Thread: Fifty Dream Act battlefields?

The Washington Times
Editorial
Fifty Dream Act battlefields?
March 10, 2008

THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL - Even in bastions of one-party liberalism like Maryland, the idea of providing reduced-price college tuition to illegal immigrants doesn't sit well with voters, hence Gov. Martin O'Malley's failure to persuade the General Assembly to permit illegal-alien students to pay lower in-state tuition rates ($8,000 a year for the University of Maryland) instead of the $22,000 charged to students from out of state. Legislation to do this died in the Senate last year and opponents in that chamber say they will filibuster the bill this year. Mr. O'Malley, a supporter of in-state tuition whose popularity ratings are abysmal, has taken a passive approach, saying he'll sign the bill if it reaches his desk — something virtually no one expects will happen.

Right now, things also look very bleak for illegal-alien advocates at the federal level, where the so-called Dream Act, which would provide in-state tuition to illegals all over the country, was twice defeated in the Senate last year. The Dream Act would repeal a 1996 federal statute passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton which included a provision barring any state from offering discounted tuition to illegals unless it provided the same tuition discount to all U.S. citizens. Ten states currently grant reduced in-state tuition to illegals in violation of that law; the Dream Act, introduced by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat, would have in essence expanded this policy to 40 other states. The law shows a contempt for law-abiding Americans. For example, Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, noted that "a student from Missouri who attends Kansas University who has already played by the rules and obeyed the law is charged three times the tuition charged to an illegal alien whose very presence in the country is a violation of federal criminal law."

Last year, these arguments prevailed, and the Dream Act was twice defeated in the Senate. The two leading Democratic candidates for president, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both supported it. So too had Republican Sen. John McCain. But after the bill was twice defeated, Mr. McCain said in October that he got the message that Americans want the border secured first and announced that he opposed the Dream Act.

With the situation stalemated for now in Washington, the focus has shifted to state legislatures. In Nebraska last week, lawmakers killed a proposal by Republican Gov. Dave Heineman to repeal in-state tuition for illegals. In Utah, an effort to repeal in-state tuition passed the state House but was defeated in the Senate. In Minnesota and Connecticut, on the other hand, Republican governors have been fending off efforts by illegal-alien advocates to confer these benefits on illegals. Until Congress gets serious about enforcing federal law, these Dream Act battles will continue to be fought out state by state.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/2008 ... 77224/1013

Sometimes I stand back and can't believe this is a discussion.

Guess it's because our federal government has allowed 20+ illegals into this country by not enforcing existing laws.

To think illegals, who aren't suppose to be here in the first place, should get instate tuition over American citizens from other states boggles my mind further.

Does any other country allow illegals cheaper tuition, or for that matter, allow them to attend their colleges at all?

What in the world is going on?

It will continue as long as the President of the United States allows it to happen. Stop him........stop the insanity.