February 8, 2009
Overreaching Representation
We can discuss the weighty obligations that fall to those who choose to serve in elected office and thereby come to possess the tax gun. Emphatically absent from that list of obligations is to cast an ever widening net - in this case, beyond the borders of our country - in search of wrongs to right or consequences of individual free will choices with the intention of ameliorating them.
Bills recently introduced in the General Assembly would, if passed, grant official state drivers licenses and in-state college tuition rates to undocumented immigrants. These proposals would be implemented at the expense of both the entity (the state of Rhode Island) that our elected officials have been elected to represent as well as the sovereignty of the country whose constitution they have taken an oath to uphold.
Contrary to Rep Diaz' assertion at her press conference Thursday, offering in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants would, in fact, cost the taxpayers. The state would be forced to pick up that shortfall in tuition. And if, as has been asserted, officials on the state level have no obligation to enforce federal laws, it would be reasonable, by the same logic, that officials on the state level take no action to encourage people to break federal law. In fact, both of these proposals would have the effect of enticing people to break federal immigration laws to get to Rhode Island - because look, when we get there, we can pass as documented with our Rhode Island drivers licenses and - major bonus - we will be able to attend state universities at in-state tuition rates!
At Rep Diaz' press conference Thursday, Attorney Robert Gonzalez called upon the General Assembly "to do what's right". Indeed, yes, honorable members of the Rhode Island General Assembly. Do the right thing. Demonstrate restraint when employing the tax gun with which we have entrusted you.
That walking compost heap Levesque is a buttwipe for the ACLU-recently I saw this creep on the ACLU cable ahow blubbering about how terrible the Heller decision was and that no individuals should be armed except in a militia(maybe Obama's National Security Corps?)-he was opposed by two articulate attorneys and he had another attorney on his side who wasn't as disgusting(not saying much)-the NRA gives this guy a C rating-they better revisit that,he should get an F- like Rhoda Perry,Charlene Lima.
Posted by: joe bernstein at February 8, 2009 6:59 PMIf anyone wants to throw up,just visit the Jim Vincent Show on Sunday mornings.This fast talking snake oil salesman from RI Housing has a parade of whining advcates,ethnic pimps,and other people waiting to pick your pocket and try to elicit sympathy.He was one of the people pushing home ownership for everyone for a number of years and look how that turned out.of course he blames it all on Bush.
Occasionally he will have someone on who doesn't represent his views,but it is a setup to prove his point.He tried that crap with Terry Gorman.
Vincent seems to belong to every advocacy group in the state.I can't help but get the impression that he views everything in terms of race and/or ethnicity.Don't take my word for it-just watch a few times and come to your own decision.
"a parade of whining advcates,ethnic pimps,and other people waiting to pick your pocket and try to elicit sympathy"
A pretty apt description of every "progressive" on the planet.
Right Rhody?
By the way, I present the lovely Obama progressive blogger Anthony "Tony" Stancl:
http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/02/anthony-stancls-obama-blog.html
who posed as a girl and solicited nude pictures of his straight male classmates then blackmailed them into "bending over backwards" to satisfy his progressive dreams.
Stancl's Friends Say Scheme Out-of-Character
By Elizabeth Braun
Story Created: Feb 5, 2009
Story Updated: Feb 6, 2009
People are shocked by the accusations against Anthony Stancl, but none so much as his friends.
Vincent Talatzkl says Stancl was a smart kid who worked as a computer programmer and wrote blogs for the Obama campaign.
"He just didn't seem like the kid who would happen to do stuff like this. He just seemed like a really good kid."
The school superintendent says Stancl was not the type to draw negative attention to himself.
Still, 2 months ago he talked about a bomb threat on his Twitter account. He wrote, 'Police are here. They want to speak to me.'
Later he says, "This will be my last message for awhile. Going offline for a few weeks at least."
Another of Stancl's friends, Ryan Cristan, remains shocked.
"He was like a goody-two-shoes guy. He was like a mama's boy sort of kid."
Sounds like somebody's acting out his sexual psychoses again in the above post.
Posted by: rhody at February 8, 2009 8:06 PMPutting aside for the moment the reprehensible notion of encouraging and rewarding Illegal conduct, the bottom line is that Ms. Diaz is attempting to provide AMERICAN TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED IN-STATE TUITION for FOREIGN NATIONALS, while at the same time continuing the prohibition on AMERICAN CITIZENS from 49 states from receiving the same subsidy.
Posted by: Tom W at February 8, 2009 8:26 PMHey pedophile fan Sedonio-I mean Rhody:
Your non-disgust with this "progressive being progressive" behavior is dog-bite-man news.
The illegal alien part of it aside, no one has really gotten into the economics of it. Diaz said the bill would only affect about 120 students. But looking at the in-state vs. out of state tuition difference at URI, multipled by 120 is more than $1.9M. Do we really have just an extra $2M lying around right now? I thought we were looking for ways to save money, not give it away. Wrong time, Grace, wrong time.
Posted by: Patrick at February 8, 2009 9:12 PMWhat about the money we ALREADY spent to educate these crimaliens BEFORE their college/university days? This is just another bill given to the "middle class", American, to pay. And then the DemoRATS want to save the dwindling middle class (by spending more of our money). Their math doesn't add up. Let me keep what I earn - that's stimulus.
Posted by: American Patriot at February 8, 2009 9:31 PMIn as far as I know, no one has presented facts as to the cost of this which makes it tough to debate financially. Personally, I'm torn. If the bill can adequately ensure that an illegal living in RI for "X" amount of time would, as part of the process, be required to take steps towards becoming legal AND they're becoming educated which would hopefully make them a useful part of society, it may be a worthwhile investment. But if there is even the slightest loophole as far as becoming nationalized or proving residence here for "X" amount of time (I'd say 5 years), then this bill should be seriously reconsidered.
All of the above is provided it doesn't cost taxpayers anything. If we somehow are picking up the tab on this through the state, then there is no way this bill should go forward.
Posted by: Steve A. at February 8, 2009 9:35 PM As of 8:59, Mike has yet to shake his sexual psychosis.
Out of respect for Justin, I will not even begin to speculate what those may be.
Will the male students be required to show evidence that they have registered with the selective service before receiving the benefit of instate tuition?
Posted by: mikeinRI at February 8, 2009 9:51 PM>>Will the male students be required to show evidence that they have registered with the selective service before receiving the benefit of instate tuition?
If you're not a citizen of the United States, and so not subject to the draft, then why register for selective service?
Posted by: Tom W at February 8, 2009 10:40 PMThis whole argument is moot, because federal law already bars states from giving in-state tuition breaks to illegal aliens, if they don't give that same break to non-resident legal students (such as people from Massachusetts).
In order to accommodate Rep. Diaz's dystopian fantasy, we would have to "equalize" in state and out of state tuition, which would have the effect of increasing costs for all in state students, or drastically slashing costs. Quite contrary to a statement I heard the lawyer make (one of many factually incorrect ones), out of state students who attend RI colleges subsidize the cost of in-state students. They pay more, so that we can pay less. The lawyer actually tried to claim that the reason for the tuition disparity was to create a disincentive for out of state students, YET he wants to do something which would create an incentive for illegal alien students to come here and use our schools which already have financial difficulties.
PS I think we should come up with an award for Rep. Diaz -- for her timing. I can't think of any sane person who would have the cajones to introduce a bill like that, at a time like this. Glad she wasn't around during the Great Depression -- who knows what she would have come up with!
Posted by: Will at February 9, 2009 1:33 AMFor those looking for a candid debate on the instate tuition bill, visit us at RIFuture.org:
http://www.rifuture.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=5438
Posted by: Matt Jerzyk at February 9, 2009 8:04 AMRIF does have a very long thread on this subject and many points of view are presented.I have to admit I put in a few dozen comments,but the whole discussion has stayed amazingly civil.
Posted by: joe bernstein at February 9, 2009 8:47 AMDiaz and Gonzalez claim only 120 students are eligible. How is this possible if in 2003 the U S IMM. and Nat. Service reported that there were an estimated 3640 Illegal Alien students attending R I schools. Does that mean barring any increase in that reported number there are only 3.5 % of these students graduating from our high schools.I was under the impression that 30% graduated, that translates to 1092 potential applications to our state colleges by Illegal Alien students. If all were accepted, rest assured most will for fear of calls of discrimination by this motely crew of advocates,the in state tuition difference amount could be as high $ 17 million dollars. These advocates are already WELL aware that this bill violates federal two laws. One bill prevents Aiding and Abetting Illegal Aliens ( Sec 8 USC 1324 )and the second prevents Illegal Alien students from recieving the in state tuition benefits unless students from all states in the U S are offered it first ( 8 usc sec. 1623,title 8 ), thereby wiping out any much needed out of state tuition. recieved. I sense another ulterior motive in this Legislation
Posted by: leprechaun at February 9, 2009 9:07 AMHey Matt Jerzyk, I'd love to join in the debate on your web site, but guess what, I got banned! No warning, no explanation, nothing. My account just went dead one day. I'm guessing it wasn't you who did it, but one of the cowardly others who have administrative access to the site. I only say cowardly because I never received a message from anyone at RIF that said "You are being banned because of x, y, z". If I had at least received that, I'd have been fine with it. But because of that, I have no idea why you'd post on AnchorRising, basically advertising for people with opinions from the right to come to your site. I'd sign up again, but since I have no idea what I was banned for, I fear it would be a waste of time.
And I think I'm not the only one this has happened to. I think someone on your staff has some "little man syndrome" going on.
Posted by: Patrick at February 9, 2009 11:27 AMTom W., this from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services website:
Federal law requires that men who are at least 18 years old, but not yet 26 years old, must be registered with Selective Service. This includes all male non-citizens within these age limits who permanently reside in the United States. Men with "green cards" (lawful permanent residents) must register. Men living in the United States without INS documentation (undocumented aliens) must also register. But men cannot register after reaching age 26.Anyone asking for government assistance should be required to comply with this federal law, right? Posted by: mikeinRI at February 9, 2009 6:42 PM
And I think I'm not the only one this has happened to. I think someone on your staff has some "little man syndrome" going on.
Posted by Patrick at February 9, 2009 11:27 AM
"Little man" is snonomous with "fairy", ie. Matt's webmaster Alex Moore.
Posted by: Mike at February 9, 2009 7:29 PM