Huckabee Wants Free College for Illegal's Kids

D

defjon

New member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071129/ap_po/republicans_debate

Another area I disagree with this guy. I'm already 20 thousand dollars in debt, earning my degree with sweat blood and sacrifice, to provide for myself and future children. By the time my 12% living expenses loans get paid off, who knows? And I've still another 3 years or so before I'm done...

To offer scholarships to the children of illegal aliens?? Just think about this. :barf:
:barf:

:barf:

How about we send them home, and they can get a degree in their country? Or...how about they LEGALLY immigrate themselves if they love America so much, and build a credit history, and pay for college themselves? I hate handouts. Never take em myself. This would be one heck of a handout.
 
I didn't catch the debate, and I'm not familiar with the policy in question...but are we talking about scholarships reserved for the children of illegal aliens or simply not disqualifying them from applying for scholarships available to everybody? Because if it's the latter the thread title, while still technically accurate, is a bit misleading.

Or...how about they LEGALLY immigrate themselves if they love America so much, and build a credit history, and pay for college themselves?
Click to expand...

Due to relatively restrictive quotas on immigration from Mexico/Latin America many/most of these kids you're referring to quite simply would never be allowed to immigrate legally. So for those, you're basically asking the impossible.

And you generally don't need much in the way of credit history to qualify for student loans; generally if your credit is poor chances are your income/assets are low, and you'll qualify for enough in Stafford Loans, either subsidized or unsubsidized. There's no credit check for those.


Anyway, the way I see it the whole scholarship thing, while it makes for great thread titles and sound bites ("free college for illegals!" and all), is not the issue. We should be talking about whether or not they should be enrolling in school in the first place, and what we should (or should not) be doing to prevent this.

Personally I don't know what I think on that one. They're here through no fault of their own (assuming they were brought as children), and some have been here long enough that calling their country of origin "home" isn't necessarily reasonable.

As soon as we are willing to let them enroll, though, and willing to take their money I don't necessarily think they should be disqualified from scholarships available to other students...especially if these scholarships are academically based (which I'd hope they'd be).
 
but are we talking about scholarships reserved for the children of illegal aliens or simply not disqualifying them from applying for scholarships available to everybody?
Click to expand...
The former. No, the headline isn't misleading.
 
From the article:

"Mike Huckabee, who has also come under GOP criticism for some of his immigration policies while governor of Arkansas, defended benefits he supported for children of illegal immigrants, including allowing children to be eligible to apply for college scholarships."

Eligible to apply for scholarships does not mean "free college".

The article has no details. It sounds like a bad idea to me in general, but a kid whose parents overstayed their visa 20 years ago is different from one who showed up last week with an expectation of a free ride.
 
JuanCarlos said:
As soon as we are willing to let them enroll, though, and willing to take their money I don't necessarily think they should be disqualified from scholarships available to other students...especially if these scholarships are academically based (which I'd hope they'd be).
Click to expand...
You should have watched the debate. Immediately after Huck's answer Mitt picked him off, pointing out that TAXPAYER MONEY was used for this. That's all I needed to hear. That is wrong and un-American.
 
Congratulations to the OP for not taking "handouts" and opposing scholarships for others who have been in the US school system one way or another for 12 years. I used to feel the same way, until I realized that my government-subsidized loans, in-state tuition, PEL grant, and scholarship, were "handouts" compared to someone paying cash at a private school.

I'm not saying I'm for it, just that it's not as simple as: do we or don't we hand buckets of cash to people as they cross the fence.

As for Romney's concern for the taxpayers, I'm not buying the plausible-deniability argument that he had no clue the groundskeeping contract for the governor's mansion (taxpayer dollars) was employing illegals. Was he naive enough not to make sure compliance with labor laws was required by the contract?
 
Huckabee stated that his plan required children of illegal immigrants to apply for citizenship, and to have a clean criminal background, before they were allowed to pay in-state tuition.

If the OP doesn't want to borrow money to go to school, he doesn't have to. There are plenty of corporations that have tuition reimbursement, and of course, there's always the military. Or work full-time and attend school when you can. So there are options.

Personally, I'd stop borrowing the money at this point rather than borrowing another sixty grand in the next three years. But that's JMHO.

Based on learning the hard way. :(
 
The article has no details. It sounds like a bad idea to me in general, but a kid whose parents overstayed their visa 20 years ago is different from one who showed up last week with an expectation of a free ride.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't really see it as a black-and-white issue. Somebody who has spent a decade or more here, didn't make the choice to come here illegally (their parents did), and who actually wants to go to college and make something of themselves is probably a lot more invested in America than a lot of the people we do give citizenship to, including many who are born here.

Personally I'd almost rather see us toss a few deadbeat natural citizens across the border and give theirs to such kids. But obviously that should not and can not happen (hence "almost").

You should have watched the debate. Immediately after Huck's answer Mitt picked him off, pointing out that TAXPAYER MONEY was used for this. That's all I needed to hear. That is wrong and un-American.
Click to expand...

Un-American in general or just because they're illegal aliens?


Though again, the only thing I'd require before I'd even consider putting this into my "gray area" category is if these scholarships are academically based. I've seen way too much abuse of grants/scholarships that aren't. I knew somebody who basically failed out of school with straight D's and F's (was obviously put on academic probation) and still managed to get a waiver to continue her full ride scholarship from her home state. It was basically based on financial need rather than academics, and I can vouch for the fact that every dime was being wasted. Compared to this, giving an academically based scholarship to a kid who's lived here long-term but whose parents came illegally seems almost reasonable.


Of course, to ever consider this to be more than a black-and-white issue one needs to first wrap their mind around the idea that an illegal alien (or their child) can contribute more to this country and its economy (where that taxpayer money comes from) than a natural citizen. I came to this conclusion a long time ago.
 
You guys let me know...

...when you find your candidate that agrees with everything you agree with!

I really like Huckabee and what he stands for. As it was stated earlier, he doesn't want to hand a free college education to kids as soon as they cross the border. He wants to offer (doesn't mean they will get it) scholarships to kids who were drug here by their illegal parents and have been a student in America's schools their whole childhood. Do some research.

Lg_mouth
 
Un-American in general or just because they're illegal aliens?
Click to expand...
Both.
Click to expand...
I suppose. I think only allowing higher education for those that can afford it, and thus perpetuating the divide between rich and poor, isn't exactly "American" either. At that point you're not even providing the semblance of equal opportunity for all, you're punishing kids because their parents were irresponsible and/or just plain poor.

And that's setting aside the fact that most of this taxpayer money spent on grants/scholarships is likely returned to the treasury in various forms, from increased wages (and thus taxes) on the more direct end to less money spent on prisons (since I'd wager that the college-educated are less likely to end up there) at the more indirect end.

Though again, I can't repeat it enough, any such grants/scholarships must have an academic component. I've seen far too many students waste this money by partying their way out of college. This component should be reasonable, of course; but certain common-sense regulations are (IMO) sorely needed. For instance, I'll never understand why students don't have to pay back things like Pell Grants if they fail a class; I have to pay back any benefits I get from the military if I fail a class, and I earned that money. I really don't see why we'd "hand" money to people who aren't making satisfactory academic progress and are earning below-average GPA's, and I certainly don't see why we'd let people keep the money when they don't pass a class.


Of course, I'm getting off on a pretty big tangent there, so I'll leave it at that.

Basically if you don't believe that the country, both socially and economically, benefits from offering financial aid to students (even just limiting it to citizens) then I don't think we'll find much common ground on which to discuss the illegal alien issue.

Out of curiosity, is Romney running on a platform of dismantling the DoE and/or ending all Stafford Loans and Pell Grants?
 
Last edited:
I suppose. I think only allowing higher education for those that can afford it, and thus perpetuating the divide between rich and poor, isn't exactly "American" either. At that point you're not even providing the semblance of equal opportunity for all, you're punishing kids because their parents were irresponsible and/or just plain poor.
Click to expand...

This wasn't about allowing higher education, it was about subsidizing it with tax money.

It's not the American way for government to provide a college education with taxpayer dollars. It's our own duty to educate ourselves. It's the government's job to protect us from enemies and protect our rights, not to give us handouts paid for by others. Nor is it American for me to have to pay for someone's education who isn't even a citizen of this country.
 
This wasn't about allowing higher education, it was about subsidizing it with tax money.
Click to expand...

Except that if higher education costs more than somebody has, they aren't exactly being "allowed" to achieve it. Whether by the institution itself (if it's private) or indirectly by the government (if it's public). They aren't allowed to attend because they don't have money.

Not that it's impossible to contribute to society and better oneself without attending college, of course. But in our modern economy it does make it substantially more difficult.

It's not the American way for government to provide a college education with taxpayer dollars. It's our own duty to educate ourselves. It's the government's job to protect us from enemies and protect our rights, not to give us handouts paid for by others. Nor is it American for me to have to pay for someone's education who isn't even a citizen of this country.
Click to expand...

See, and setting aside the whole "not a citizen" thing (since you don't agree with financial aid in general) I think you may be looking at it the wrong way. On average a college-educated student makes significantly more than a non-college-educated one. This is a fact. At that point, rather than seeing it as taking money from you to pay for somebody's education, it'd probably be more useful to look at it as an investment in a future taxpayer; because I'd wager that in many cases the extra tax revenue alone covers a fair portion of any "direct" aid given to students (Pell Grants, temporary subsidization of interest on Stafford Loans, etc).

I know for a fact that I will return through increased taxes (due to increased wages) over my lifetime every last dime I've taken in grants/subsidization of loans. With interest. As will most people. They're investing your money, not spending it. And getting a rather decent return on it. Considering they've been doing this for decades, it's quite possible that you've actually seen a positive return on that investment, in the form of lower taxes than you might otherwise have paid (due to increased tax revenue from college-educated taxpayers who otherwise wouldn't have).

And if you honestly think we should do away with all governmental subsidization of schools (goodbye state university systems, for instance) then I'd have to wonder what the overall effect on the economy from that would be. Since through everything from educating future generations of workers (and keeping us competitive with other countries that wouldn't be cutting educational funding) to research those institutions actually contribute substantially to the economy; which comes back to the treasury in the form of taxes.

Seeing it as "providing a college education with taxpayer dollars" is a pretty simplistic viewpoint; I'll admit that I'm likely outside my expertise here, but I'd be interested to see a more detailed economic assessment of the positive/negative impact the subsidization of college education actually has on the treasury.


Of course, again I think the system as it stands gets horribly abused. Whether or not the government should subsidize education in general is a topic for debate; I can't imagine anybody defending the idea that the government should be paying for students who can not (or simply do not) perform at the college level to attend. Yet as it stands we do so all too often.


Anyway, my point is that if you honestly don't believe that we should be subsidizing higher education at all (even for citizens) then you really aren't adding much to this particular discussion; if you don't think citizens should be receiving such funds obviously you wouldn't think non-citizens should. If you don't believe the system should exist at all you aren't going to add much to a discussion of who that system should cover and why.


And again, unless Romney is running on a platform of doing away with all financial aid (and subsidization of state universities) then I don't think his comment applies in the way you're trying to apply it. Maybe that's actually his platform, I'm not intimately familiar with it. But I doubt it.

EDIT: Looking at data from 2006, the median income for somebody with a bachelor's degree is about $13K higher than for somebody with a high school diploma. Figure over 30-40 working years, I'd say it's reasonable to say that the federal government likely recoups any money spent on financial aid for a college graduate; especially since most financial aid given is in the form of loans, rather than grants, and thus is paid back by the student (minus some small portion of subsidized interest). As for at the state level (with state scholarships, subsidization of universities) they probably recoup pretty easily as well, since people who make more money spend quite a bit more in state taxes as well (ranging from income taxes to property taxes to sales taxes). And again, that's ignoring the general benefit to the entire economy from having a significant pool of educated workers. I'd really be interested to see a detailed economic analysis on this, but I don't have time to look for one at the moment. *shrug*
 
The issue is that these children were granted scholarships above and beyond what naturalized or native born citizens were eligible for. He can talk about the high-minded ideals backing his decision all he wants, and we can debate the merits of his actions until we're blue in the face...
But when you offer somebody who's an illegal resident in this country a streamlined path to citizenship and a great deal on higher education, there is a word for that: amnesty.
Let's not kid ourselves.
 
you're not even providing the semblance of equal opportunity for all, you're punishing kids because their parents were irresponsible and/or just plain poor.
Click to expand...
How is not providing something that isn't a necessity punishing someone? "Honey, your punishment is you can't have any ice cream." Please!

Opportunity != access. Equal opportunity exists when people with similar abilities can reach similar results. Two people who are similarly qualified given equal consideration for a job is equal opportunity. If I'm lesser qualified, I probably won't get the opportunity. I think you more correctly meant equal access. I'd like a Ferrari. I have access to one but will probably never have the opportunity to own one. Oh well for me.

Equal access, sure; equal protection, absolutely; but equal opportunities? Sometimes you have to make your own opportunities and as long as children have equal access, then things are pretty fair. Sorry if some have to pay for their education out of pocket. The line of those who've done so previously is long and distinguished.

People have different skills, abilities, experiences, and other factors which make opportunities very unequal. The ‘opportunity gap' has very little to do with socio-economic status or whether someone won the genetic lottery. You can be poor and still teach your children respect, generosity and many other attributes necessary to be a good citizen and even teach them to read before they start kindergarten. The last item will go a long way toward improving their opportunities. The Paris Hiltons of the world pretty much prove opportunities don't do you much good if you have a severe case of cranial rectosis and are either unwilling or incapable of taking advantage of them.

As I've said in other posts, this is more of an issue of priorities than anything else. If something is a priority, you'll do what it takes including working harder to achieve it and you'll be better off for it. There are plenty of success stories of people who grew up poor, worked hard and succeeded. Maybe a good work ethic should be added to my list above parents should teach their kids.

I'm not against giving out scholarships, but if we're using tax dollars, it damn well better be for those who are citizens first. After everyone in that category has had their opportunity, we can discuss if anyone else gets the opportunity.

Last point (yeah). If they were brought here illegally and decide to stay once they turn 18, then they too are breaking the law. No one is forcing them to stay and I'm sure there are institutions of higher learning in the home land.

Nuff ranting.
 
I'm just wondering how the governor of a state can purportedly "streamline" citizenship, when the procedure to become a citizen is a federal process concerning federal law.

So I don't get it. :confused:
 
He gets from the Ron Paul website of deception. These kids are not getting anything handed to them. They have to earn the right to apply for the scholarships by getting the proper grades and meeting certain requirements. This is not a gimme to all illegal alien children, the topic is completely misleading and a little research can prove otherwise.

Immigration is one of the things I look at while voting for a Person. Punishing kids for what their parents did is wrong IMHO. They had no choice or say so in the matter. The federal government is also to blame for allowing these kids to stay in school and not tracking down the parents and them when they first start going to school. The failure of the INS and our government to properly keep these people out of the country is the real problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top