Bob Hayes Online

As my blog dwindles into the official Amp-is-wrong blog, another posting from him deserves rebuttal. This time it’s the “Dream Act” - a boondoggle to grant in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants.

In-state tuition is a taxpayer-subsidy. Why should the taxpayers be subsidizing the children of people who are violating the law? As a citizen, I cannot move to a new state and receive in-state tuition without spending a period of (often) several years establishing residency. Why should non-citizen children of lawbreakers be given preferential treatment over citizens?

Undoubtedly, those children are innocent, and undoubtedly, it would benefit them to receive this tuition break. Equally undoubtedly, there are billions of other people in the world who would benefit from subsidies.

No. No tuition breaks, no amnesties, no driver’s licenses, no welfare, no food stamps, no Social Security, no nothing. Equal protection of the law when victimized by crime, and a polite escort to the border ANY TIME such a person encounters the apparatus of the state. Out!

Appalling doesn’t begin to cover it.

Some of Michelle Malkin’s commenters focus on the absence of a response from feminist organizations; that’s a valid point but one which has been made many times before.

Last year, former Australian PM John Howard made waves (and won some friends and enemies) by telling Muslim immigrants to Australia that “Before becoming an Australian, you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don’t come to Australia.”

This is the West. The values of tribal backwaters permit the killing of children who do not conform with parental expectations regarding dress. The values of Western civilization do not.

Immigrants who are unable to make that adjustment need to return to their homes. They can’t make new ones here.