Y’all have been doing it for months now. Now we can put it on the front page for everyone to see … and act.
Deval and Tim aren’t the tugboats here — the people who support them are. They need all the brains, bucks and bodies we can spare. Do a lot or do a little, just do what you can.
And just win, baby. We have no excuse for anything else.
Please share widely!
Convince me as to why I should vote for him? I am a moderate Democrat who voted for Gabreili in the Primary and as of this moment is undecided as to who I should vote for in the general elections. There are things I do not like about either candidate but if I had to vote today I would probably vote for Mihos which you may find might be the position of a lot of us who are in the middle and not way of the left or way on the right. So convince me and the other undecided why we should vote for Deval? And please do not give those tired agruements about 16 years of republican rule in the state house. Give me real reason why I should vote for someone I do not agree on with in terms of taxes, education, criminal backround checks, immigration and many others.
If you liked Gabrieli so much, maybe here’s a good reason: Results. There are myriad reasons to support Deval over Mihos. I can’t make a persuasive case alone without knowing precisely why you would choose Mihos. However, I could make this case: Mihos is unlikely to win, while Kerry Healey has a better chance. Who would you rather? Healey or Deval?
<
p>
What has Kerry Healey done for you lately? She certainly wasn’t ahead of the game on the Big Dig – it took a corpse to get that administration in action. If you want a lower income tax, the Healey/Romney administration had 4 years to get that done and failed – at least Deval will do something to keep property taxes and fees at bay.
<
p>
If you have kids who will someday want to go to college – or if you, yourself, want to go back to school – you’ll want to support Deval Patrick. I know just how expensive public colleges have become. With the little that this state gives our public colleges and universities, I don’t quite think you could say we fund them at all. It’s students who fund them – which means that tens of thousands of people who would like to be students are priced right out of the game.
<
p>
Finally, Deval has so much more leadership experience in a large diversity of situations that neither Mihos nor Healey can match. Good ideas, as Deval likes to say, die on Beacon Hill. It takes leadership and charisma to get good ideas through the legislature – and Deval has those two traits in abundance. Mihos? Not so much. Heck, he’s politically well known because of the Big Dig – and he didn’t have the charisma or leadership to get that project fixed either. Sure, he made some noise, but people died. We need leadership and we need charisma – we need Deval.
If you want someone who is likely to sit there for 4 years completely isolated, without a power base anywhere, unable to advance an agenda or have a veto sustained, and unable to accomplish much of anything, Healey’s your candidate.
<
p>
If you want someone who has the best shot in years of changing the culture on Beacon Hill, you want Patrick.
<
p>
And if you want to vote for Mihos, that’s OK too – he can’t win, of course, so it’s a meaningless vote, except in the sense that it’s essentially a vote for Patrick because it strengthens an independent candidate who will draw more votes from Healey than from Patrick. The stronger he is, the weaker she is.
Great keep my property tax and fees at bay but I still have a higher income tax then i voted for and then I will have to pay meal tax in several cities that i go to if Deval’s plan pass.
<
p>
As for education how is being against Merit Pay, charter schools and being for giving illegal immgrinants tuition breaks going to help.
<
p>
<
p>
The mistake you seem to be making is thinking that Healy (or Milhos or anyone else) would be able to actually accomplish that. If Beacon Hill won’t do it, what can they do? Nothing basically. What you are voting for in that case is not an income tax cut, but merely an election year promise. Romney/Healy promised this four years ago, didn’t happen… are you going to believe it again?
<
p>
As was said by a not-so-wise man… fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice.. ya don’t get fooled again.
<
p>
<
p>
– Patrick is not against Merit Pay. He distinctly said so in the debates.
<
p>
– Patrick is not against Charter Schools, although he doesn’t want to take it too quickly. Kind of like your man Gabrielli’s gradual income tax plan. Which I kind’ve liked myself. But its the same idea. Right thing to do, don’t do it so quick that we hurt ourselfs.
<
p>
– Finally, Patrick is not for tuition for illegal immigrants. What we are talking about are children of illegal immigrants. Who are themselves completely legal citizens of the US and Massachusetts. Completely legal.
<
p>
In connection with that, you make the natural assumption for providing reduce tuition for children of illegal immigrants (who, I point out again, are completely legal citizens) would hurt the state colleges. In reality, the cost to the school to host one more student is less than in-state tuition rate. So adding on those students actually helps the schools. Some study recently linked to on here showed that.
<
p>
So if you have the choice to attract more students at a profit, or not attract them at all (if forced to pay full tuition they’d probably go elsewhere, for cheaper, right?), you actually help them, help all the other students, and help our future by attracting those students too. Absolutely no one is hurt.
<
p>
– But I don’t really feel that I should do all the convincing. Please, watch his speech last night, here:
<
p>
http://cbs4boston.co…
<
p>
On the right – and make up your own mind.
watched the speech did not really excite me. And do not fool yourself that I vote for Mihos helps Patrick. My wife and I as well as a couple of freinds are all registered democrats and are all people who Deval would need to vote for do not share a lot of his view and will probably vote for Mihos.
I’m strongly in favor of proposals to offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants who attend at least 3 years and then graduate from Massachusetts high schools. To me, it is persuasive that in most case it was the parent’s decision to immigrate illegally. I also believe the proposal raises money rather than costs money in the end.
<
p>
Nevertheless, let’s be clear, these students are certainly not “completely legal citizens.” If they were (i.e. if they were born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents), then we would have no issue whatsoever.
<
p>
There’s enough confusion about this issue without this nonesense about the students in question being “completely legal.”
<
p>
– Jamie
<
p>
P.S. For a good basic fact sheet on this issue visit:
http://www.miracoali…
<
p>
I really don’t think this is a ‘money’ issue, because I don’t think anyone has a clue how much the issue will cost or save. earlier post
<
p>
Oh, so you’re only talking about children that weren’t born here? I was thinking of it in the other context.
<
p>
Are you sure that’s the debate that’s being had? Because the term generally used is ‘children of undocumented immigrants’. If they were brought in during their lifetime, they’d be undocumented immigrants themselves. Not just ‘children of’. Anyway, at least that’s where I got my impression from, even if I slightly misuderstood.
<
p>
<
p>
I can understand both opinions on that version. I mean, if they are illegally here, then that’s an issue.
<
p>
I still don’t think of it as a thing to get worked up over though. Its not their fault and wasn’t their choice. The state will still turn a profit on their education, not to mention the long term benefits to our society both socially and financially that we will get by having a more educated workforce.
<
p>
Disagreeing on that doesn’t seem to me to be a big deal. It doesn’t cost the state any money and it doesn’t hurt anyone. I don’t see voting on an issue that effects maybe a few hundred people, when we have so many more important thing like funding our colleges in general, improving education for all, changing the culture on beacon hill, properly funding cities and town, making health care for all work, etc, etc.
<
p>
Its a wedge issue and I’d beg of you all not to have your rawest emotions appealed to with divisive rhetoric has no practical effect on any of us. But of course its your vote.
<
p>
P.S. How do you do that little quote-in-a-box thingie? đŸ™‚
is done with two html tags: < blockquote >, then the text you want in the gray box, and then < /blockquote > (be sure you remove the spaces in the tags).
<
p>
And re children of undocumented immigrants, yes, the only issue is those who weren’t born here, but rather were brought here by their parents. Anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, so there should be no issue regarding in-state tuition.
<
p>
Yes, I’m sure.
Correct me if I’m wrong – children of illegal immigrants are still required by law to attend elementary and secondary school in MA.
<
p>
The issue is, whether after completing all the requirements for a HS diploma in MA (MCAS, individual school requirements etc)those children of illegal immigrants, who, if accepted to MA state colleges and universities will receive the in-state resident tuition rate that all MA kids who took the MCAS and who graduated from a high school in MA would receive.
<
p>
As if they were residents. Because they are;their parents brought them here illegally. We are talking about students, some of whom are still minor children who have expressed an interest in furthering their education and probably at the same time pursue legal immigrant status if not outright US citizenship.
<
p>
We as communities have already invested in these children. Those that are qualified to be accepted to MA state colleges and universities should either stop their education now? or pay out of state resident prices?
<
p>
Put me down as a strong supporter of Deval Patrick on this and for many other reasons.
If they do not pay taxes to the state they should not get any of the breaks that good tax paying citizens get.
don’t pay taxes. Clearly, you’re against education.
<
p>
I agree, here’s the problem.
<
p>
First, its the children who would be punished, not the parents. The children do and would pay taxes all through out the future on the higher income they earn from being educated.
<
p>
Second, here’s the hidden truth however… illegal immigrants pay taxes!!! They do!
<
p>
They pay sales tax on things they buy, just like you and I.
<
p>
They pay property tax if they own a home, or, perhaps more likely, pay it via their rent, just like all us renters.
<
p>
And finally, they pay income tax through withholding from their paycheck, just like you and I. The only difference is they probably can’t file for a refund.
<
p>
The only way this wouldn’t happen is if they’re being paid under the table, in which case the employer in equally – if not primarily – at fault. Its the employer that is denying the state of the income taxes from dozens of employees by paying them illegally.
<
p>
While I’m not friend of those employers, and think they should be thrown squarely into prison, I certainly don’t support telling their kids that they can’t get college tuition breaks? Do you? If not, how can you say the employer who denied the state of dozens of people’s income taxes should be treated nicer by the state than the immigrant who only denied one (and it was not under their control anyway)?
<
p>
Listen, I’m trying to shed some light here, but you seem to have made up your mind. If that’s the case, alright… good luck to you and yours. You certainly have your right. If you were really coming here for facts, however, I hope you will consider the reality of the situation, and not the fear mongering that divisive politicians want you buy into and the election year promises that will disappear by January.
The argument that illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes holds no water. Why aren’t these people angry at the people who hire illegal immigrants and pay them under the table? I guess it’s a lot easier to victimize the vulnerable, or to use these canards to thinly veil their prejudices.
No, I don’t believe children of illegal immigrants are required to attend school. Chapter 76, Section 6 allows school committees to accept non-resident students (and tuition). I could find no statement in the chapter that mandates the acceptance of children living here illegally. I have even heard that it is illegal (federal law) for a district to accept the children of people here are certain types of visas (visitor and student come to mind). This issue came up when our school committee began research for our attendance policy. I haven’t dug through all the information yet, but I remember that it was going to take a lot of work to ensure our policy was in compliance with state and federal law.
<
p>
I agree that the children were innocent when brought over by their parents, but as adults they are capable of making decisions for themselves, including continuing to break the law. Also, you ignore the fact that it is the parents who will pay the tuition. In order to receive the in-state rate, families should already be in process of becoming legal citizens. Patrick’s position encourages continued illegal activity.
<
p>
Frankly, I think our immigration law needs to be overhauled. I think it would be better to devote our resources to processing all who want to become citizens. Then we could focus on the minority (criminals, terrorists, etc.) that we really do want to block. But I do not agree that civil disobedience in the form of just ignoring one’s residency status is the smart way to approach this.
<
p>
<
p>
What makes you think they are continuing to break the law? If they got a college education and a full time job, do you really think they’re going to ask to be paid under the table? Especially since they’re here completely legally themselves?
<
p>
What about them is making them ‘continue to break the law’?
<
p>
<
p>
Perhaps, but with children of illegal immigrants, chances are it would be the students who would be taking federal loans that they’d have to pay back upon graduation. I admittedly have no numbers, but don’t you think that’d be the vast majority of the case?
<
p>
With parents who are likely getting paid for manual labor, how much can they contribute to a college education?
<
p>
Lastly, regardless of who pays, its the children who would be punished.
If a person is brought into this country illegally by their parents, they are still here illegally. If a high school graduate has not taken it upon themselves to initiate the process of filing for legal status, then they are making the choice to live here illegally. It is their choice. Having taught in southern CA, I know that choice can be risky and that the process itself is long. Making it easier to remain here illegally isn’t going to fix that problem, but you are mistaken that they are “here completely legally themselves”.
<
p>
As for being paid, yes, everyone pays sales tax. Saying renters pay property tax is a bt of a stretch, but I’ll give you that. But I think you are off the mark about paying income tax. Having an ITIN is not the same as having a work visa. So, tell me, how is a college graduate without residency or a work visa going to obtain that higher paying job you keep talking about, let alone receive federal financial aid?
<
p>
Let’s even assume for the moment that they can get a higher-paying job upon graduation, it’s foolish to argue giving in-state tuition to someone based on thinking that they will remain in-state once employed. As for their parents getting paid for manual labor, there are many people who can little afford college tuition. But we make do. We attend part-time. We work. And we receive private scholarships. There’s no shame in that, and its not something we need to shield people from.
<
p>
I think we’re closer than your tone indicates. I said completely legally because I was talking about children that were born here. To me this is what the term “children of undocumented immigrants” means. There’s no need for the ‘children of’ if we’re not talking about born here.
<
p>
<
p>
I don’t think its a stretch at all – although I realize this isn’t our main contention. If property tax rates that are charged to apartment complexes go up, I guarantee you so will rents. Just as ‘free water’, ‘free garbage’, etc that you don’t have to pay in apartments aren’t really free. They’re just included in the rent.
<
p>
Sure, they pay less per person than a homeowners, but that’s because they take up less land. They pay the same as I do as a renter if they were to rent the same place.
<
p>
<
p>
Well, as I said. If income tax isn’t paid, its because the employer is paying them under the table. It is absolutely mandatory that taxes are withheld from paychecks – unless you swear you’re exempt on a W4. And it is the employer whos job it is to withhold those payments.
<
p>
If the employer is paying someone an amount that they know is beyond the 0% ‘bracket’, and they do not withhold taxes, than the employer has committed the crime as well. It takes two to tango. And the employer certainly has the ultimate responsibility on that.
<
p>
Now if we’re talking about someone who is self-employed, that’s different. But there are plenty of legal US citizens who do some part time self-employment on the side and don’t report the pay. Housekeeping, baby sitting, etc. I know some of them, I don’t see anyone suggesting that we deny their kids tuition.
<
p>
<
p>
This is exactly one of the main the point of in state colleges. It keep people in state. 80-90% of state college grads stay in state. Because the degree is looked upon better within that state.
<
p>
If you think they would still go to UMass without the in state rates, then it wouldn’t make a difference. But it seems to me that that is unlikely. Disagree?
<
p>
I grew up in Ct, as you may be able to tell by my name. Trust me, UConn degrees are looked upon very highly in Ct, as a lot of bosses have them too. I’m sure they’re not looked upon as highly in Mass, and I’m sure even less so on the other side of the country. Wasn’t it Dan Quayle who once asked why a school named ‘Yukon’ was in Connecticut?
<
p>
A UConn degree in Ct gets you a fair deal of access. Not because its an awesome school (although it ain’t half bad), but because its the state school. And you find a lot of bosses and coworkers and recruiters that you have that immediate connection to because of it.
<
p>
<
p>
If you wanted to make a state law that said that someone caught cheating on their taxes beyond a certain degree gets denied instate tution rates. Fine. I’d be all for it. But if thats really the issue, I don’t understand why residents who cheat and business owners who knowingly pay under the table get a free pass, and its only the illegal immigrants that get punished for the same action. And if its not the issue, then it shouldn’t be used as a red herring.
<
p>
And if you simply have a moral issue with people here illegally getting lower tuition, I wouldn’t argue with you either. In fact I’d support a law that says that you need to at least apply for citizenship to be admitted with reduced tuition rates… but I think that focusing on that detail, which is such a small issue that hurts no one, is taking attention away from the more important issues of the day, is problematic.
<
p>
We have so many bigger issues where we can come together and do good for our country and commonwealth. And we’re going to chose a vote based on 500 kids at UMass? Lets work together on the things we agree on, the things that we can make better together, rather than letting wedge issues drive us apart. Especially when they don’t cost anyone anything.
But you’re first point about who are “children” — are they born here or were they brought here — kind of gets to the larger issue. Students who are legal residents, but whose parents are not, can go through the emancipation hurdles that the rest of the us have to in order to demonstrate that our parents are unwilling to support our college expenses. The proposed statute provides a benefit to a small number of people (and simultaneously gives them advantages over others) but doesn’t really address the issue — residency.
<
p>
You’re right. I would support denying in-state tuition rates to tax cheats. Unfortunately, that isn’t up for debate. But this bill is. I think it encourages illegal behavior, and for that reason alone, should not be supported.
As stated before children don’t pay taxes, their parents do. Until I turned 18, I had not seen a tax return before in my life. And I am willing to admit that after just graduating college my father still prepares my taxes for me.
<
p>
As for filing for citizenship. As I have stated several times before on BMG, it is a very expensive and long process to even get to the point of applying for citizenship — application sponsorship /VISA, permanent residence, employment authorization, then citizenship – each application has its own costs & fees. This makes it very difficult for immigrant families, especially those within the lower income brackets to become citizens. People don’t understand how much our system has changed with regards to immigration. My grandparents & great grandparents came into this country through Ellis Island, and many of them without papers. They were still let into this country and simply stamped “without papers.” Today, a person without papers would be shipped back to their country before even stepping foot on American soil if they simply tried to stroll in.
<
p>
I don’t think that a 6 year old or 18 year old child of illegal immigrants should be penalized for their parents mistakes. If a students works hard and gets good grades in our public school system and want to go to college, they should have that opportunity. What ever happand to the “American Dream/ Land of Opportunity.” We are still a country of immigrants, people easily forget this.
<
p>
Also, as for paying tax. Many illegal immigrants pay taxes on their own, because as another poster mentioned it earns them “brownie points” with BCIS (Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services). There citizenship application is as good as gone if they didn’t pay taxes in even one of the 4 years prior to their application. As for income tax. Even illegal immigrants with “fake SS#s” pay income taxes because its still removed from their paychecks.
<
p>
I could say more, but I’ll save it for later.
<
p>
On a last note . . .Patrick/Murray ’06
In Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court mandated that ALL states allow allow ALL children living in the US — no matter what their immigration status — to enroll in and attend the K-12 public schools. Massachusetts requires all children age 16 or under to be enrolled in and attending school. Therefore, each school district must allow enrollment.
<
p>
Each of us, through our tax dollars, have invested in the children who graduate every year from the public schools. The children brought here by their parents speak English, they are generally far more attuned to American culture than the culture of their parents, and have proven that they can complete the requirements for graduation, including MCAS and GPA.
<
p>
So, they go — where? We cannot afford as a nation or as a state to throw away ambition and hard work–especially where we have already paid to inculcate those qualities. The proposed law will require the students to take those actions necessary to legalize their status — which is what they want to do, anyway.
<
p>
The Plyler case addresses whether a state can ban enrollment. It does not require that a state must mandate attendance for illegal residents. And with a loose definition of what constitutes residency here in MA (actually for tax purposes, it’s rather clear, and perhaps a broader definition should be legislated) we need to follow federal law.
<
p>
In 1996, U.S. immigration law was ammended making it illegal for children on F-1 visas to attend public school without paying tuition. So, if I’m following your logic, illegal residents should receive free public school education and then in-state tuition rates, but those here legally should not?
<
p>
The point was not whether we can exclude these children from school but whether they were mandated to attend. Given the lack of definition of “resident” and the federal requirements, I would say no, they aren’t mandated to attend, but that if they do attend, they are required to pay non-resident tuition.
<
p>
I think the bill to put forward is one which defines residency. The UMass system already has a policy for determining in-state eligibility which takes into account immigration status. I see no reason why a state law should make the rules different for illegal residents than it does for others.
<
p>
Under the US Constitution, states may not refuse to allow children of undocumented immigrants to attend public primary and secondary schools. So that’s a non-issue.
<
p>
Does our immigration law need to be overhauled? Yes, absolutely. But that is a federal issue, and it’s not going to happen any time soon. So that’s a cop-out – the question is given the status of current law, what is the right thing to do here, now, given the reality that the thousands of undocumented immigrants that live in MA are not going anywhere.
<
p>
The bill that was rejected a few months ago provided that a child of an undocumented immigrant who (1) had attended high school in MA for 3 years; and (2) who applied for citizenship or who promised to do so as soon as he or she was eligible, could pay in-state rather than out-of-state tuition. Hard for me to see what the big problem is with that.
<
p>
Also, I’m sure you are incorrect in saying that “it’s the parents that pay the tuition.” My guess is that a large percentage of these kids would work their way through school if they had the chance.
The notion that illegal immigrants do not pay income taxes is bogus. Many do pay taxes. Filers have an option to use a Tax ID # in place of a social security number. By law, the IRS cannot report any personal information to INS. Many take this option because while illegal today, they are hoping to gain citizenship. Providing a record of paying taxes helps. If it is later shown they avoided taxes, their application is sunk. If you check statistics, income taxes from illegal immigrants total in the billions every year.
Honestly, I didn’t know that. Clearly, the illegal immigrant issue is fueled, in large part, but fundamental misunderstandings about immigration law, and facts about immigrants. And it seems that the facts are on our side.
<
p>
How do we win in November? Get the facts out there, baby. More posts like this. Crush them, crush them, crush them with the facts.
<
p>
Thanks for that post. You know what would help even more? Links to statistics like that.
I’ve found some good articles on the matter:
<
p>
http://www.cbsnews.c…
<
p>
http://www.signonsan…
<
p>
Apparently the IRS doesn’t track is specifically, since there ‘temporary tax id numbers’ also go to foreigners here on students visas, etc. So there’s no way to know for sure how much comes from illegal immigrants.
<
p>
In fact, here’s a quote from one of those articles:
<
p>
He actually overpaid taxes!
The money from immigrants’ taxes is in the Billions, much of it in Social Security taxe, but the working immigrant receives nothing in return.
<
p>
That’s because most immigrants don’t get or don’t know how to get an FEIN and, instead, simply forge a SS number. Without a bona fide tracking number, the SS taxes go to the government for keeps and the paying employee and employers’ SS payment is never returned as a benefit to the paying immigrant.
What is a FEIN?
<
p>
An EIN is for business entities. I could find no reference for a “FEIN”.
<
p>
And to reiterate, an ITIN which is mentioned on this fact sheet neither authorizes someone to work. It is used only for federal tax reporting, not anything else.
<
p>
I agree. Getting the facts out are important. đŸ™‚
FEIN = TIN = ITIN
<
p>
Same system of taxpayer tracking. Different words.
Okay, so how is an ITIN supposed to help them? An ITIN still does not allow them to legally work.
You talkin’ to me? I’m on your side.
<
p>
I’m just saying that most illegal aliens get work by somehow faking a FEIN and the money associated with that fake number floats into the Federal trough.
<
p>
If an illegal does get a FEIN (TIN, EIN, whatever…) there is a chance (small chance) that SS taxes will be credited to that person via a totalization agreement and the federal tax withheld will definitely be held for his account for about 3 years.
<
p>
But, yeah, you’re dead right. Having a number doesn’t mean you can legally work. The Visa determines status, not the number.
taught for a year in So. Cal. I knew many families who lived in fear of deportation and went to great lengths to stay under the radar. From what I saw, most worked for cash only.
<
p>
Is it different in MA? I don’t know. I’d like to know more about how an employer is able to pay SS taxes on a fake number and what the feds are doing to help enforce the law. I’m all for holding employers accountable, too!
<
p>
Why did we change our immigration laws in the first place? It sure seems to have caused quite a mess!
Since 1986 the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) has required all employers to complete a Form I-9 which proves that the employer made a good faith attempt to ascertain that the prospective employee was authorized to work.
<
p>
There are, in my experience in Pennsylvania, CT and MA lots of forged documents to prove authorization: Forged SS cards; birth certificats, immigration documents, etc. Most of the time, people get them in order to get a drivers license. Forged SS cards are very common.
<
p>
In transient industries (restaurants, piece work factory, construction) in the mid-atlantic states and new england, it’s also my experience that employers aren’t too keen to paying cash (too much enforcement and penalties I think).
<
p>
Things may be different in S. Calif. Not too many migrant farm workers up here by contrast. I have lived and worked in Tijuana and San Diego and am aware the cash economy is bigger there, at least with domestic help.
<
p>
As a result, the workers use the forged SS cards to get hired and paid. Taxes are withheld and remitted, then a year or two later the employer gets a notice that the SS number didn’t match the person’s name. By then, the employee has moved on and the government keeps the money.
<
p>
My .02
Nice handle, dude. Right on about illegals paying taxes as well. Sadly, it has become so easy to beat up on them. The right paints them as the bane of our society but in reality they are the ones that keep our population rising, which is a good thing according to my old economics prof.
about undocumented immigrants. There is literally billions left uncollected year in and year out by the IRS from the top bracket taxpayers who weasel out of taxes through anyone of a million tax loopholes and even outright cheating. Before we whine about the money lost by “illegal aliens” why don’t we look to the scum bags who are legal residents but don’t mind screwing their country.
<
p>
More on point, illegal behavior is illegal behavior so I cannot condon the method by which some immigrants choose to come to this country. That said I also cannot find a good justification for punishing children and especially when that punishment means denying someone an education. Children do not have a choice in the matter. Also, the last time I checked our institutions of higher ed aren’t suffering from an explosion of students but rather from an implosion, we are losing students so why turn perspective business away?
I get incensed when people talk about all the loopholes in the tax code.
<
p>
Well, not really incensed. I just wonder where all those loopholes; where you think they are; or at least why you think there are so many.
You can find plenty. Something the rest of us middle class people could never enjoy, without the money to hire the people to use them.
<
p>
Also, lots of rich people actually CHEAT on their taxes – don’t pay it, or commit fraud, or don’t pacy everything. And yet the audit rates are worse for poor/middle class people than rich people. Like Andy said, billions of dollars are lost.
Subsidize the kids’ education, but increase state enforcement of and punish those employers who hire those same kids.