I was just thinking...
Alright, it's been a while since I've posted...I'm a bad blogger. At least when I over schedule myself for the semester.
Anywho.
I'm home in Springfield for Thanksgiving, and I'm sitting, eating lunch, reading the newspaper. I end up on the "Letters To The Editor" page. The first letter is by a Springfield woman, Carol Resnick, and is headlined "Illegal immigrants don't deserve break."
This letter was in regards to Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, who was recently re-elected, for his second term in office. Almost immediately after the election, Governor Patrick proposed a plan that would allow Massachusetts residents, regardless of if they are here legally or not, to receive the in-state tuition break to state colleges (universities, technically, thanks to legislation from this past summer). MA residents pay something like $17,000/yr to attend UMass, while out of state students pay something around $21,000/yr. These numbers are estimates, but since my brother went to UMass, I've got a decent idea about the price.
The letter begins by stating "Illegal is ill." 'OH BOY' I sighed to myself upon reading this. The first paragraph ponders what Governor Patrick was thinking in this proposition while the second begins, "They shouldn't be entitled to any benefits." This ENTIRE paragraph is so ridiculous, I see it fit to include all of it, and will break apart everything that's wrong with it. And lemme tell you, it's all wrong.
Where do we go from here with our tax dollars?
Really? Ms. Resnick, you do not understand how these things work. No one's tax dollars are being paid towards an illegal immigrants' education! Tax dollars have literally NOTHING to do with receiving in-state tuition at UMass and other state schools. This rhetorical question obviously is hinting that tax dollars will next be used to do something EVEN WORSE than paying for an illegal immigrant to attend UMass (which is not what would be happening anyway!)
Allowing illegals to enter a university, taking the slot of some deserving citizen who was not accepted, is mind-boggling.
Carol, I'm sorry (actually, I'm not) but you've really got no concept of this system works. An illegal immigrant receiving in-state tuition does in no way, shape or form prevent a legal citizen from attending an institution. Also, if the citizen was deserving, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED! If they weren't accepted, they weren't deserving! If an illegal immigrant has been accepted to one of the fine public institutions Massachusetts offers, kudos to them. They've already accomplished a huge amount by succeeding academically in another country, which isn't the easiest thing to do. And Carol, "mind-boggling"? Really? It is mind-boggling how far you have misconstrued this system and situation.
In the final paragraph, Ms. Resnick goes on to say that citizenship is a privilege and honor etc. etc. Honestly, I don't care about citizenship. I don't believe that a student who may not be here legally should not be given the same right to in-state tuition as anyone who is here legally. If you've put in the work and been accepted to this school, there's no reason to say that you aren't "worthy" of in-state tuition, if you live in this state.
Resnick states that "when immigrants earn that right (citizenship) they are most welcome (to in-state tuition)." What? I don't understand how being a legal citizen makes you any more qualified to attend an institution that you've been accepted to. Yea, if you're a citizen, you pay taxes. But Republicans don't like taxes. They want tax cuts and would much prefer if there were no taxes, but still got the same services taxes provide for. So, really, they wish they could be like illegal immigrants! LIGHT BULB! The Republicans are jealous of illegal immigrants!
This issue has been somewhat under the radar, but I find it "mind-boggling" that these Republicans can be so ignorant about this subject, yet so fiery in their attacks on it.
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Friday, November 26, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The "Patriot" Act
I was just thinking...
Last night I watched "The US vs. John Lennon" and I was reminded of government wire tapping and spying on their own citizens. This type of despicable behavior has been going on for years, but most recently with the Bush Administration's passing of the USA PATRIOT Act. This stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" Act. Of course, this sounds like a positive act, a good tool in battling terrorism. But what is not made clear with the name is the fact that this act made it LEGAL for the US Government to wiretap and other forms of spying on their own citizens. Yes, governments have had this type of control over their citizens regularly, but NOT in so-called democratic republic. The act did not LITERALLY give the government the right to wiretap ANY citizen they wanted, but it might as well have. They were given the right to spy on anyone they considered to be a possible threat to the United States. Which, in essence, means they could spy on anyone. THEY are the ones who decide who is a possible threat, AND the ones who carry out the spying. Big brother much? I think so.
This act is clearly a violation of rights of privacy, and SHOULD be illegal.
Recently, a similar type of unfair abuse of power has been enacted in Arizona, where their recent immigration law gives cops the right to ask anyone who APPEARS as if they could be here illegally (i.e. ANYONE who looks even vaguely Hispanic) for their "papers" (documentation that they are legally allowed to be here). If the accused party does not have the "papers" on their physical body, they are subject to immediate arrest. Sickening. This legitimately sounds like something that would have been done in Hitler's Germany, minus the death camps. It is, and should be considered incredibly illegal. It is a law allowing severe racism.
Via Facebook, I have seen support for this Arizona law, with groups named "It's not racism, you're here ILLEGALLY." These support groups do NOT understand what it is about the law that is wrong; The law gives the hand of the law (cops) the right to arrest ANYONE who LOOKS like they COULD possibly be here illegally. Yes, the government has the right to deport/detain/arrest those here illegally, but to round up anyone because the way they look is disgusting and wrong.
This brings me back to the original law discussed, the USA PATRIOT Act. This contrived acronym was used because a majority of US citizens are stupid. If it sounds like something good, like patriotism, they will automatically assume it is itself good. It's just like liking Green Day. They were good at one point, so people assume they still are, and don't come in with a critical eye, immediately accepting dreck like "21st Century Breakdown" as a good album, even though it is clearly not. The same goes for laws like the USA PATRIOT Act.
There are so many issues with this country that need to be addressed, and the USA PATRIOT Act is definitely one of them.
Tomorrow, I will talk about the BP Oil Spill.
Last night I watched "The US vs. John Lennon" and I was reminded of government wire tapping and spying on their own citizens. This type of despicable behavior has been going on for years, but most recently with the Bush Administration's passing of the USA PATRIOT Act. This stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" Act. Of course, this sounds like a positive act, a good tool in battling terrorism. But what is not made clear with the name is the fact that this act made it LEGAL for the US Government to wiretap and other forms of spying on their own citizens. Yes, governments have had this type of control over their citizens regularly, but NOT in so-called democratic republic. The act did not LITERALLY give the government the right to wiretap ANY citizen they wanted, but it might as well have. They were given the right to spy on anyone they considered to be a possible threat to the United States. Which, in essence, means they could spy on anyone. THEY are the ones who decide who is a possible threat, AND the ones who carry out the spying. Big brother much? I think so.
This act is clearly a violation of rights of privacy, and SHOULD be illegal.
Recently, a similar type of unfair abuse of power has been enacted in Arizona, where their recent immigration law gives cops the right to ask anyone who APPEARS as if they could be here illegally (i.e. ANYONE who looks even vaguely Hispanic) for their "papers" (documentation that they are legally allowed to be here). If the accused party does not have the "papers" on their physical body, they are subject to immediate arrest. Sickening. This legitimately sounds like something that would have been done in Hitler's Germany, minus the death camps. It is, and should be considered incredibly illegal. It is a law allowing severe racism.
Via Facebook, I have seen support for this Arizona law, with groups named "It's not racism, you're here ILLEGALLY." These support groups do NOT understand what it is about the law that is wrong; The law gives the hand of the law (cops) the right to arrest ANYONE who LOOKS like they COULD possibly be here illegally. Yes, the government has the right to deport/detain/arrest those here illegally, but to round up anyone because the way they look is disgusting and wrong.
This brings me back to the original law discussed, the USA PATRIOT Act. This contrived acronym was used because a majority of US citizens are stupid. If it sounds like something good, like patriotism, they will automatically assume it is itself good. It's just like liking Green Day. They were good at one point, so people assume they still are, and don't come in with a critical eye, immediately accepting dreck like "21st Century Breakdown" as a good album, even though it is clearly not. The same goes for laws like the USA PATRIOT Act.
There are so many issues with this country that need to be addressed, and the USA PATRIOT Act is definitely one of them.
Tomorrow, I will talk about the BP Oil Spill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
