With the sensational headline, "Arizona Law Takes a Toll on Nonresident Students," the Times gives us the tale of woe of students that want to steal from Arizona's educational system. They begin their tale with the experience of Marco Carrillo who was asked by his college counselor if he was a legal resident or not. The Times acts as if even asking this question is somehow mean-spirited or shocking.
"The very first question she asked me was whether I was a legal resident here," said Mr. Carrillo, 20, now an electrical engineering student at Arizona State University in Tempe. "And I said, ‘Yeah, I am.’ And she said, ‘Oh good, that makes things easier."
But, see, Mr. Carrillo IS a resident. So, what is the problem here? The problem, as the NYT sees it, apparently is that it is unseemly even to ask. But, Arizona's new Proposition 300 requires the new focus on citizenship and the NYT is appalled by such a thing,
Such questions have become commonplace in Arizona, where voters passed a 2006 referendum, Proposition 300, that forbids college students who cannot prove they are legal residents from receiving state financial assistance.
To any real American, this seems like a sensible and good rule. If you aren't a legal resident, why the heck should you get all sort of financial breaks to go to school in Arizona? But, the NYT seems to want to warn us about how eeevil this law is.
One of several recent immigration statutes passed by Arizona voters and legislators frustrated by federal inaction, the law also prohibits in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Administrators at several campuses fear that the provision has priced some out of their classes, particularly at the state’s popular community colleges.
Let's face it, these "administrators" don't give a rat's el'rearo if these kids of illegals get an education or not. They are mourning the loss of Federal money, the loss of loan money, and students in the seats of their institutions as a result of this law and that is ALL they care about. It's all about the cash. Fewer students means less money for them.
And now for the scaremongering and stupidity of the let's-give-the-store-away set:
More than enrollment declines, however, what worries some educators here is that nonlegal residents — some of whom have lived in the United States since infancy and attended American high schools — will be afraid to pursue any form of higher education.
"The most frightening thing about the policy in place isn’t necessarily its measurable effect, it’s the immeasurable effect,” said Paul R. Kohn, the vice provost for enrollment management and dean of admission at the University of Arizona.
What's "frightening" is the lies and demagoguery that these illegal coddlers resort to. Here is the thing that the appeasers and the Times don't seem to want to focus on; The new law does not prevent anyone from going to school anywhere (Though they do mention it at least). It merely forces them to pay their full and fair share of the costs.
The law does not forbid nonlegal residents from attending college or require colleges to report them to the authorities, something the colleges have worked hard to convey. Still, supporters said the law would save the state millions of dollars and provide a powerful disincentive to prospective border-jumpers.
Notice how, after mentioning that the law doesn't really prevent any educating, the Times goes on to focus on the supposed harm the law causes?
Again, why should an non-legal resident get all sorts of tuition breaks? And how does this provide any real "disincentive" for those who really want an education?
And here is another thought, perhaps it actually provides an incentive rather than a disincentive to these illegal resident students? Perhaps it provides the incentive to these illegals to go through the efforts to become legal?
In any case, it all comes down to what is right and what is fair. No resident of any other U.S. state can flood into Arizona and get all sorts of financial breaks to go to school there. So, why should a person who is not even a citizen of this country get these breaks that even other Americans don't get?
Whatever the case, the NYT and their pals in the open borders crowd are trying to spin this sensible Arizona law as the worst thing ever when it is just one example of a law that works just fine.
