In our wildest imaginations – believe us, we have not even considered it before today. However, let’s say that you are a Dreamer (one who is illegally in the country) and through no fault of your own* have ended up here illegally yet what you are asking for is basic niceties such as paying a discount rate of tuition (or for some not) acceptance of your university of choice, and a means to pay for it.
Now by given a way to pay for higher education does not mean entitlement funding or otherwise – it simply means – having a right to be able to compete in the job market wherever it may lead you say from on campus employment to Microsoft or any type of work that will assist you in living expenses, plus the cost of going to college which as I’m sure you know is not inexpensive.
Believe you me, at one time in our nation’s history the “life expenses” were perhaps your first car and then for most of America it was the proverbial house or home. Appreciating the years that have mysteriously gone by as well as the changes in roles albeit, working in a service industry, or industrial industry, or any of the manufacturing, businesses we now find that America is now listed as a service oriented economy.
This is not to dispel any notions; it simply does not mean fast food, wait staff, restaurant work, or serving any cause. What it does mean is America has evolved into a post Industrial Revolution, post web based or Dot
Com Industries; the kind of service we are alluding to is within the service sector such as Lawyers, Accountants (CPA’s the better) Engineers, Medical personnel, and the like.
At any rate America has transformed herself into a service sector economy which is probably going to impinge on the realities of real life and that first largest expense is not the car, rather the education, which at some institutions is running higher than a lot of real estate indentures. So suffice it to say that higher education may be the largest expense one incurs in a lifetime. Just a word of caution: unless it’s absolutely necessary – try not to meet your future spouse in college!
Okay – so far so good, right? Now let’s start looking at quid pro quo or you scratch mine and I’ll scratch yours; notice the asterisk in the first paragraph*. Sure you came to America through no fault of your own (the next politically correct cliché), so how about allowing the agencies of the US government to get restitution from those who broke the law in the first place?
In other words if it was a family member who committed the crime of you being here in the first place, why not going after the real culprits of the original crime. Or in this case let’s suggest they are Mom and Dad or maybe even your Uncle, Auntie, Lover, Brother, or Sister for that matter. Does it seem fair to you – that because you’re here now and shortly going to become some type of resident, getting financial aid, grants, and for a select few scholarships – because you now live in the rule of law United States, are you prepared to allow your family members to pay restitution for their careless faults?
Dear Senator Marco Rubio:
We feel devastated that the egomaniac Barack Obama decided to run with your proposed legislation to bring a real comprehensive DREAM Act to those who have earned it. We are aware that Obama stole from you; and we sincerely wish that something could be done about this egregious corruption.
Speaking of your forthcoming new legislation for a comprehensive DREAM Act we would like to offer our suggestions with the hopes that they be included.
We believe that those responsible for injecting themselves and their children into what is normal immigration concerns we don’t however think that it is fair to the other populace around the world who have played by the rules and are now waiting for longer periods to be granted visas. Let’s do something for them – that is ethical – not giving away visas, green cards, or diversity rubbish for them to come into the USA.
Furthermore, we would also like to suggest that as part of “no fault of their own” that these individuals who pursue higher education be unable to claim minority status for the cause of Affirmative Action or for any other entitlement they are perhaps receiving now.
Senator Rubio, we ask this from a perspective of quid pro quo whereby we the people of the United States have played nice with those who legitimately have earned their positions; however, for those who have broken our rule of law there must be a punishment. Therefore we ask you to view the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which specifically spells out some of the punishments for abusing the rule of law in the USA.
Has America in her attempt to control lives even among those who are illegally in the country ever going to say enough is enough? We don’t think so. Predicated upon what the U.S. government has evolved into since approximately the late 1800s it seems to us that although changes are needed, the facts still remain, as long as the nation has the slightest notion of getting a larger federal government and continues to regulate just about every aspect of human life then the chances of living (or at least trying too) will end up virtually impossible.
Suffice it to understand, that even now America is being pushed, while in most circumstances still led by incompetent, self-adoring, nitwits who continually do despicable and idiotic things yet for what? Just for a few examples, we’ll cite a small portion:
If one ever needs a reality check about government intervention all they need to do is have a quick read of the “Equal Protection Clause” to be aware of the quagmire that America has created for itself. Between citizenship and equal protection, “…in modern constitutional law the command to treat all people equally extends to all actions by the government..”
If one were to take the Civil Rights Act of 1868 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the protections including race, religion, creed, color, gender, national origin, age, and disabilities. Now when one looks into the various “Acts” one is immediately drawn to discrimination. The various acts have included sexual orientation meaning, homosexual, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transsexual, and I’m certain I’m leaving some out; however, not on purpose. You see, with the various Titles, Sections, Subsections, and everything considered with those including but not limited to. Asylum, refugees, others being relocated here for some other cause, the question now is: Who isn’t protected?
Take for example our previous writing regarding Elaine Huguenin who being the owner of Elane’s Photography and serious about her faith didn’t refuse to do anything stating, “our business is limited to traditional weddings, portraits, events, and singer/actor head shots and portfolios.” When asked about a same-sex commitment ceremony all Mrs. Huguenin did was stated what her business does and her religious beliefs were not consistent with same-sex marriages. That’s it in a nutshell.
Along comes Ms. Willock who previously asked if Elane’s Photography did same-sex photography, Mrs. Huguenin simply stated as she had done previously when knock-knock there’s a process server at your door. Elaine Huguenin was being sued pursuant to the anti-discrimination clause of the 14th Amendment; however, when did anyone ask Elaine about her 1st Amendment religious rights?
We feel that anymore regulation into a person’s life will continue to constitute people for unknown reasons colliding into each other. It is believed that originally yes, Affirmative Action was warranted. Yet, at the same time why are we even negotiating a DREAM Act or pathways to citizenship when we’re already in a cluster-quagmire?
For some reason this line of dialogue went to our very hearts. First inasmuch as we believe there was a time in United States history that Affirmative Action was a necessary device to assist in leveling the playing field — for those who received the entitlement. Secondly, we also believe that it was a definitive STOP point for those who were held down by Jim Crow laws and the like.
And oh yes I have had members of Hispanic ethnicity, as well as those African American colleagues and friends openly disclose to me — that the most difficult part about getting into UCLA Law and Harvard Law School was in fact — getting out. They each said to me that the roughest thing about getting in to law school was the notion that once you’re in — there is no way you’re getting out. Can we all understand an investment? Well on a microcosm level these friends of mine openly admitted that they were minorities going to two of the nicest law schools in the country and not making it through would make the universities involved look very bad; therefore, so as not to tarnish any school these students were given amenities that other students never even heard of.
“Really, this ‘silver spoon’ business?” Coulter said. “Are they going to do that about every Republican while simultaneously revering FDR and JFK? They really were pure silver spoon aristocrats inheriting all their money. Mitt Romney gave away all the money he inherited. He made it on his own.” This was something weren’t aware of — although given the individuals credibility, integrity, and dignity with again — who the messenger just happened to be we find that to be overwhelming sufficient.
“And the silver spoon Obama got — I mean that generation, it can’t be denied, you can’t support affirmative action and then pretend it doesn’t exist. You don’t transfer from Occidental [College], which by his own accounts in his autobiography he mostly spent smoking pot, to a fine Ivy League university like Columbia if you’re not checking off ‘black’ on your application. So you know, the silver spoon since I’ve been alive has been an affirmative action silver spoon.”
And while she dismissed the rich-versus-poor meme some Democrats have been promoting, she did say there was another sort of class warfare occurring between those earning money from the government and those whose tax dollars are paying for it.
“I just don’t think Americans are angry at people who go out, work hard and show talent and make the world a better place,” she said. “Do we hate Steve Jobs or Bill Gates?…I think the real class warfare that Americans are hopping mad about is the class warfare between those of us who pay taxes and the people’s whose salary they pay — for their fabulous pensions and they’re partying trips to Las Vegas. And visiting whores in Colombia, and the highest-income counties in the nation not being Beverly Hills or Grosse Point or Greenwich, Conn., but counties all around the seat of government in Washington, D.C.”
“That kind of class warfare I think really strikes a chord right now. Not somebody who has worked hard and done well for himself.”
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider rolling back university affirmative action programs, re-entering a racially charged debate by accepting an appeal from a rejected white applicant to the University of Texas.
The appeal takes aim at a 2003 Supreme Court decision that said universities could continue to consider the race of their applicants to help ensure campus diversity.
We will not dignify this debate by taking a position as to whether affirmative action is racially charged; moreover, hiding this and other programs under the unbrella of “diversity” is really insulting to the reader.
Universities have had the court’s blessing for affirmative action since the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision gave race-conscious admissions a limited endorsement. With five of the nine current justices openly skeptical about racial classifications, today’s action suggests the court at a minimum will scale back diversity programs.
Here is what is at issue: Whether a university’s use of race to grant admission violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?
On September 15, 2011, Ms. Fisher filed her petition for writ of certiorari, which Mountain States Legal Foundation supported with an amicus curiae brief on October 19, 2011.
Ms. Fisher of Sugar Land, who graduated in the top 12 percent of her class, Rachel Multer and Ms. Michalewicz of Buda, who graduated in the top 11 percent of their class, applied for but were denied admission.
In April 2008, they sued the University and its officials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin, alleging that they were denied the right to compete for admission on an equal footing with minority students in violation of the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. On August 17, 2009, the district court ruled in favor of the University of Texas based upon the Supreme Court’s holding in Grutter.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on race-conscious admission policies in the Texas public-university system. Abigail Noel Fisher sued the University of Texas in 2008 when her application was rejected when less academically qualified minority students were accepted. Ms. Fisher argues the race-based admissions policy violated her rights under the 14th Amendment, specifically the equal protection clause which says no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Of course we understand that Ms.Fisher at 12 percent of her class, whilst Rachel Multer and Ms. Michalewicz were in the top 11 percent. However, if the University of Texas is indeed using this as their yard stick measure, then persons of 13 percent and higher should be willing to wait rather than to be accepted under some ridiculous “diversity” constraint. Therefore hopefully one can easily see where we will not dignify this issue by weighing in such a ridiculous set of claims.