Should Illegal Immigrants Get a Break On College Tuition?

This article is being republished with permission of Chris Freind

 

By Chris Freind

“College is becoming a pipe dream for too many children, not because
they aren’t talented or willing to work hard, but because they can’t
afford it.”

That’s a true statement, as tuition costs have far outpaced
inflation. So the elected official who said this must have a clue,
right? Not a chance.

In an act that simply defies comprehension, State Representative Tony
Payton (D-179)  of Philadelphia has just unveiled a bill that “would allow
undocumented immigrant students to pay in-state tuition at any
Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education school, community college
or state-related university.” (This is similar to the proposed federal
law known as the DREAM Act).

Hey Tony, nice to stick it to all the law-abiding Pennsylvania
residents who want to attend college. And who says good constituent
service is hard to find?

Why the handout to those who least deserve it? Because, as Tony
explains, “undocumented students are not eligible for federal financial
aid, (so) college is often extremely expensive and simply out of reach
for many of these students.”

Oh, the tragedy.

Of course, there is something that apparently hasn’t occurred to Tony
as to why federal financial aid — political codespeak for American
taxpayer dollars — is not available to these folks. They’re ILLEGAL. As
in, they have broken the law to get here and are breaking the law being
here. Every single thing they do hurts American citizens and throws
our nation deeper into the red.

Yet not only are we supposed to feel guilty, but if Tony has his way,
we should compensate them for their plight by sacrificing our children —
so that theirs can have an education courtesy of the taxpayers.

Let’s set the record straight with facts — not rhetoric. Illegal
immigrants depress wages and take American jobs (and please, spare us
the tired argument that “they only take the jobs Americans don’t want” —
completely false). They cost taxpayers hundreds of billions (thousands
directly out of each American family’s pocket) through healthcare costs,
education expenditures (in Pennsylvania, every illegal in our public
schools costs $15,000 per year, and that’s not including the extra money
needed for additional teachers and classrooms), prison expenses, and
yes, government services.

In the case of higher education, as addressed in Payton’s bill, it’s
important to remember that just because we are talking about state
universities, space is not unlimited. So one of two things is true: with
illegals in attendance, the college will either 1) close its doors to
new applicants after a given class is filled, thereby denying the RIGHT
of a legitimate Pennsylvania resident to attend that school, or 2) once a
classroom hits capacity, the need to hire additional professors and
expand school facilities is triggered — both expensive propositions
borne by the forgotten taxpayer.

The only saving grace is that, with Republicans in control of
Harrisburg, Payton’s bill should have no shot at passage. But that’s not
the point. The real question is how such a bill could even be
considered in the first place, and how 11 other states already passed
similar legislation.

And quite frankly, this author doesn’t know what’s worse: the fact
that a bill was introduced that empowers people to break the law, or the
almost complete silence of Payton’s colleagues and the media on such a
feat.

*****

When you cut right down to it, Tony Payton’s bill advocates the
commission of a crime, and there isn’t any way to spin that to the
contrary. (Federal law explicitly states that aiding an illegal
immigrant is a crime.) Among other things, it would aid and abet known
lawbreakers. Period. The fact that the feds do this on a regular basis,
along with states (such as issuing driver’s licenses to known illegals)
and municipalities just rubs salt in the wound. The government should
not be above the law.

But if this debate is to advance, it is important to focus on the
core issue. And that is not whether a wall should be built (or if it is
a racist barrier), or whether amnesty is a godsend (or a sell-out deal
to the pro-illegal immigration forces).

While these are important side discussions, the only relevant point
is that when individuals attempt to circumvent a law because they don’t
like it, the entire American system of justice — the very rule of law
that keeps us civilized — breaks down. Once elected officials start
picking and choosing what laws they will follow (setting the example for
their followers to do the same), we all take a hit.

There’s no getting around the fact that Payton’s legislation overtly
mocks the law. Under his bill, eligible students would have to attend a
public or nonpublic secondary school in Pennsylvania for at least three
years (an admission that we the people have already forked over at least
$50,000 in education costs), pay state income taxes for at least three
years prior to enrollment in college (how can you pay income taxes if
you are here illegally, and how can the state abdicate its
responsibility to apprehends these known lawbreakers), and provide an
affidavit to the institution of higher education that the student will
file an application to a become a permanent resident (giving a sworn
legal document to a state entity that attests that one is here
illegally, without fear of repercussion, is just insane).

Since the illegal immigration debate lends itself to easily getting
off track, here’s the bottom line: For those who believe illegals should
have rights, change the law to accommodate them — don’t break it.
Lobby for amnesty and fight to change the definition of “illegal
immigrant,” but do not cavalierly pick and choose what laws you want to
follow because you happen to disagree with some.

That’s what they do in places like Iraq. It is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

On behalf of Rep. Payton’s real constituents, shame on you, Tony.

 

Should Illegal Immigrants Get a Break On College Tuition?

PA Passes Major Tort Reform

By Bob Guzzardi


The Pennsylvania State Senate,10:24 a.m., today, June 21, passed the Fair Share Act with a 28-22 vote.

The act would end joint liability in civil cases for defendants found to be less than 60 percent liable and implements a system in which a defendant would only  pay his share of the damages.

Pennsylvania is one of just nine states that don’t do this.

The Act, or, HB 1,  was the first legislation introduced in the State House this session.  Its prime sponsor was State Rep. Curt Schroder (R-155).

It passed the House, 112-88 on April 11 with all Republicans voting for it except for Kate Harper of the 61st District, Tim Hennessey of the 26th District and Dennis O’Brien of the 169th District

All Senate Republicans voted for it except Jane Orie of the 40th District, Gene Yaw of the 23rd District and Stewart Greenleaf of the 12th District.

The bill now goes to Gov. Tom Corbett for his expected signature.

House Vs Senate On Teacher Furloughs

The Pennsylvania House and the Pennsylvania Senate have competing bills to allow school districts to furlough teachers for economic reasons, an action the traditionally union-dominated state has long prohibited.

House Bill 855, introduced March 1  by Scott Boyd (R- 43) would  allow the furlough decision to be guided by several factors including the teacher’s specialization and performance evaluations.

The good ol’ boys in the Senate Appropriations Committee, however, did not think of the children or the taxpayer but listened to the lobbyists and cut out all factors but seniority — with one minor caveat  — from Senate Bill 612, which was introduced Feb. 18 by Mike Folmer (R-48).

The caveat is that tenured teachers who have been placed on an improvement plan due to poor evaluations would not be protected by seniority. This would only apply to very few teachers who are the worst of the worst and one wonders why such teachers are protected from anything now.

Think of the children.

SB 612 was referred to the House Education Committee, May 11, where HB 855 has remained stuck since it was introduced.

Adolph Says Vote Likely On Pa. NoBamaCare Bill

The man accused of bottling up a bill that would make much of Obamacare hard to enforce in Pennsylvania told the Delaware County Patriots, Thursday, May 19, that it will likely come up for a vote this year.

State Rep. Bill Adolph (R-165), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee has been accused of sitting on HB 42 by Tea Party activists. The bill has been tied up in Adolph’s committee since Feb. 8.

HB 42, introduced by Matthew Baker (R-68) on Jan. 19, says A law
or rule shall not compel, through penalties and fines, directly or
indirectly, any individual, employer or health care provider to
participate in any health care system.

It also specifically
says that an individual or employer may pay directly for lawful health
care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for
doing so; and specifically allows  health care providers to accept
direct payments without penalties.
It also prohibits state law enforcement and regulatory agencies from
participating “in compliance with any Federal law, regulation or policy”
that would compromise the “freedom of choice in health care” of any
resident of the state.

Adolph told the group, which met at Knights of Columbus hall in Newtown Square, that the biggest budget problem facing the state was the expiration of federal stimulus money. He said  last year’s $28 billion budget contained $3.1 billion of the fed dollars.

The $27.3 billion budget proposed by Gov. Corbett places a heavier burden on the state taxpayers despite it being smaller. House Republicans have tweaked the budget by easing some of the cuts the Governor had made to education while adding cuts to welfare. Adolph said the House budget gives state higher education 75 percent of what it had gotten last year, while Corbett would have cut the outlay in half.

Adolph said that the House budget actually ends up being few hundred thousand dollars less than the Governors.

Concerning the questions fielded by Adolph — and HB 42 was one — he said:

— He supported in principle privatizing the state-owned liquor stores but would not commit to any specific legislation as the “devil was in the details”.

— He supported giving school boards the power to furlough teachers for economic reasons. He, however, ducked the other half regarding his position on ending the requirement that school districts and municipalities pay prevailing wage for renovation and construction projects.

–He is not familiar with the First Suburbs issue which is starting to be discussed in Tea Party groups and appears to be an attempt to use government programs such as Section 8 housing to economically “diversify” Philadelphia’s older suburbs in accordance with the preferences of academics and activists.

–He supported abolishing the inheritance tax.

–He voted for and supports HB 1330, which expands the state’s Educational Improvement Tax Credit, and that he was only aware of the highlights of SB 1, the school choice bill bottled up in the Senate. He said he supports school choice in principle.

–That teachers should not be allowed to strike.

— He supports voter ID.

— He believes in state sovereignty.

— He supports cutting the size of the state legislature.

The only matter on which he incurred the crowd’s wrath concerned state pensions, and his unwillingness to condemn former State Sen. Bob Mellow’s $300,000 pension in significantly vociferous terms. He said Mellow’s pension plan had been grandfathered from before 1974, and that he should get it. He did not seem to get that it may fairer and more just to change the terms of an old poorly conceived contract rather than make a widow who was not party to it lose her home trying to fulfill it.

Natural-Born Bill Would Likely Let O On Ballot

Natural-Born Bill Would Likely Let O On Ballot — A bill requiring presidential candidates to present proof of natural born citizenship — and other constitutional requirements — in order to be on the Pennsylvania ballot would likely not keep Barack Obama off it.

HB 1350, introduced to the State House of Representatives, April 20, by Daryl Metcalfe (R-12) and 23 others would require candidates for president and vice president of the United States to file with their nomination papers an affidavit attesting that they meet the requirements for the office set forth in section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of the United State and attach documents providing proof.

The constitutional requirements for one to hold the office of president or vice president are that one be a natural born citizen, that one be 35 years of age and that one have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

Natural born citizen means “a person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.  The certification of live birth that President Obama’s supporters have been touting as proof that he meets this requirement would likely fulfill the requirements of the proposed bill.

And in a sane world it would. The problem is that when prominent Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who had served as a state Deputy Attorney General, filed suit on Aug. 21, 2008 accusing then Sen. Obama of not being eligible to hold the office of president, Obama cited privacy rights and fought tooth-and-nail to prevent what should have been simple corroborating documentation from seeing the light of day.

And so what we have is close to 40 percent of  Americans believing that he is a imposter president.

So much for uniting us.

What if Obama had simply shrugged and waived all privacy rights? This, by the way, is what President Bush did regarding claims he had received special treatment for joining the Texas Air National Guard to fulfill service requirements during the Vietnam War.

Presumably, the corroboration would have been found and there would be no controversy. Or perhaps, the original documentation would have been discovered lost which would have still left the vast majority of Americans  in acceptance of what was available, since Obama would not have appeared to be hiding something.

As it is now, however, a lot of sane people not inclined to conspiracy theories are starting to wonder.

HB1350, is a nice, safe, vanilla law, which should not be controversial and would probably make government a little better if it were passed but would have no profound impact on anything.

What would be interesting, though, would be for the state to pass a law requiring presidential candidates — heck, make it all candidates for public office — to waive all privacy privileges.

All birth records; all all college transcripts; all employer reviews; all military records (hear that John Kerry?) would be subject to public scrutiny.

Obviously things sealed in cooperation with other parties such as divorce proceedings would remain private, which would make for a bit of irony.

 

 

Natural-Born Bill Would Likely Let O On Ballot

Pa. Bill Would Make Obama Prove Natural Born Citizenship

Pa. Bill Would Make Obama Prove Natural Born Citizenship —LancasterOnline.Com is reporting that a bill was introduced in the State House yesterday, April 13, that would require presidential candidates to prove that they are natural born citizens of the United States, as required by the U.S. Constitution, before getting on the Pennsylvania ballot.

The bill was drafted by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-12) and has 23 co-sponsors according to LancasterOnline. Metcalfe is reported as saying it was drafted in response to the debate regarding President Obama’s birthplace.

One supposes there will be sneering at Metcalfe from the usual suspects but if one sits back, takes a deep breath and considers it, one will wonder why such a bill would be in the least controversial, assuming the bill doesn’t put undue burdens on candidates since the text has yet to be online as of Thursday morning.

Still, despite the large number of co-sponsors don’t expect fast action on it. Metcalfe’s HB 934 , which would require voters to show photo ID,  and which has 48 co-sponsors has been languishing in the House’s State Government Committee since March 4.

Among the co-sponsors of HB 934 is Stephen Barrar (R) whose 160th District includes much of southwest Delaware County.

 

Pa. Bill Would Make Obama Prove Natural Born Citizenship

 

Pa. Bill Would Make Obama Prove Natural Born Citizenship --

SB1 Middle Class Vouchers Addition Seems A Small Bone Thrown

SB 1, the school choice bill pending in the Pennsylvania legislature, was reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, yesterday, April 11, on a 15-11 vote with the  addition of it now providing vouchers to “middle class” students starting in the 2014-2015 school year. These “middle class” vouchers, however, would be funded by part of an excess scholarship fund so it seems a rather small bone to be thrown to the Tea Party groups looking out for the middle class.

And the latest version of the bill, PN 1031, also now limits the aggregate amount of all opportunity scholarships awarded to low-income children  starting in the 2013-2014 school year to $250 million

The vote was generally party-line although Democrats Lisa Boscola and Lawrence Farnese voted for it and Republicans Lisa Baker and Stewart Greenleaf voted against it.

Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, whose 9th District includes large parts of Delaware and Chester counties and is an ex-officio member of the committee, voted for it.

The latest version, also among other things, changes  the methodology for defining the lowest performing five percent of schools; changes some of the reporting requirements; removes specific dates on the timeline;  penalties for misuse of scholarships, which includes disqualification from future eligibility for an opportunity scholarship; and requires participating non-public schools to  annually a standardized achievement test.

The new version also would create a “public school choice demonstration grant program”, which would let a school district establish a program of tuition grants for resident students who wish to attend a nonresident public school.

Reform Bills Clear Senate Committees

Reform Bills Clear Senate Committees — Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R-9) tweeted, 4 p.m., April 6, that four pieces of legislation that he supports have received committee approval.

The bills are:

SB 101 that hikes the penalty for violations of the state Sunshine Act from $100 to $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for subsequent offenses, and prohibits the offender from being reimbursed with tax money.

SB 104 that mandates that all state-owned vehicles have an office use license plate and that all users of such vehicles be listed on state websites.

SB 106 that prohibits lame-duck voting sessions, which means votes would not be allowed from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November through Nov 30 in even numbered years, unless a special session has been convened.

SB 109 that requires paid advertising by any Commonwealth agency include the statement “Paid for with Pennsylvania taxpayer dollars.”

 


Reform Bills Clear Senate Committees

Why Did Corbett Punt On Privatizing Booze In Pa.?

Why Did Corbett Punt On Privatizing Booze In Pa.? — This article by Chris Freind is being republished with his kind permission.

Last November, Pennsylvanians elected Tom Corbett to solve the state’s problems. But instead of leadership, they’ve received task forces and blue ribbon panels. In just three months, commissions have been formed to deal with Marcellus Shale natural gas (with a whopping 31 members), explore the core functions of government and figure out how to privatize liquor.

Sorry, but isn’t that why people elect politicians? Isn’t it their job to solve these problems?

Commissions and task forces are simply code for passing the buck and kicking the can down the road. We might as well just hang a sign that reads, “Welcome to Pennsylvania, Blue Ribbon State.” And if GOP leaders don’t start following through on campaign promises, the only “Red” they’ll see is voter anger when the state turns Democratic Blue.

*****

Since privatizing liquor is one of the only issues which enjoys a large consensus, and since it would provide billions to balance the ballooning budget deficit, it’s baffling why Corbett would punt away such political capital when he needs it most. Delaying the privatization initiative by instituting yet another study commission was a move that left many observers scratching their heads — and state store union employees punch-drunk with elation.

Even more perplexing is that Corbett has a solid ally in House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, who had been spearheading privatization legislation for years. Turzai had a right to expect that, with strong GOP majorities in both houses, the Governor would come charging out of the gate on an issue that was a cornerstone of his campaign. Instead, Corbett felt compelled to reach into the “Business As Usual” drawer and pull out another meaningless commission, which looks increasingly like a bad political calculation.

*****

Sometimes you have to walk out your door to realize that the grass really is greener somewhere else. For Pennsylvanians, that “green” is all the money saved by consumers in other states because they aren’t gouged when purchasing alcohol.

For the uninitiated, following is a primer for how the Pennsylvania alcohol monopoly works:

Pennsylvania is the largest purchaser of booze in the world. The state government, through the Liquor Control Board (LC, controls the purchase, distribution and sale of all wine and liquor. You might think that with such immense purchasing clout, its citizens would have outstanding selection and competitive pricing. But as any Pennsylvanian knows, that’s clearly not the case.

Interestingly, the LCB is charged with two distinct, and inherently contradictory, roles. While it’s responsible for raising revenue through the sale of wine and liquor, it’s also charged with controlling the sale of booze throughout the state. By definition, if the LCB is succeeding at one, it must be failing at the other.

Every bottle of liquor bought in the state comes with an added bonus: an 18 percent “temporary” tax, in addition to the 6 percent sales tax. So a $10 bottle jumps to $11.80 before the sales tax is calculated, totaling a whopping $12.50. In all fairness, the 18 percent tax was well intentioned—it was passed by the legislature to rebuild Johnstown after a devastating flood that destroyed the town.

In 1936. So much for “temporary” taxes.

Anyone who’s traveled outside Pennsylvania knows how refreshing it is to enter a grocery store and, remembering that you need a bottle of wine for dinner, walk two aisles over to the plethora of vino at your fingertips. Since others accomplish this with little difficulty, it’s incomprehensible that the nation’s sixth largest state can’t—or, more accurately, won’t—do the same.

It is infinitely more efficient when a private company, responsive to the needs of the free market (instead of bureaucrats), stocks its shelves with items that consumers want, at a fair market price. It is the core principle on which America was founded.

But Pennsylvania remains stuck in the Dark Ages, and what makes the sin mortal is that it chooses to remain there. It hasn’t dawned on the politicos in Harrisburg that they are losing untold revenue because of their Draconian system, with millions of residents crossing state lines to fill their liquor cabinets. (No offense to Governor Christie, but anytime New Jersey offers a better alternative, you know you have major problems).

And despite the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, if you’re caught bringing alcohol into Pennsylvania, it’s a criminal offense. In fact, such “criminals” used to have their cars confiscated for doing so.

To be fair, today’s LCB has made substantial progress in its operations and “customer service.” Not too long ago, all of its locations were “counter” stores, meaning that customers had to know exactly what they wanted before placing their order, since browsing was not permitted. The clerk would then disappear into the bowels of the store, only to return five or 10 minutes later, more often than not stating that they were “out of stock” and asking for a second choice. Now imagine this scene playing out at Christmas time, with 25 people in line.

But that’s not all.

Nothing in the store was chilled. No ancillary items, such as tonic water, were sold. No employees were permitted to offer advice. And no LCB stores accepted credit cards.

And all this because former Governor Gifford Pinchot, who as a young man became violently sick while imbibing in Germany, became bound and determined to make alcohol as difficult as possible to obtain.

But the LCB’s improvements amount to being valedictorian of summer school. The whole system has to be scrapped.

The ultimate irony is that the Keystone State, birthplace of American democracy and cradle of liberty, continues down the path of state control and government regulation, to the detriment of its twelve million citizens.

And what are liquor privatization’s chances? Dead for the spring session, possible in the fall and virtually nonexistent for 2012. With the makeup of the legislature sure to change next year, the time to take a “shot” is undoubtedly now.

The people have awakened from their stupor, demanding change. Instead, all they get is a (Pabst) “Blue Ribbon” commission.

Time for another drink.

SB1 Tea Party Support Claim Disputed

A claim of support for SB1, the  pending school choice bill in the Pennsylvania Senate, is causing consternation among some Tea Party activists.

The Facebook page of  Ana Luiza Lannes Puig, who is a prominent Bucks County Tea Partyist,  says that “18 local Tea Party groups came together in Pittsburgh  to support SB1” at Tuesday’s Freedom Works event.

A screenshot of the page is being circulated among other prominent Tea Partyists, with other emails saying that SB1 was not the focus of the event and that many of the groups have yet to decide where they stand on it.

The Tea Partyists who are objecting to SB1 generally want a much more comprehensive bill with the state aid following all students, not just those  below a certain level of income or in particularly bad school districts.

For those who want to bandy about the word “racism”, please note that those who fall below a certain level of income or are in particularly bad school districts would not be left out by the changes these Tea Partyists seek.