
Yes, you are confused – this discussion has nothing to do with US citizens, it is all about people NOT BORN in the USA who commited the crime of entering the USA illegally. As far as the children go, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The reason why I included this point is because there seems to be a little discrepancy, which I’d be glad if someone could clear up.
In-state residency requirements for the purpose of in-state tuition stipulates it as follows:
3.
Any adult student who is a dependent of his or her parents under 26 USC 152(a), if one or both of the student’s parents have been bona fide residents of this state for at least 12 months next preceding the beginning of any semester or session for which the student registers at an institution.
Under this rule, it wouldn’t really matter if the student is 18 and a legal resident “" if they are a dependent, which I would assume a good portion of 18 year olds are, they would not be able to claim residency because their parents are not legal residents. Therefore, native-born students who are the children of illegal immigrants would not necessarily be guaranteed in-state tuition in every case.
Furthermore, the mention was also made because several anti-immigration proponents would like to see a revision or reinterpretation to the 14th Amendment that guarantees citizenship to native born residents. They cite the fact that this was used to guarantee citizenship to the freed slaves after the civil war. Many cite this as a loophole that did not take immigration woes into consideration. I obviously disagree with this interpretation and would hate to see an amendment revised to deem children illegal upon birth.
As for those who say we should blame the parents for crossing the border in the first place and basically “too bad their parents are criminals,” I say, “have some sense.” The children in question have been educated by the state of Wisconsin and you’re just going to kick them out even though they’re willing to pay tuition everyone else in the state is paying? I mean, if the state of Wisconsin has already invested in their education and those children are still willing to invest more, we’re just going to lose a productive and soon to be legal member of society because their parents committed a crime?
Which brings me to this rebuttal made in the comments:
In-state tuition is $7,010 for 2007-08. Out-of-state tuition is roughly THREE times as much at $21,010.
Each illegal alien allowed in-state tuition would cost $14,000 per year. Just how did the proposed law deal with the loss of revenue? Did it short-change the University or increase taxes?
Ok, first off, if we’re going to treat these immigrants as “Out of state,” switching to in-state tuition doesn’t lose us any money. We have a quota of 25% out of state residents who can be accepted to UW. If you move these immigrants off out-of-state tuition, someone else will fill the gap. The only displacement you have would be those students who don’t get it because there are a few more people in the pool of applicants. If we use comparison to Washington state, who implemented similar legislation, you’ll get an increase of 550 students apply, 400 or so of them the children of illegal immigrants. The state doesn’t get shortchanged. It might get slightly more competitive, but if they’re qualified, why not? After all, we educated them to this level in the first place and they’re willing to pay.
Plus, let’s say it was the case that those who lived in-state were part of the in-state quota while paying out-of-state costs: How many children of illegal immigrants do you think could find 21,000 dollars to attend college? You really think that would drain the state of millions of dollars in revenue? I think not.