Video: Romney and Huckabee clash over scholarships for illegal aliens; Update: Is RomneyCare any better?

posted at 12:42 pm on November 29, 2007 by Allahpundit

Mitt’s best moment from an otherwise rough night. Huck’s sleight of hand here is classically left-wing, equating the denial of benefits to which the recipient was never entitled with “punishment,” the confiscation of a right already held. He insists the scholarship program would have been a revenue-generator by turning tax-takers into taxpayers, in his formulation, but of course he doesn’t factor in the expense generated by the incentive it gives to further “tax-takers” to come to Arkansas and settle. The taxpayer/tax-taker thing’s a red herring anyway; this is obviously about charity for him, in which case it’s hard to discern why these scholarships should be limited by anything so mean as geography. If we’re going to spend American citizens’ money on scholarships for bright foreign students, why not just send money to Canada or Mexico for that purpose? The only difference between the talented 17-year-old illegal alien in Little Rock and the talented 17-year-old in Mexico City is that the parents of the former broke the law and got away with it. If Huck’s hung up on that promise to seek citizenship that he mentions as being one of the requirements, no problem: I’m sure the kid in Mexico City will be willing to promise that too in exchange for a free education.

Notice too how Huck falls back on his personal “I came up the hard way” drama once Mitt puts him on the defensive. That’s a pointed way of accusing Romney, the child of privilege, of being out of touch. Between that and his weaselly insistence that illegal alien kids without scholarships are being punished by America instead of by their parents’ decision to come here, you can see why Mitt calls him a liberal.

Update: Think progress! “Huckabee is likely to suffer for refusing to demagogue immigration.”

Update: Reader Vaughn R. makes a good point:

The tag beneath the picture on Hotair says, “Mike, that’s not your money.” I agree, it’s not Mike’s money and I am against it. However, which is better: tuition scholarships for what cannot be more than a handful of kids (remember, it was supposed to be merit-based scholarship) or Romneycare with discount abortions available for all citizens of Massachusetts?

I was shouting at the television: “Mitt, it wasn’t your money.” How come Massachusetts Mitt gets a free pass for his big government health care which is awfully close to Hillarycare 2007?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

.
Good point Mitt.
.

Keith_Z on November 29, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Romney made a good point on Glenn Beck this morning. Providing that sort of tuition assistance is simply another incentive to lure people over the border. In other words, you’re not punishing the parent so much as rewarding the parents.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Huckabee is the greatest threat real Republican Conservatives face right now. It is no coincidence every Hillary campaign strategist who got in front of a camera last night had ample praise for Huckabee. I’m begining to wonder if Jimmy Carter… oops I mean Mike Huckabee isn’t a Hillary Clinton plant as well.

Zetterson on November 29, 2007 at 12:54 PM

In other words, you’re not punishing the parent so much as rewarding the parents.

Yes, precisely. That’s what I was getting at in the bit about incentives.

Allahpundit on November 29, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Bravo, Huck–squishy immigration douchebaggery wrapped in a layer of Absolute Moral Authority. Mitt’s absolutely right to call him a liberal on this one.

ReubenJCogburn on November 29, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Romney made a good point on Glenn Beck this morning. Providing that sort of tuition assistance is simply another incentive to lure people over the border. In other words, you’re not punishing the parent so much as rewarding the parents.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM

So true Sublog. Fantastic piece you wrote yesterday by the way. Thanks for that.

Zetterson on November 29, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Huck is a pure liberal. He’s Jimmah Carter with a better Toast-Masters talent. If, by some horrible turn of events, he is the Republican nominee, I’ll be voting independent.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 12:55 PM

In other words, you’re not punishing the parent so much as rewarding the parents.

How so? This is what I didn’t get last night.

If Huckabee is correct; and the child has to be enrolled from when they are 5 all the way through highschool, no criminal record, on the path to citizenship (filed citizenship papers) and are a good student…they are still paying their tuition, right? It’s just not at 3 times the in-state rate.

I don’t see the problem, personally.

Out of state tuition is bunk anyways. I think its stupid that if a floridian wants to go to college in GA, their tuition is higher. Why? Are they consuming more oxygen or something?

lorien1973 on November 29, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Yes, precisely. That’s what I was getting at in the bit about incentives.

Ah, sorry. My reading comprehension is a bit slow this morning.

So true Sublog. Fantastic piece you wrote yesterday by the way. Thanks for that.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM

I don’t see the problem, personally.

The problem is that tuition only makes up about half of total college costs. Much of the rest is state appropriation.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Huck is a pure liberal. He’s Jimmah Carter with a better Toast-Masters talent. If, by some horrible turn of events, he is the Republican nominee, I’ll be voting independent.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 12:55 PM

I’m with you peski. If Huckabee is our nominee I’m voting independent as well. That I’m sure of. Ron Paul is even better then Huckabee.

Zetterson on November 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM

And its the same for everyone enrolled, right? So you should really be arguing that tuition rates should double and get the state out of the college business, right?

lorien1973 on November 29, 2007 at 12:58 PM

I’d vote for a Ron Paul before the Huckster. Either vote would be the moral equivalent of suicide for a conservative voter.

Griz on November 29, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Iowa is half blue half Red. Same with new hampshire. I can see Huck wining Iowa and Mitt Winning New hapshire.

Neither will do well in super tuesday. IF I was thompson or Guiliani the idea isnt to win but place well (2nd or 3rd) in one of the front states.

Mitt and Huck are dead after New Hampshire and Iowa

William Amos on November 29, 2007 at 1:00 PM

And its the same for everyone enrolled, right? So you should really be arguing that tuition rates should double and get the state out of the college business, right?

No, not at all. State appropriation for education is investment in a future workforce. Out-of-state tuition is higher to compensate for the fact that the out of state student is not a taxpayer of that particular state.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 1:01 PM

And its the same for everyone enrolled, right? So you should really be arguing that tuition rates should double and get the state out of the college business, right?

lorien1973 on November 29, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Best suggestion I’ve heard in a while. And, boo-freaking-hoo for all those whining “it’s not fair, I can’t afford it”. I predict the result would be an almost instantaneous bumper crop of new, creative, lean education alternatives, including technical schools, online, career and trade specialized training etcetera. It would ROCK.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 1:03 PM

So those American students who have to pay out-of-state tuition are being punished for their parents’ decision to live in a different state?

VerbumSap on November 29, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Wow. Look at all the Huck-hate.

Purple Fury on November 29, 2007 at 1:04 PM

So those American students who have to pay out-of-state tuition are being punished for their parents’ decision to live in a different state?

No, just for choosing to send their child to a state where they do not pay taxes.

FWIW – I work for a state university.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Wow. Look at all the Huck-hate.

Ah, I see this becoming a familiar refrain. If you disagree with Huckabee, it’s not political opposition, it’s hate.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 1:06 PM

There sure are a lot of shamnesty shills in the audience.

nottakingsides on November 29, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Ah, I see this becoming a familiar refrain. If you disagree with Huckabee, it’s not political opposition, it’s hate.
.
Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 1:06 PM

.
It’s not hate, it’s just goofball libtards pretending to be conservative.
.
They hate everything, so they really hate nothing.
.
How’s that for PC doubletalk, Buckwheat?
.

Keith_Z on November 29, 2007 at 1:12 PM

State appropriation for education is investment in a future workforce. Out-of-state tuition is higher to compensate for the fact that the out of state student is not a taxpayer of that particular state.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Wait. If the student is enrolled in school since they are 5, they go to highschool there and college. You are about as likely to have them get a job there as any other student, right? According to Huck, not every kid qualifies – only lifelong school attendees, path to citizenship, no record. You cannot guarantee every college grad gets a job in the state anyways. I’d say your chances are no less than these students. A better argument, I believe, is getting the state out of education than the one that’s being made here.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 1:03 PM

I’m sure you are being sarcastic; but if you take the cost of education as an investment then the cost of college isn’t that bad. Say a doctor pays $200,000 tuition to get his degree. How much will he make over his lifetime from that degree? 4-5 million? More? I’d say a 20:1 return on your investment is pretty good, wouldn’t you?

Same could be said for most degrees.

lorien1973 on November 29, 2007 at 1:13 PM

They are called “state” universities. Just like community colleges, they are there for the purpose of the people of the area, or state.

Rose on November 29, 2007 at 1:13 PM

This was one of Romney’s finest moments last night. Not a great performance overall, but still pretty good. I thought he bested McCain about waterboarding, and held his own about believing in the bible. (wish he’d clear it up like Kennedy did in 9/60) Thompson tagged him again for being a flipper.

Beside Huckabee, even Giuliani looks good.

jaime on November 29, 2007 at 1:14 PM

According to Huck, not every kid qualifies – only lifelong school attendees, path to citizenship, no record.

Not quite true. You only have to attend high school in Arkansas for three years to qualify.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 1:16 PM

Not quite true. You only have to attend high school in Arkansas for three years to qualify.

He said you had to be in school, in state, since you were 5 or 6. No criminal record. Path to citizenship. A link to show he lied here? That’d clear up the whole thing for me.

As described by huck at the debate, I have no problem with that plan at all.

lorien1973 on November 29, 2007 at 1:18 PM

Here’s the text of the bill. (pdf)

Here are the qualifications for the program:

(b) A student without documented immigration status shall be exempt from paying the nonresident portion of total tuition for attendance at a state-supported institution of higher education, if the student:
(1) Attended high school in Arkansas for no fewer than three (3) school years;
(2) Graduated from a high school in Arkansas or received a General Education Development diploma in the state; and
(3) Is or has been admitted at an institution of higher education.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM

See, now that’s different. If that’s the plan mentioned by Huckabee it says something totally different than he said at the debate.

If the plan is as he said:
in school from elementary to high school each year.
no criminal record
filed paperwork for citizenship status

then I’d have no problem with it. But none of those are here. An affidavit saying “yeah, I’ll get to it” doesn’t quite cut it for me.

lorien1973 on November 29, 2007 at 1:27 PM

God help us all if Huck wins the nod. Hillary is licking her chops and just hoping,hoping,hoping.

awake on November 29, 2007 at 1:32 PM

I’m sure you are being sarcastic; but if you take the cost of education as an investment then the cost of college isn’t that bad. Say a doctor pays $200,000 tuition to get his degree. How much will he make over his lifetime from that degree? 4-5 million? More? I’d say a 20:1 return on your investment is pretty good, wouldn’t you?

Same could be said for most degrees.

lorien1973 on November 29, 2007 at 1:13 PM

No sarcasm whatsoever. I want government out of education. Free market = lower cost and better results.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Update: Reader Vaughn R. makes a good point:

You can’t refuse health care to anyone in the US. They show up in the ER and they can’t be denied service. The MA system is an attempt to get them to pay one way or the other, since right now, we are all paying for it anyway.

I see no similarity whatsoever with tuition breaks and scholarships. It’s apples and watermelons.

TheBigOldDog on November 29, 2007 at 1:38 PM

Update: Think progress! “Huckabee is likely to suffer for refusing to demagogue immigration.”

ROFLMAO!

So when he called those who disagreed with his pro illegal, pro serf master plantation owner policies Un-Aremican and un-Christian that was not being a demagogue?

I sure don’t know what it would take to be one then.

Must be impossible.

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM

I’ve also read that before. I was shocked to hear him talking about scholarship and exceptional student at the debate. Can someone with some pull do a story about that? MM, Allah, anyone? Was he total BSing there? My mouth dropped open, b/c I though he was either totally lying or about five or six blogs I had read before got the story wrong previously. WTF?!?!!?!?

He made it sound like little Alberto Einsteinos were being denied scholarships or something? A GED with three years of high school doesn’t mesh with what I heard come out of Huck’s mouth at the debate.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Huck definitely showed himself to be philosophically liberal in that exhange with his equation:

Denying govt. funded benefits = punishment.

thirteen28 on November 29, 2007 at 1:41 PM

It’s not hate, it’s just goofball libtards pretending to be conservative.
.
They hate everything, so they really hate nothing.
.
How’s that for PC doubletalk, Buckwheat?
.

Keith_Z on November 29, 2007 at 1:12 PM

Wha?

Did I miss something? Are you calling me a libtard pretending to hate Huck? Or…? Please clarify.

Perhaps your definition of a lib is someone who differs whith the Huckster on his religious views? If so, take your Jimmah and like it.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Romney made a good point on Glenn Beck this morning. Providing that sort of tuition assistance is simply another incentive to lure people over the border. In other words, you’re not punishing the parent so much as rewarding the parents.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Excellent point.

Look, everyone here is aware of the unfortunate plight of the kids. “Here’s the sad reality: kids pay a big price for having lousy parents. If dad commits a murder and goes to jail for 20 years, he’s separated from his family. Is that the fault of the system or the fault or the murderer? If you have a single mom and she’s too lazy to work for a living and ends up sponging off of everyone else, the kid is going to be poor and embarrassed by the situation. Whose fault is that, the system or the parent? If the parents have terrible moral values, get a divorce, or just plain old aren’t good parents, the kids get hurt by that. Did the system create those problems or did the parents?

And if you come to the United States illegally, you’re putting the kids you have here or bring with you in a bad position because the law requires you to be deported if you’re caught (and that has been the case for a long, long, long time). So, the problem these kids have isn’t the law, it’s that they have lousy, irresponsible parents. If they cared more about their children, they wouldn’t have put them in this position in the first place.”

I agree with the above. But I have another question:

When does our country finally draw the line in the sand, and say, “Enough is Enough.” Illegal immigration did not occur last night, or last year. Illegal immigration has been occuring for decades, and our country’s policy, up to this point in time, has been to reward illegal behavior with the gift of USA citizenship.

We know that there have been 7 amnesties given to reward illegal aliens for breaking the law SINCE 1986.

And that message is resonating clearly with illegal aliens. Break the law, slip into the USA illegally, and just wait for the government to reward your illegal behavior with the gift of USA citizenship.

It is the same principle with educational benefits for children of illegal aliens. When the government provides benefits, in effect, you are sending the same encouraging message to illegal aliens that there are financial incentives that reward their illegal behavior.

When are we ever going to say, “Enough is Enough.”

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 1:42 PM

I’m begining to wonder if Jimmy Carter… oops I mean Mike Huckabee isn’t a Hillary Clinton plant as well.

Zetterson on November 29, 2007 at 12:54 PM

She would win in a landslide over Jimmy II, much as Reagan did over Jimmy I.

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 1:43 PM

You can’t refuse health care to anyone in the US. They show up in the ER and they can’t be denied service.

Good point.

I work in a hospital, and our Emergency Room is packed full of illegal aliens seeking non-urgent, non-critical, out-patient healthcare in the ER using State Medicaid funds provided by USA taxpayers. Because they are seeking out-patient, “non-critical” services (HINT: non-ER type of healthcare) it causes a huge financial, staffing, and clinical drain on the hospital’s resources.

That is why our nation’s Emergency Rooms and hospitals are struggling financially to remain open.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Yeah, the difference between Romneycare and this is that the money was already being spent regardless in RomneyCare; he just is trying to redirect it to a better purpose–and cutting costs.

Vanceone on November 29, 2007 at 1:59 PM

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 1:53 PM

That’s why in MA, the idea is to treat it more like car insurance. Everybody has to have it. This way, we move them out of the ER and into Doctors offices thus reduce the overall cost and critical care resource shortgaes.

Will it work? I hove no idea but it’s worth a shot because right now they get very expensive free care while also breaking the critical care system.

TheBigOldDog on November 29, 2007 at 2:00 PM

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Based on what you just said, would you say that there is a shortage of medical personnel in this country that would be resolved if most illegals just went home?

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Based on what you just said, would you say that there is a shortage of medical personnel in this country that would be resolved if most illegals just went home?

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 2:02 PM

To be clear, I would say:

that illegal immigration is contributing negatively to the closing of many hospitals due to finanical reasons.

Personally, I have not ran numbers on whether there is a “shortage of medical personnel or not.”

I do know there is a “shortage of funds” required to keep a hospital running in the black simply because illegal immigration is an economic nightmare for hospitals.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 2:10 PM

I can’t believe what I’m hearing. Do you people honestly think that a kid who’s gone through the entire public school system in America, done well, and is now applying for a scholarship should be punished because his/her parents broke the law? The kid didn’t do anything wrong, and s/he’s worked hard to do well in school, and now BLAM! Sorry, your parents are illegals. Screw you.

Look, I’m extremely concerned about the problem of border security, and I do not support amnesty by any means. But Huckabee is RIGHT on this issue, and I think it’s outrageous he’s being attacked on this — especially by people who claim to be Christians. He said the right thing when he said that American is better than this.

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:14 PM

But Huckabee is RIGHT on this issue, and I think it’s outrageous he’s being attacked on this — especially by people who claim to be Christians. He said the right thing when he said that American is better than this.

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:14 PM

The people who claim to be Christian and who are expressing their disagreement with Huckabee, me included, do so on the Biblical basis that it is unbiblical and wrong for the State to provide financial incentives to people who break the law.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 2:19 PM

I do know there is a “shortage of funds” required to keep a hospital running in the black simply because illegal immigration is an economic nightmare for hospitals.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 2:10 PM

I would surmise that our school system and our law enforcement/prison system are in at least a somewhat similar “boat” as our medical system.

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 2:19 PM

and is now applying for a scholarship should be punished because his/her parents broke the law?

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:14 PM

No one is being punished if tax payers don’t give them a boat load of money.

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 2:22 PM

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 2:19 PM

I agree with you.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 2:23 PM

But Huckabee is RIGHT on this issue, and I think it’s outrageous he’s being attacked on this — especially by people who claim to be Christians. He said the right thing when he said that American is better than this.

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Dear God, now you sound just like the Huckster.

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:14 PM

I agree. Many of them might not even really know their parents’ legal status.

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 2:26 PM

I would surmise that our school system and our law enforcement/prison system are in at least a somewhat similar “boat” as our medical system.

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 2:19 PM

I like to illustrate it this way (numbers are my own estimate except the LAUSD cost per child which is accurate):

Above average go-getter illegal alien has two jobs at $10/hour. Say he works 60 hours/week, that makes $600 x 52 weeks, which is $31,200 per year gross income. He gets social security and medicare deducted, but pays a very small percentage of that in taxes.

Same dude has 3 kids, 2 school age. The ACTUAL cost to the state for education of each child in the LAUSD is over $10,000, for a total of $20,000, increasing to $30,000 when the youngest starts school.

So, the actual cost of educating his 3 kids is equal to his total gross income.

This is why conservative estimates are that illegal aliens represent at $10 BILLION annual drain on the economy in California alone.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 2:28 PM

This is why conservative estimates are that illegal aliens represent at $10 BILLION annual drain on the economy in California alone.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 2:28 PM

What is the economic cost of NOT educating them?

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 2:30 PM

ColtsFan: the kids did not break the law. Their parents did. Is it Christian to stretch the truth to fit a preconceived agenda?

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:30 PM

When it comes to Huckabee, the more I see, the less I like. His views seem to be a mutant hybrid of the very worst of GWB’s domestic policy ideas (big-gov’t “conservatism”, soft on immigration/border control) and Jimmy Carter’s, circa 1976, when Mr. Peanut was still pushing the Southern evangelical angle. Two questions: Why exactly is this putz running as a Republican? Is there some unique feature about the political culture of Arkansas that creates and rewards devious, glib snake-oil salesmen?

Travis Bickle on November 29, 2007 at 2:31 PM

P. S. I just watched the video clip (hadn’t before), and Mitt’s response to Mike was a complete load of rubbish. From what I understand, Huckabee was pushing for the kids of illegal aliens to get not any kind of special break whatsoever but simply the same kind of break as anyone else. In other words, it wasn’t discrimination against the kids of legals, it was a removal of discrimination against the kids of illegals. Romney was making it sound like Huckabee would be giving special breaks to illegals’ kids that wouldn’t be available to anyone else. That is wrong, and it shows once again the level of weaseliness that Romney regularly employs.

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Above average go-getter illegal alien has two jobs at $10/hour. Say he works 60 hours/week, that makes $600 x 52 weeks, which is $31,200 per year gross income. He gets social security and medicare deducted, but pays a very small percentage of that in taxes.

I think the evidence reveals that many illegal aliens do not pay taxes. If they did pay taxes and Social Security, then their employer would receive a letter from the SSA informing them that the SSN for the illegal alien does not match up. So to avoid this letter from the government, the employer often pays illegal aliens with cash payments.

According to The Los Angeles Times, 40% of all workers are working for cash and not paying taxes.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Providing that sort of tuition assistance is simply another incentive to lure people over the border.

By that argument, you could demand an ID card of anyone needing critical medical care (e.g., defibrillation, gunshot wound treatment, etc.). After all, a superior health system is an incentive for illegal aliens, so the only way to stop that incentive is to demand a passport before any medical professional attempts to save a life. Virtually none of even the strictest enforcement advocates would demand that we let illegal aliens and those who don’t constantly carry a passport (or national ID card) die, but that’s the logical conclusion of the “zero tolerance” philosophy.

I realize that educating a student isn’t the same as treating a heart attack, but you’re not going to win over most Americans by calling any benefit to living in America that’s not denied illegal aliens “another incentive” that we need to curtail. Language like that is why politicians and journalists feel free to ignore poll numbers and dismiss those calling for better enforcement as less realistic than those advocating amnesty. As long as all sides inflexibly talk past one another, we’re just going to have the same system we have now, a system few on either side are happy with.

Still, although I have a lot of sympathy (if not total agreement) with Huckabee on this subject, of the five serious candidates, he’s the one I’d be least likely to vote for based on this debate. Though McCain still creeps me out with his habit of addressing anyone who happens to be within earshot as “my friends.” I could do without that rhetorical device.

calbear on November 29, 2007 at 2:38 PM

According to The Los Angeles Times, 40% of all workers are working for cash and not paying taxes.

This could include a kid mowing lawns, an entrepreneur selling items on the Internet, a would-be actor working tables at a restaurant willing to pay cash, or an actor trying to find any acting job, even one that doesn’t pay scale. The one person I knew in L.A. who was paid in cash was an American who worked for a small business that was glad to avoid all the trouble that taxes bring. There are a lot of immigrants in L.A. County, but it would be interesting to see what percent of that 40% are illegal immigrants, and not just people too poor to worry about taxes or unwilling to pay them. Citizens break tax laws too, you know.

calbear on November 29, 2007 at 2:46 PM

What is the economic cost of NOT educating them?

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Straw man. By law we have to educate them. The point is, those who claim all value and no cost are blowing smoke. We need to cut through the crap, secure the border, and control who we let in. Do we have a high demand for cheap labor? Yes, but let them in legally in a controlled manner with eyes wide open as to the actual cost/benefit.

Huckabee’s positions on this are just typical liberal race bating socialism.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 2:47 PM

ColtsFan: the kids did not break the law. Their parents did. Is it Christian to stretch the truth to fit a preconceived agenda?
Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:30 PM

I have compassion on the kids. I know many of them personally myself.

In a fallen world like ours, bad parents make bad decisions which affect the kids negatively. But that is a fault of the parents, not the system. It is unbiblical to redefine “Christian compassion” into mandating the state to provide financial incentives for people (their parents) who break the law.

Before you become quick to accuse me of “stretching the truth,” have you considered that the parents are teaching their kids lawlessness through their actions?

And the Bible reveals that it is not the purpose of the State to reward law-breakers with financial incentives of any kind. That is anarchy, not “Christian compassion.”

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 2:49 PM

What is the economic cost of NOT educating them?

How much for a bus ticket to Tijuana?

Seriously, though, I’m always suspicious of those who point out that immigrants are a net positive tax-wise. They never seem to say that illegal immigrants are a net positive….

calbear on November 29, 2007 at 2:49 PM

What is the economic cost of NOT educating them?

We do educate them. By federal law, states have to provide primary and secondary education to all children in this country, regardless of immigration status.

The question is whether states are obligated to extend that to post-secondary education.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 2:53 PM

This could include a kid mowing lawns, an entrepreneur selling items on the Internet, a would-be actor working tables at a restaurant willing to pay cash, or an actor trying to find any acting job, even one that doesn’t pay scale. The one person I knew in L.A. who was paid in cash was an American who worked for a small business that was glad to avoid all the trouble that taxes bring. There are a lot of immigrants in L.A. County, but it would be interesting to see what percent of that 40% are illegal immigrants, and not just people too poor to worry about taxes or unwilling to pay them. Citizens break tax laws too, you know.
calbear on November 29, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Good point.

I kinda think that many employers who hire illegals don’t want to receive a government letter in the mail about wrong SSN…

But you made an excellent point above.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Illegal “immigrants” from Mexico are obviously a net minus (not for the serf master platation owners of course).

If they were so good for a country’s economy Mexico would be a power house, as I believe a majority of Mexico’s population is still in Mexico, as of now anyway.

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 3:00 PM

It is unbiblical to redefine “Christian compassion” into mandating the state to provide financial incentives for people (their parents) who break the law.

Tell me this: who broke the law and is getting a financial incentive? Again, I think it’s morally wrong to punish the kid (deny them the same opportunity as any other kid) simply because they happen to have criminal parents, and I think any argument to the contrary is not in keeping with either Biblical justice or mercy. If you disagree, that’s fine, but calling someone a liberal because they believe in mercy is political tomfoolery.

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 3:04 PM

as I believe a majority of Mexico’s population is still in Mexico, as of now anyway.

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Actually, Mexico’s total population is recently estimated around 109 million:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/mx.html

Estimates for illegals in the US range from 12 million to almost 40 million. Say its 20 million Mexicans – that’s almost 20% of the whole freaking country.

Technically, you’re right, it is a majority. But jeez.

peski on November 29, 2007 at 3:06 PM

If they were so good for a country’s economy Mexico would be a power house, as I believe a majority of Mexico’s population is still in Mexico, as of now anyway.

That flies in the face of all logic. Conservatives of all people should know the difference the economic and political infrastructure makes. I mean, we’ve seen economies go from pathetic to booming with the fall of the Iron Curtain. A new economic structure means different opportunities to contribute and succeed. A person who in Mexico might be doing little to nothing for the economy might, in the U.S., help greatly. If Bill Gates had been born in (and stayed in) Mexico, where do you think he’s be now? Do you really think there would have been a Mexican Microsoft?

Again, that doesn’t address whether they are a net plus or minus tax-wise, but it is silly to think that a worker’s output is independent of the environment he or she works in.

calbear on November 29, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Tell me this: who broke the law and is getting a financial incentive?

The parents of these hurting kids broke the law by dragging their young kids across the border illegally.

These same parents then economically benefit, under Huckabee’s proposed plan, by having their immoral choices rewarded by the state with educational benefits ( with financial implications) that accrue to their kids.

Thus, the illegal alien parents have “benefited” by breaking the law.

Again, I think it’s morally wrong to punish the kid (deny them the same opportunity as any other kid) simply because they happen to have criminal parents, and I think any argument to the contrary is not in keeping with either Biblical justice or mercy.

And do you understand that tens of millions of potential illegal aliens in foreign countries receive your message loud and clear, and think to themselves, “it does pay to cross the border illegally in the USA? It does pay to break the laws in America.”

and I think any argument to the contrary is not in keeping with either Biblical justice or mercy.

This is something that I would like to have an extended discussion on.

Christians, myself included, frequently confuse “justice” and “mercy” all the time.

If you disagree, that’s fine, but calling someone a liberal because they believe in mercy is political tomfoolery.

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 3:04 PM

I disagree because I know the Bible prohibits rewarding law-breakers with benefits.

I have never called you a liberal.

I was only trying to have an informed discussion on this topic.

But thank you for your contributions and your thoughts.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 3:20 PM

outrageous

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:14 PM

LOL. Spoken like a true liberal. Outrageous that the U.S. taxpayers won’t give a free ride through college to a foreign national.

jaime on November 29, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Huck has a habit for thinking of ways to get other people’s money and then give away.

Take the Quality Assurance Fee, aka Nursing Home Bed-Tax. All the money charged nursing homes (and put into a separate dedicated Medicaid fund) was then chargeable by the nursing homes as a cost to the regular state and fed matching funded Medicaid Program. HelloooOO! That fed money wasn’t his either but since this was a convenient way to bloat costs to not just the state taxpayers but to grab fed money, he had no problem with that, did he?

Soak the country why don’t ya, Huck?

Dusty on November 29, 2007 at 3:39 PM

I think this article is helpful as a first step in understanding the topic of, “what should a Christian think about illegal immigration?”

But I do not think the article goes far enough.

Repeatedly, the Biblical theme of God ordaining government in a different realm or “sphere” than that of the church is echoed throughout the pages of Scripture.

This has led theologians and pastors to adopt the “2 Kingdom View” regarding government and the church.

God ordains government to discharge functions (enforcing laws, punishing law-breakers, etc) that are different ***qualitatively*** from those separate functions that God ordains for the church to have.

One realm (church) should not be in the business of telling another realm (the government) “it is okay to not discharge your God-ordained functions.” That would be unbiblical.
Similarly, the reverse holds true as well.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 3:50 PM

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Thanks. I meant to, but forgot to, add that since that 40% is percent of workers, not cash, it’s not quite as bad as it sounds. The college student tutoring for public school tuition may not pay taxes, but those in net-positive tax brackets generally will.

calbear on November 29, 2007 at 3:59 PM

can’t believe what I’m hearing. Do you people honestly think that a kid who’s gone through the entire public school system in America, done well, and is now applying for a scholarship should be punished because his/her parents broke the law? The kid didn’t do anything wrong, and s/he’s worked hard to do well in school, and now BLAM! Sorry, your parents are illegals. Screw you.

Look, I’m extremely concerned about the problem of border security, and I do not support amnesty by any means. But Huckabee is RIGHT on this issue, and I think it’s outrageous he’s being attacked on this — especially by people who claim to be Christians. He said the right thing when he said that American is better than this.

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:14 PM

You are WRONG and Huck is a LIAR
Read the language of the bill posted here:

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Text of the link to the bill is below:

ftp://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/bills/2005/public/HB1525/HB1525-020920051453.pdf

Student had to have been in an Arkansas high school for 3 years and have a GED. Have to sign a friggin’ STATEMENT saying they will get legalized. whoopdefuckindoo. Doesn’t mean jack, could have been here 3 years total, got a GED. And they are eligible for state scholarships and automatically get in-state tuition breaks. Huck is a liar, and he’s shown that on more than once occassion.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 4:00 PM

According to The Los Angeles Times, 40% of all workers are working for cash and not paying taxes.

More importantly, the notion that the LA Times claimed 40% of county workers work for cash seems to be a lie. Still, the underground economy – involving citizens and noncitizens – is big enough that it sounded plausible on first glance.

calbear on November 29, 2007 at 4:12 PM

I disagree because I know the Bible prohibits rewarding law-breakers with benefits.

And I know the Bible prohibits punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Saying the parents economically benefit because their children get the same chance as anyone else is ludicrous. Parents “benefit” if anything good whatsoever happens to their kids, simply because it’s their kids. If you want to take that a step further, we should deny children who are legally here tuition breaks if their parents are criminals who scammed welfare because the scholarships benefit the parents. In fact, let’s just deny state aid of any kind to any children of criminals, because the criminals “benefit”.

BTW, ColtsFan, I know you didn’t call *me* a liberal…I was referring to other people here using that term based on Huckbee’s position. Sorry for the confusion. :)

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 4:16 PM

calbear on November 29, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Thank you for your research. I have made a note of your
documentation. I was unaware of the Snopes entry.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 4:21 PM

And I know the Bible prohibits punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Saying the parents economically benefit because their children get the same chance as anyone else is ludicrous.

Non-citizens do not get the same chance as “anyone else.” Nor do they “deserve” the same chance as anyone else. By definition, the children of non-citizens in a faraway country do not have the same opportunity as USA kids.

The illegal alien parents knows this, and wants to eliminate this distinction between “legal vs. illegal” and instead wants to change the subject and talk about “resident vs. non-resident.”

Parents “benefit” if anything good whatsoever happens to their kids, simply because it’s their kids. If you want to take that a step further, we should deny children who are legally here tuition breaks if their parents are criminals who scammed welfare because the scholarships benefit the parents. In fact, let’s just deny state aid of any kind to any children of criminals, because the criminals “benefit”.

That is not my argument, nor is it a logical extension of any argument I have made.

Here is my argument:

Rewarding the children of illegals with in-state tuition ***incentizes*** and encourages bad behavior, which is contrary to what the Bible mandates for government. The government is supposed to operate in a manner that benefits its citizens for the common welfare, not for invaders.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 4:37 PM

There are a lot of immigrants in L.A. County, but it would be interesting to see what percent of that 40% are illegal immigrants, and not just people too poor to worry about taxes or unwilling to pay them. Citizens break tax laws too, you know.
calbear on November 29, 2007 at 2:46 PM

I may have missed it, but when did we (especially conservatives) start judging the economic value generated by a worker in terms of the amount of money the government makes off of him in taxes?

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Do you people honestly think that a kid who’s gone through the entire public school system in America, done well, and is now applying for a scholarship should be punished because his/her parents broke the law? The kid didn’t do anything wrong, and s/he’s worked hard to do well in school, and now BLAM! Sorry, your parents are illegals. Screw you.

You could make the same argument for out-of-state students. Should a student pay twice as much because his parents made the mistake of living in Montana rather than California? Again, I have sympathy with both sides, but not with the notion of either zero-tolerance on one hand or that all scholarships need to avoid any residency or citizenship requirements. Surely there’s a happy medium here.

I was unaware of the Snopes entry.

Yeah – like I said, the 40% was believable, but some of the other figures were not. And, though believable, I now doubt it’s anywhere near 40%, since that number seems to have been pulled out of thin air.

calbear on November 29, 2007 at 4:44 PM

You could make the same argument for out-of-state students. Should a student pay twice as much because his parents made the mistake of living in Montana rather than California? Again, I have sympathy with both sides, but not with the notion of either zero-tolerance on one hand or that all scholarships need to avoid any residency or citizenship requirements. Surely there’s a happy medium here.

Not to mention the fact that Huck lied, and that is total BS. See the headlines for Slublog’s post over at Ace of Spades HQ. That is one scholarship. Is a red herring. The questions of in-state tuition has nothing to do with those requirements, only need a GED and 3 years of Arkansas high school for an illegal immigrant.

RW Wacko on November 29, 2007 at 4:59 PM

Fred is looking better and better and better. Eh?

Griz on November 29, 2007 at 6:02 PM

By census bureau statistic 50% of hispanic immigrants don’t even have a high school diploma. So they won’t be needing college assistance anytime soon.

xler8bmw on November 29, 2007 at 8:12 PM

I was shouting at the television: “Mitt, it wasn’t your money.” How come Massachusetts Mitt gets a free pass for his big government health care which is awfully close to Hillarycare 2007?

I dont think it is the same. What state outsiders don’t understand is that MA already has free health care for the poor. I mean beyond ER care, there actually is a card you get from the state called MASSHEALTH. This is not something new or created by Mitt.

The MassHealth program provides comprehensive health insurance—or help in paying for private health insurance—to more than one million Massachusetts

Thats is 20% of the population, NOW, before ‘Romney care’ is in effect.

People yelling that Mitt created government health care in MA dont seem to get that what he really did was reform a big government system that was already there.

Resolute on November 29, 2007 at 8:36 PM

If Bill Gates had been born in (and stayed in) Mexico, where do you think he’s be now? Do you really think there would have been a Mexican Microsoft?

calbear on November 29, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Started Mexican Microsoft? Maybe, maybe not. We will never know.

Become El Presidente of Mexico and turned the country around?
Maybe he would have done that.

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 9:01 PM