Your Dad Robs A Bank, You Get A New Car!
We don't normally reward people who commit crimes, nor do we reward their children. Well, except in one case -- those who illegally cross our borders. Their children get taxpayer-funded education -- and have been getting taxpayer funded college education, too: coveted in-state rates at California schools.
Oh, did you want to know why I didn't end up transferring to UCLA for my last year of college? I would've been coming from University of Michigan/Ann Arbor, which would've meant I would have to pay pricey out-of-state tuition -- or move to California three years before finishing school. Or...I could've had myself adopted by a family of illegal immigrants.
The LA Times has a pretty cracked editorial complaining that we taxpayers, who are already paying for the Iraq war, our own heathcare and living expenses, and are about to be on the hook for Wall Street bazillionaires' mistakes, should pay for the schooling, all the way through college (not to mention health care and more), for the children of people who are here illegally.
For the last seven years, illegal immigrants attending California's public university and community college systems have been eligible for in-state tuition rates. The thinking behind this practice was that, regardless of their parents' actions, children had no choice in crossing the border illegally; academically gifted immigrant students shouldn't be condemned to a permanent underclass.Last week, however, a state appellate court ruled that California was violating Congress' intention of barring illegal immigrants from a benefit reserved for legal residents. The decision sends a class-action lawsuit -- brought by out-of-state students who contend that they have been required to pay higher, nonresident fees while illegal immigrants pay in-state tuition -- back to Yolo County Superior Court. It also presages the end of higher-education opportunities for thousands of motivated students.
Congress' intent does seem clear. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 reads, "An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit."
California sought to skirt this law by granting in-state tuition to all students who graduated from and attended a California high school for at least three years.
Foes of illegal immigration, who argue that generous benefits encourage lawbreakers to come to California, will rejoice at the decision. And we acknowledge the inherent contradiction of providing a public benefit to students whose parents presumably don't pay any income tax to help pay for it.
Nonetheless, we believe that California's law is in the state's best interest. By law, states must provide K-12 education to illegal immigrants, and it's counterproductive to then erect roadblocks to further advancement for our best and brightest. Studies show that investing in education for immigrants pays off. Assuming they remain in California, their economic contributions more than make up for the cost of subsidized college tuition within a few years. Forcing them to wallow in permanent poverty, by contrast, is a drain on taxpayers -- as well as being flat-out immoral.
Oh, please. What bunch of drama queens came up with this thing? "Forcing them to wallow in permanent poverty"? I just don't want to pay for illegals' children's education -- which isn't to say I'm against schooling for them. They should feel free to apply for legal status here, and then appeal to the fine, magnanimous people on the LATimes' editorial board to pay for their education out of their salaries.
Oh, and would the LAT's drama queens deem my ancestors "forced to wallow in permanent poverty"? After all, no taxpayers gave my grandfather, the son of a legal immigrant, a free education. Instead, his father, my great-grandfather, picked up trash on the streets of Detroit and paid for my grandfather's undergraduate education by selling what was probably the Grand Tetons of scrap metal...and sent him all the way through Wayne State University med school.
And quite frankly, if you're going to judge college tuition based on the student's potential economic contribution to the state of California, I work here, pay taxes here, buy office and other supplies here, and have two part-time employees -- and my newspaper column runs in papers up and down the state. Oh yeah, and next year, the book I'm writing now will be sold here, and across the country, too. Hey, UCLA...you fucked up, huh?
UCLA cost these days? Including tuition, mandatory fees, room and board, and estimated expenses for books, costs for attending one year at UCLA are $20,969 in-state and 40,037 out-of-state. (2008)
General question b/c I don't have all the info.: Someone once told me, during a friendly debate, that illegal immigrants DO pay taxes. That didn't make sense to me and I am unsure how they'd manage that.
Has anyone heard of this? How does it work?
Gretchen at September 23, 2008 4:50 AM
Gretchen: They pay payroll taxes (because they have Social Security numbers, albeit fake), property taxes if they own property, and sales taxes.
Jill at September 23, 2008 5:30 AM
Thanks, Jill. I knew the sales tax part.
Do they get fake SS numbers just to obtain jobs? How do people not get caught using fake SS numbers? If they do get caught are they deported or jailed?
Gretchen at September 23, 2008 7:20 AM
When we passed a law in Arizona that illegal immigrants cannot receive in-state tuition, Arizona State went around the spirit of the law to offer private scholarships to keep those students in school.
The citizens who donated to a 'general scholarship fund' may or may to have appreciated what it ended up being used for.
Beth at September 23, 2008 7:39 AM
Gretchen,
When I left CA the going rate for a stolen SS card was fifty dollars. So if they are getting paid over the table with a fake/stolen SS #. They are likely paying taxes and not able to get an income tax return. That was when the danger of getting caught came into the picture. Now mind you this was fifteen years ago, and alot has changed post 9/11 so this is probably much more closely scrutinized. As for how do they not get caught, I once mistakenly transposed two #'s on my W2 when I was hired for a job when I was a teenager. My employer got a notice from the IRS that there was a mistake on my W2 almost four months later. Probably not to hard to cheat a system that acts so swiftly.
PVM at September 23, 2008 8:00 AM
They give resident tuition rates to illegals in Texas, too. During the last legislative session, there were moves to rewrite the law so the illegal immigrants paid full tuition, but then the race card came up.
It makes me so f*cking angry...
ahw at September 23, 2008 8:01 AM
Gretchen:
Yes, some do have face social security cards. However, many of the jobs that illegal immigrants take pay cash. Lots of idependent landscapers, day laborers, and cleaning ladies get paid in cash only. So, they're not paying income taxes.
(Although, in Texas, there's no state income tax anyway. Only the fed is getting screwed in this case. TX has huge property taxes, which even renters pay- indirectly. And then there are sales taxes, sin taxes, gas taxes, etc...)
ahw at September 23, 2008 8:08 AM
>> Assuming they remain in California, their economic contributions more than make up for the cost of subsidized college tuition within a few years.
That's a big assumption.
I worked my way, full time, through college. It wasn't a great hardship. About the best solution I can come up with off the cuff is to have a private sponsorship program, sorta like Microsoft pays for the tuition in exchange for future employment. Bet there are lots of corporations who would jump at the chance for the best students.
Eric at September 23, 2008 8:37 AM
ahw, it always amuses me when not paying property taxes is listed as a benefit of renting. Umm, hello, yes? Do you really think it's not part of your rent? That your landlord rents at a loss instead of a profit? Your rent pays all their costs of owning that property then some.
"Assuming they remain in California" I love this rational/excuse. Of course, we all know what assuming makes of you and me. New York used that "rational" to fund welfare mothers, put my sister through the local community college to learn to become an electrician. Upon becoming one, she promptly moved to Colorado. Umm, why wouldn't they? California seems great except for the earthquakes, mud slides, brush fires, and high cost of living so I'm sure some will stay but what's to hold them after they have said degree in hand and can take it anywhere for a good paying job some working class fool's kid won't have access to?
It never ceases to piss me off. Being responsible is obviously where I went wrong in life. Okay, I was born here but I didn't have babies out of wedlock in my teens, didn't get hooked on drugs and didn't become a criminal. Hence, nobody's set out to "rehabilitate" me. In other words, hand me a college degree on a silver platter or hold my little hand while I figured it all out or supported and encouraged me to do something more than survive.
If I had it to do all over again... I wouldn't be so fucking responsible. I'd get busted so I could get breaks doing things the right way didn't get me instead of growing old still broke and living like I'm 20 at 50 in failing health. Luckily, I'm too old and tired and too fucking close to retirement to start over. But I do feel like a fucking fool for having values and a work ethic.
T's Grammy at September 23, 2008 8:55 AM
Your Dad Robs A Bank, You Get A New Car!
Severity wise, I'd say it's more like Your Dad Trespasses, You Get A New Car! It's the new car part of the equation that's a problem.
After that the metaphor breaks down, because currently the largest problem with immigration is that there's almost no relationship between what's legal and what rationally should be legal.
Unless you think that the law is always right and that every transgression is equally egregious, the "Robbing a bank" hyperbole is doing a disservice to your argument.
Also, as someone who is apparently wallowing in permanent poverty right now since I never got the benefit of an in-state subsidized college education, where's my handout? Or far better, how about if I'm just exempted from paying for other people's hand outs?
Shawn at September 23, 2008 9:12 AM
The law discriminates against kids who grow-up in California, attend 4 years of high school here, but have parents who move out-of state. If you are illegal, you get in-state tuition, but if you are legal and under 24, the UC's class you as an out-of-state resident based on your parent's new residence. I know someone who this happened too.
quika at September 23, 2008 9:56 AM
>>If I had it to do all over again... I wouldn't be so fucking responsible.
I hear you, T's Grammy. But whenever I feel like that, I tell myself I would have somehow wound up in far worse shit!
I actually agree with in-state fees for the college-able kids of illegals. (Though the slippery rationale used in Amy's linked piece is, I agree, annoying.)
On balance, though it's a decent investment. If you can save enough from your hourly wages as an illegal to get your bright kid in reach of in-state college fees, I think that's beneficial to the country.
(As 15-year resident aliens here, we get to pay the hideous full foreign fee for the UK-born son who is now studying in the UK plus out-of-home-state fees for the son who wanted a US college degree - but not too close to his parents. It's very painful.)
Jody Tresidder at September 23, 2008 10:05 AM
Jody, the problem is that we are trying to make it NOT a good idea to come to the US Illegally. If you know you can bring your kids here, and get them an education then you will. If you birth a kide here, they become a US citizen anyway, and you can also get them an education. The issue, IMHO, is not so much that these people will provide some input to the economy eventually. The issue is that having that ability even though it's illegal for them to come here makes coming here very attractive.
The downside isn't enough to keep them away. Especially since the boarder frontier isn't maintained anyway. I believe that any immigration debate is academic, untill we can actually secure the boarder.
Also? Like the question in Texas? How is this a race issue exactly? I get the whole potential of mixed blood between Spaniards and Natives in Mexico 500 years ago... But how is that a different race now? Some of that Spanish ancestry would be caucasian from way back, yes? I am confused on that issue, not aiming to be inflammatory...
SwissArmyD at September 23, 2008 10:24 AM
Speaking from Texas, mexicans consider themselves a race. They do not call themselves white. Being white would prevent victimhood and racism and all that nonsense, you see, and we must be victims.
I am against illegal aliens being allowed entrance to a college, in-state tuition or no. I am also against the us-born children of illegals getting citizenship. Or free schooling. Or anything else other than deportation.
If we stopped giving them free education, free healthcare, food assistance, housing assistance, and all the other tax-payer funded nonsense they get, they would stop coming. And I really don't care about the "brightest minds" argument. We have plenty of bright minds here, and plenty of bright minds coming to school here legally from elsewhere.
If you've been to an ER in the last oh, 15 years, then you can see firsthand how illegals are killing our healthcare system. Want to know why costs are so high? It's because you are paying for everything from strep throat to liver transplants for illegals with no health insurance and no money to pay. And here in Austin, if you arne't on the westside, you shouldn't bother sending your english-speaking child to school. The teachers are so busy teaching english, they can't teach anything else.
I pay less then 2% property taxes. What do other states pay? Seems a fair trade for no state income tax.
momof3 at September 23, 2008 10:39 AM
My husband has been in this country 12 years, legally, and is still years away from getting a Greencard. Too bad he couldn't have gotten free tuition.
NicoleK at September 23, 2008 11:15 AM
Dear Amy,
Given that freedom is "au gratin," to borrow the French phrasing, how do you propose keeping the economy in the black if we were to enforce illegal immigration laws?
After all, the large influx of migrant workers into the agricultural industry is largely responsible for keeping food prices down and staving off the sort of "food riots" that rock poorer parts of the world.
Believe you me, I'm as steadfast a conservative as anyone on these boards, but even I can see the inherent good in exploiting cheap labor in exchange for a mere pittance in education and health care.
Please advise, tml
the_millionaire_lebowski at September 23, 2008 8:12 PM
the_millionaire_lebowski: nice name, bad logic.
First of all, illegals don't "keep our economy in the black". Their use of services almost cancels out their wage contribution.
Other countries get their crops harvested without such a gross influx of illegals. And besides, what percentage of illegals work in critical ag jobs anyway?
We are not getting cheap labor. It is plenty pricey.
doombuggy at September 23, 2008 9:35 PM
"Including tuition, mandatory fees, room and board, and estimated expenses for books, costs for attending one year at UCLA are $20,969 in-state and 40,037 out-of-state. (2008)"
$40,037? Let's see...$100K+ of debt for a bachelor's degree of indeterminate value, or buy three or four small trucks and start a delivery business with my buddies? Sorry, a little off-topic, but I'm just saying...
old rpm daddy at September 24, 2008 5:03 AM
>>We are not getting cheap labor. It is plenty pricey.
Doombuggy,
No snark intended - but that sentence isn't bullet proof.
Call illegals' labor cheaper (and endlessly available) labor, then, if you don't like "cheap labor".
You ask "what percentage of illegals work in critical ag jobs anyway?"
I don't know the answer - but they keep getting hired in the US, because it does make economic sense - if only in the short term.
Jody Tresidder at September 24, 2008 6:13 AM
'Given that freedom is "au gratin," '
Given that freedom is "covered with bread crumbs, butter and grated cheese"?
(to convert the French to English) WTF?
Steamer at September 24, 2008 6:16 AM
Jody, if a mind's such a terrible thing to waste, how come no one gives a shit about poor white minds that were born here? Though I agree, I would have been in worse shit -- maybe. I'm frankly not so sure about that any more. I've always felt I did the right thing fleeing state with my daughter but now I can't help but wonder if we'd all be better off if I had shot the SOB (a friend had to physically stop me from doing just this one fine night).
Certainly, there's 10 years of children that wouldn't have been victims. I'd at least feel better about that. Yeah, I looked after my own child and took care of her over them but it still eats at me... And, God knows, all those liberals would have made me into some kind of fucking hero instead of the societal outcast that I am. Maybe not. Because they don't unless you give their god lip service and with my fuck God attitude...
Tell you this though, my child's got one Atheist parent and one Christian. Good luck convincing either of us of that nonsense that Christians make better parents...
millionaire, you didn't even make sense. You really think there's no native-born cheap labor? Or is it that you're just against minimum wage and the 40 hour work week etc. Are you just being honest that you don't mind getting rich off the backs of the poor? Frankly, financially challenged as I am, I'd rather pay a little more and have a minimum wage and decent working conditions for those providing. I wouldn't touch Walmarts with a ten-foot pole.
Shawn, I'd settle for that. Stop mugging me to pay for criminals to have shit I never could, especially as I am trying to get some kind of freaking nest egg put together for my old age now that I'm no longer raising a child that it took all my money to feed, clothe and shelter because -- silly me -- I figured I brought her into this world, it was my responsibility to feed, clothe and shelter her.
T's Grammy at September 24, 2008 6:40 AM
Jody:
There's only two ways it makes economic sense:
If labor is too highly priced in the regulated market (minimum wage, union scales)
or
If legal requirements are too onerous (safety regulations, other protections).
The problem with allowing illegals in is not that it puts U.S. citizens at a disadvantage, but that it creates a separate class of worker that is denied the protections that both unions and voters fought to enact.
Much like I oppose amnesty on basic fairness grounds (I can't stand line-jumpers), I oppose "guest worker" programs (and simply turning a blind eye to illegal workers, on human rights grounds.
I don't like the way the Democratic party is fighting to create a permanent dependent underclass in the black community. Why would I like it when both parties collude to do the same to Mexican border-jumpers?
brian at September 24, 2008 7:06 AM
>>If labor is too highly priced in the regulated market (minimum wage, union scales)
Brian,
When money is tight, and profits need to be maximized, the regulated labor market always looks too pricey.
If there is an alternative pool of cheaper labor, the market will find it.
I do it, I expect you do it - whether, in my case, it's meant in the past hiring a teenage babysitter for a precious night out (instead of a 100% credentialed child minder) or in your case - I dunno - getting new car floormats or whatever at K-mart.
Capitalism has always permitted separate classes of workers. It's part of the system.
You and I can argue until the cows come home about how to control/minimize/treat this class. But it is a pipedream to hope they'll just dribble away if Party X does a, b or c.
(Actually, Brian. Feel free to crap all over this comment. You are far more nimble at this stuff than I am! I know we disagree fiercely - still I note your courtesy and all that!).
Jody Tresidder at September 24, 2008 7:39 AM
Not necessarily. Starting in the late 1800s, the idea that labor is a commodity, and that workers ought to have rights concerning their ability to sell that commodity started to take hold. This culminated in the creation of labor unions, which led to labor laws that are supposed to apply to everyone equally.
What the illegal alien labor market does is subvert that by allowing for an underclass of worker that is not afforded any of those legal protections, which is not only a violation of the Constitution, but of basic human rights.
I'll grant you that from a purely libertarian standpoint, minimum wage laws and occupational safety laws are anathema. But they are proper in an American context. These things came about over the course of a century and a half.
If we do at a federal level what some states have done (notably Arizona), the problem largely solves itself. Make it painfully expensive for a company to utilize illegals in their labor pool (because they do it for financial reasons only), and they'll stop using that labor.
What's happened in Arizona is the illegals have largely self-deported.
I understand that Mexico is a shit-hole. But I object to the idea that we should be used as a release-valve for Mexicans to get rich (by Mexican standards) and go home, while benefiting from taxpayer-funded largesse during their stay here.
The proper solution, of course, is to fix Mexico. I don't know how to do that. Sorry.
brian at September 24, 2008 8:52 AM
You folks do know that the standard minimum wage does not aply to agriculture/farm workers. They can legally be paid much less than the federal minimum wage. This is the reason you have leagal migrant workers as well as illeagal ones doing most of this type labor. Because you are not likely to find a US citizen willing to work for less than three dollars an hour. Get rid of the illegal workers and you will not only raise the price of fresh produce, but the not so fresh fast food, canned vegetables, all types of meat/poultry. Not that it is possible to get rid of them, but if you could say in one fail swoop, we would cripple our economy. Or should I say further cripple it.
PVM at September 24, 2008 10:01 AM
"Get rid of the illegal workers and you will not only raise the price of " PVM
yeah, gee, that's the way it works in a market economy... The price of making something goes up, and the price it is sold at goes up. Funny how that works.
The key word there is Illegal. If everything is as you say, artificially depressed prices due to the use of illegal labor, then there will have to be a correction when the labor is removed. What we have NOW is an unhealthy system where we are using artificially cheap, to keep prices down. So, prices go up and we pay more, cut back on other things... and in the ebb and flow of time, everything corrects itself.
Or we can continue to exploit illegal labor just so we can have cheap prices. Mexico actually wants this because it is a constant infusion of real dollars into their economy...
Or we could just annex Mexico and get the whole thing over with...
SwissArmyD at September 24, 2008 12:39 PM
I proposed annexing Mexico once. Got called a racist for my trouble.
Can't win no matter what.
Funny how the same lefties that decry capitalist exploitation of workers in China don't have a problem with exploiting Mexicans right here at home.
brian at September 24, 2008 2:33 PM
"The law discriminates against kids who grow-up in California, attend 4 years of high school here, but have parents who move out-of state."
As one who believes in the fiduciary duty of parents to pay for as much of the college education as they can possibly bear, I blame the parents, not the law.
smurfy at September 24, 2008 3:51 PM
Leave a comment