A Sense of Shame on Tuition Breaks for Illegals

"He who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful" - The Talmud

I have found an explanation for "Moore's Disparity". That is the effect that getting beaten on a bill has on liberal versus conservative lawmakers. When a conservative loses on a bill, they tend to hurry away from it like they were embarrassed to have ever brought it up in the first place. When a liberal loses on a bill, they get enraged and stay enraged for two years and then bring it back again in the next session without apology. So what's behind the disparity effect? Well, its John Brummet's fault.

I don't mean to say that he is the sole reason for the effect, but he is "the tip of the spear" behind the phenomenon. You see, there is a whole media complex designed to snarl at and be ugly to politicians who take a conservative position even if, maybe especially if, the people support it. Those same media fawn over and laud the courage of the politician who takes a liberal idea and keeps giving us the opportunity to "choose again" until we make the choice that is right for big government.

Add to that the local culture in the capital complex, where government workers dominate the environment and some are willing to be openly contemptuous of legislators who resist expansions in government, and you have your explanation of why their guys seem more courageous and determined that your guys.

In his recent column, Brummett even chastises Governor Mike Beebe for coming out against Senator Joyce Elliot's bill granting in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens who have graduated from an Arkansas high school. She tried the same bill in a previous session, but it was stopped short of passage due to massive protests from the folks back home.

Back to my opening quote from the Talmud. I do not say that all, or even most, illegal aliens are cruel. I am just saying that they are illegal. And depending on age of arrival they, or their parents in any case, knew that they were breaking the law when they came here. We don't want them hung at noon for that, but neither do we want to subsidize that, We don't want to reward that. And make no mistake about it, in-state tuition is subsidized tuition. Subsidized by who? The taxpayers of course. We are the only ones around when it comes to finding ways for government to pay the bills. In this case, to be merciful to the law-breakers is to be unmerciful to the law-abiding.

I don't say that they should be denied education, just that they should pay for it themselves. All of it, without the taxpayer subsidies that result in in-state tuition rates.

Brummett writes, So, anyway, they had testimony before the Senate committee by a high school Honor Society graduate and child of illegal immigrants who said he needed in-state college tuition so he could become a math teacher and give back to the community.


First of all, if "Juan" was simply the CHILD of illegal immigrants but born in this country then he is already a citizen (under current interpretation of law) and already illegible for in-state tuition. What Brummett is too much of a putz to write is that Juan himself is not in this country legally. Secondly, if he wants to "give back" I'd say Juan can start giving back to the community right now by paying for his own tuition instead of expecting you and me to pick up the tab for part of it. And I don't want someone who takes breaking the law so lightly to teach children. Mexico needs math teachers too.

Three mighty cheers for David Gearhart, chancellor of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, who endorsed the bill and explained to the committee that the university does what it can already to find financial equalization help for children of illegal immigrants.

What? Is this the potentate who lives in the seven million dollar taxpayer built home? This is in his further economic interests. It costs the man nothing to say that more people should get subsidized tuition. Its like a rice farmer saying farm subsidies should be higher. Cheers for that?

Brummett is in the part of society that benefits from illegal aliens but is not at risk of losing money through depressed wages or loss of job opportunity. Like the Chancellor, it is in his own economic interests (and against that of the working class citizens) to support and incourage an influx of illegal immigrants. Like the Chancellor, they congratulate each other on how "moral" they are to support what is in their own economic interests anyway. The gross hypocrisy makes me sick to my stomach.

Oh, and Brummett apologized to readers who may have already seen the story on his blog. Not to worry, nobody reads your blog John.