Dianne Feinstein supports taking tuition discounts from Americans

Posted Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 8:16 am
Buried in this 2/24 article is this:
[Senator Dianne Feinstein] said she would co-sponsor a bill that would offer college grants to the undocumented youths who arrived in the United States before age 16 and have been here at least five years.
As pointed out before, every discount given to an illegal alien means one less for an American.

Therefore, Senator Dianne Feinstein wants to take discounted college educations away from American citizens and give them to citizens of other countries who are here illegally.

On an ironic note came this Feb. 9 press release from the Senator:
"...Cuts to federal student loan programs--$12.7 billion over the next five years--will push college out of reach for many middle and low income families. In California, the [budget reconciliation bill] will cost the University of California system more than $10 million over the next three years, and make college less affordable for thousands of California's college students. And graduates will face student loan payments with rates over 7% as they try to get on their feet.

The bottom line is that this irresponsible spending-cut bill represents relief for the wealthy in exchange for greater burdens on our nation's poorest and most vulnerable citizens."
Perhaps she's just confused over the definition of "citizen". Write her here and suggest a good dictionary.

Tags: 
dianne feinstein

Comments

eh (not verified)

Wed, 03/01/2006 - 23:10

"quite another"

Not to these people. It's almost like they think of it as a matter of conscience -- a form of righteous civil disobedience. I can accept that sort of thing when it comes from a religious group; like I said, they regard themselves as answering to a higher power, and I'll grant them that. But the same thing coming from newspaper reporters and editors?

perroazul del norte (not verified)

Wed, 03/01/2006 - 15:44

Even if a somewhat strong measure like 4437 comes out of the Senate(a long shot given the makeup of the Senate) the question is whether the executive branch(no matter which party is in power) would actually enforce the law. The last two administrations(especially), have shown quite blatant contempt for the immigration laws. Tom Tancredo has expressed precisely this concern.

D Flinchum (not verified)

Wed, 03/01/2006 - 08:32

eh, you are probably right about what these editors know; but it's one thing to advocate changing a law that you disagree with and quite another to advocate disobeying the law outright.

eh (not verified)

Wed, 03/01/2006 - 05:33

"better than newspaper editors"

Even if they knew all of that (they probably do), and had thought it through (they probably have), it wouldn't matter -- some people, WaPo editors included, just do not regard being here illegally as a crime authorities ought to punish. In fact, in the latest entry here, some people are actually complaining that HR 4437 will 'permanently criminalize undocumented immigrants'. And we all know we don't want to do that.

D Flinchum (not verified)

Wed, 03/01/2006 - 05:11

At least Sen. Feinstein seems to realize that states can't legally offer in-state tuition to these students. I read today that the VA senate has decided to postpone consideration of offering in-state tuition to illegal immigrants on advice of the state Attorney General's office. Both the Washington Post and the Roanoke (VA) Times urged the passage of this bill. I wrote letters to the editor of both papers (published in the RT, still waiting on WP)and find it remarkable that a mere citizen like myself keeps up on this sort of thing better than newspaper editors - one of them an award-winning national paper of record.

Also it doesn't matter at what age they came to the US, nor how long they've been here. They can graduate with a BA from Yale and a law degree from Harvard. If they are still illegally in the US after all of this, they cannot work anywhere legally.

eh (not verified)

Tue, 02/28/2006 - 23:21

"before age 16 and have been here at least five years"

You have to admire -- or maybe not -- the way they always tack on these semi-arbitrary conditions; as if satisfying them means those here illegally (this fact seems relatively unimportant in comparison) really do deserve a break.

Why not before age...14? And here...3 years?

After so much of this you really have to conclude that many public officials are intellectual children.