Schwarzenegger Vetoes DREAM Act

Schwarzenegger Vetoes DREAM Act
Written by Jason Kobely, Internet News Producer

E-mail Story Print Story
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Saturday vetoed the so-called Dream Act, legislation that would have provided college aid for illegal immigrant students who graduate from California high schools.

"It would not be prudent to place additional strain on the General Fund to accord the new benefit of providing state subsidized financial aid to students without lawful immigration status," Schwarzenegger wrote in his veto message. Those students already qualify for the lower in-state tuition rate, Schwarzenegger continued.

The measure by Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, would have made state grants or community college fee waivers to immigrant students who attended a California high school for three years and graduated.

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=33920

Why should people who don't respect our laws receive state tuition aid?

kids whose parents brought them here when they were young? Are they to be penalized because of the actions of their parents?

• Students who would qualify came to the United States as children with their parents and entered illegally through no fault of their own. The United States is the only country they have really known.
  
  
• Since these young persons came with their undocumented parents into the country, they have no ability to adjust their status. The DREAM Act would give them this avenue.
  
  
• The DREAM Act would invest in the future of talented and bright young people who will contribute to this nation for years to come. It is in the interest of our nation to invest in their future and to help them develop their talents and skills.
  
  
• The DREAM Act would remove a federal bar on in-state tuition to those without legal status and would give states the option to provide the in-state tuition option to these students.

Further, regarding the California bill:

The Issue: SB 160 (Cedillo-D, Los Angeles) Student Financial aid: eligibility: California Dream Act would establish the "California Dream Act," which would allow undocumented "AB 540" students to apply and compete for financial aid at California public colleges and universities.

History: The law already allows "AB 540" students to pay tuition as a resident. "AB 540" students are those students who qualify for in-state tuition at the UC, CSU, and community college system if they meet all of the following requirements: (1) attend high school in California for three or more years, (2) graduate from a California high school or pass the GED, and (3) file an affidavit stating that they have applied or will apply for a lawful immigration status as soon as they are eligible.

The capacity of California's public colleges and universities is shrinking because of state budget cuts, but we are not accessing considerable federal and state money which is available and could be granted to eligible students. The state has embarked on a public ad campaign to get more students to apply for financial aid.

Talking Points:

The undocumented youth, many of whose parents have contributed to the state's economy, deserve to be treated justly.

Although these children have built their lives here, they have no possibility of achieving and living the American dream. What a tremendous loss for them, and what a tremendous loss to our society if we allow that to continue.

Over the next decade, 83 percent of the jobs in the 30 fastest-growing occupations in the United States will require some postsecondary education.

Increased access to financial aid for all students in California's colleges and universities increases the state's collective productivity and economic growth.

Our economy has become more dependent on immigrant labor than at any time in the last 100 years. Immigrants to the U.S. accounted for 100 percent of the net growth among workers under 35 in the decade of the 1990s.

SB 160 would not grant any pupils an advantage over the student population as a whole in determining who qualifies for, or receives, financial aid—it simply allows everyone to compete.

from: http://www.cacatholic.org/LD2007/bgsb160.html

Yes, those kids would be penalized by their parent's actions.

And the statement that there is no way for these children to change their immigration status is false. All they have to do is cross over the border and file for a visa to enter the country legally.

these kids came here with their parents. Imo, they should qualify for in-state tuition and loans like other kids.

Good for Arnold, these are ILLEGALS why not use that money to fund OUR kids college eduacation

That includes my demographic, and guess what? We already have access to grants, scholarships, loans, and everything under the sky to get us the money to go to college. Just answer my question. How is it against our interests to invest in hard working, college educated, future American citizens?

why do people cry about funding for college if there is all that out there??

care to answer that??

Why should I answer yours? More to the point, how can I answer your question when it's obvious that I disagree with its premise? Obviously increased funding will be necessary as inflation and an increasing societal pressure to obtain post-secondary education continue, but hardly to the extent that diversifying our investments in future American citizens would prohibit investing in kids who are already American citizens. I agree that economically this bill probably could have come around at a better time, but to phrase this debate in moral terms in just ridiculous. These are people who are trying to enter post-secondary educational institutions, thus increasing our pool of technical, medical, and education workers. It just makes sense.

that college is too expensive for lower/middle class kids to attend, I hear that its discriminatory against blacks because of the costs. So how can you disagree with my premise?? Also, long winded posts do nothing but bore me, just get to the point please.

sheesh you sound like a politician..

Read. Comprehend. Post.

US CITIZENS still have access to those funds, therefor we are NOT going against our interests to invest as you posted. This is just about making sure that US CITIZENS get the funding and not illegals. I am not against immigration, hell, I am all FOR LEGAL immigration, I am against ILLEGAL immigration, I am against giving illegals a thin.

Regardless of their current legality, these kids are trying to become productive members of society, and have already completed the main socializing agent in this country, public schools. When we pass them over for bullshit reasons, we're doing the future of America a disservice. For all I know, not a one of these kids had a say in coming to America, and the fact that they are trying to educate themselves and become citizens speaks bounds about their integrity. Giving them the middle finger is about as reactionary as it gets.

legal residents of this country, yes or no. Very simple question really. If they are old enough to go to college, they are old enough to go back to where they came from and apply for citizenship like thousands of legal immigrants do every year. Yea its cold hearted, but you know what, how fair is it to those that apply and come to this country legally to give illegals the very thing THEY want and desire but are willing to do it legaly??

Your rewarding illegal behavior which is an insult to those that do the same thing but legally.

And it's not even morally defensible! These are not even law breakers on the order of non-violent drug abusers, they are mostly victims of circumstance. I've got news for you, it's possible to file for citizenship, or legal status and still remain in the United States. It's not necessary to kick out huge swaths of possible productive citizens because you think legal immigrants might get pissed off. Who cares? As long as legality is distributed evenly according to merit, what does it matter whether someone has to wait, or someone is here through circumstances probably out of their control.

what your saying here. IF I comprehend your post correctly, you are willing to offend thousands of legal immigrants to make illegals legal??

How is that fair OR right? Also, if as you say it is possible to file for citizenship, care to give me a general reason as to why its not being done??

If they can become legal citizens and pay all taxes and fees that the rest of us pay, then, I welcome them as legal citizens of this country.

The bill was for people who WERE trying to get it done. That's the difference. If it was a question of whether to allow illegal immigration to continue unabated I'd probably be very close to your opinion. For THIS situation, I don't feel that it is at all necessary, practical, or moral to keep these kids from an education. Maybe our disagreement stems from that fundamental miscommunication; I'm simply arguing for the bill in question, and the people in the circumstances that the bill would benefit. On the general question of immigration our views would probably be similar.

miscommunication. I didnt realize the bill was for those trying to follow the law and become legal citizens.

My fault, long day, shitty boss, sick wife, wired dogs all equal somewhat lower reading comprehension lol

With some obvious legal and labor concerns. But all in all, I'm for an open border.

Not sure why some think it is ok to just disregard the laws and justify rewarding those that do.

Those people also disregard the law

loan because of it, so be it.... Neither you nor I write the laws, but they still need to be enforced or why bother having laws? What kind of a country do you think it would be if everyone just decided to disobey laws at will? Not one that I would want to live in thats for certain... One would need to walk around with a gun strapped to your hip like the old west.

That's what would happen if we acted as you desire.

"Neither you nor I write the laws, but they still need to be enforced or why bother having laws? "

If we enforced the law as thouroughly as you suggest, we will be emptying out our colleges. One of the worlds best higher-educational systems would be destroyed. Eventually, that would lead to a declining standard of living, and weakened national security.

So you're saying that law breaking, in-itself, it morally wrong. That laws define morality, and that one is never justified in disregarding unjust, or unrealistic laws? And also, that if they do, they should be ostracized by society at large by way of the government. Are those who break laws also not entitled to equal protection under the law as well? I'm just trying to understand where you're going to draw the line at keeping privileges from these people.

did an illegal immigrant break????

Oh and you are not GIVEN privileges, you EARN privileges. For example, You EARN a drivers license, your not given one just because you want one.

Who sounds like the politician now? Also, I doubt many of these kids willfully and defiantly break immigration laws, it's a matter of practicality and necessity. So how about two more adjectives to throw in, unpractical, and/or harmful laws. There's more to thinking about law, order, and government than black and white thinking.

Its the law.
What is unpractical about immigration laws?
Actually, it is a black and white thing when it comes to the law. Either you followed the law, or your broke the law. Now, there may be extenuating circumstances as to WHY you broke the law, and those are usually taken into consideration but, they do not cancel out the fact that a law was broken.

If you can't understand the argument I've made about how going back to "where they came from" is unpractical, then you obviously haven't followed the guideline I posted above. I'm done. I'm sure someone else with common sense and a better constitution than me can argue in circles with you.

you made the comment that it is possible for them to file for citizenship. If it is possible, why is it not being done??

Oh I understand the impracticality of going back to where they came from, as some come from europe, not all of our illegals are from central america. I also understand that there are thousands of kids that are denied funding for college, and I just wonder why we dont take care of them first??

I never hear anyone talk about denying someone an education simply because they broke a law. It only comes up with immigration. You never see these people pushing to ban pot smokers, jay walkers, litterers, etc

if you have a drug conviction you can be denied federal student aid up to and including student loans.

Do you support denying aid to anyone who has broken the law, any law?

I would personally rather it be reviewed on a case by case basis. A kid screws up once and he may be screwed, instead of giving the kid a chance to make something of them self.

Why is it more wrong to give an undocumented alien an education than it is to give a murderer an education?

Why shouldn't we give these kids a chance to make something of themselves?

really are... Illegal Aliens?

I don't call my pot smoking friends "Illegal Americans"

And you still haven't explained why you only focus on THIS law.

a Legal Alien because I am not an American citizen.... If I didn't check in with customs I would be classed as an Illegal Alien... It's as simple as that!

You would be classified as an Undocumented Alien.

Illegal Alien is a right wing phrase

Do you think it would be good for america if we destroyed our college system by throwing out everyone who has ever broken a law?

Why do you focus on THIS law, and none of the others?

Homeland Security as I have and you will find this out....

What are you afraid of?

Do you think it would be good for america if we destroyed our college system by throwing out everyone who has ever broken a law?

Why do you focus on THIS law, and none of the others?

Should we deny drivers licenses to anyone who has broken the law?

This law is the one that was being discussed in the original message that was posted.

You can start threads. You haven't

And you won't. Though you seem to feel strongly about this, you wont say anything because you know how ridiculous you'll sound.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I just don't understand why some people can make the determination as to what laws should be upheld while others are ok to ignore! If we can just ignore laws, why the hell are we wasting money on; Congress, Judges, Lawyers, Police forces, jails, etc.,etc.... Makes no sense to me...

You keep saying that no one who breaks the law should get any help from the govt, but you don't explain why this is only an issue when it comes to immigrants?

And acting like you understand something others don't won't hide that

I cannot say a whole lot about where I work but I WILL say that I spent 2 days creating a powerpoint presentation for my boss on illegal immigration and the issues that it has caused in our local area.

One of things mentioned is that we are a nation of laws and are we to pick and choose which laws we enforce?

So a citizen breaking the law has certain rights guaranteed by citizenship, an illegal immigrant is not a citizen.

I think you may be onto something, but the OP insists that isn't it. The OP has dug in and is now claiming that anyone who breaks any law, no matter how trivial, should be denied every form of govt benefit, including SS and drivers licenses.

I gave the fool a chance to be reasonable, and he declined.

Oh, and according to the Constitution, the rights of the accused are for "people", not "citizens". That's why undocumented aliens get trials when they're accused of committing a crime

The moment they reach legal age they should pack up all of their belongings and leave their family, friends, and country. If you think these kids are purposefully and defiantly breaking American law then you are beyond help. They've been educated and socialized as American citizens(though they are not legally) in California public schools, so why should we be punishing these kids for the "mistakes" of their parents? If we can create effective, college educated, future American citizens then how is this harmful to us? It's not, and protesting it on those grounds is poorly veiled xenophobia.

Once a child reaches legal age THEY are responsible for their actions. If they were brought into this country as a child illegally then they are illegal immigrants, and until the laws are changed they continue to break the law. Is it fair? Nope, but, you know life is not fair.

How can they become "future American citizens" as you say, UNLESS they become legal. If that means they have to go back to the country their parents brought them from and come in legally, then, until the laws are changed, thats what they will have to do.

I live in San Diego. The kids who would have benefited from the DREAMS program are ones that have already set down some serious roots in the community and usually live with relatives who are full Citizens (sometimes with several generations in America under their belts) who act as their legal guardians when it comes to the paperwork they need to actually get into a local high school. A few of them have a documented legal guardian and undocumented parents. What is often not understood in a border area that there are many families who have relatives on both sides; should someone be punished if they go to live with an aunt or uncle or grandparent who live on a family homestead from the 1910's?
In fact, a good half of them speak their parent's native language so poorly that they wouldn't be able to make much of a living while they're waiting the four or five years it would take to get the school visa to be able to take advantage of any scholarships they might be eligible for.

Remember, you aren't talking about the "gang members" here, you're talking about children who are making grades good enough to apply to an institution that is more expensive than your local ROP/community college annex that most casual students who wasted their high school go to. These are the kids who are capable of being professionals, taxpayers, support their community, etc.

Remember, they had to have at least some sort of documented legal guardian and legal residence to apply to go to public school. If there is any question, especially if the kid can't speak any english at all, the district will check to make sure that at least the forms are in order. The beginning of the school year is usually rough at the Elementary Schools and Middle Schools; however, by the time the winter holidays come around, the number of students had been winnowed down because of the checking for legality. To be able to apply for the any scholarships, the kids would have to show that they've completed at least two full years and can pass the California High School Exit Exam.
Too many people who don't pay attention to the actual status of the children of undocumented aliens don't understand that they're very often punishing a great number of talented youths who are technically in a grey area between documented and undocumented for the few who are solidly in the "illegal" undocumented alien status.
I suspect that for many of these American Citizens also only see "brown" when they're discussing undocumented immigrants. There are many refugees who have far more assimilation problems who can send their equally at risk and children who can barely speak english to an American college on grants "to make their lives better", while the kidlet's friends Omar and Marissa can't go to collage even if the 2nd cousin they legally live with is an American citizen, because their poor mother is an underemployed Mexican citizen living in Tijuana who sent them to live with her cousin when she couldn't take care of them. Just like many American citizens have always done within their own families for generations prior.

Haele

The New York Governor trying to pass giving NY Drivers licenses to Illegal Aliens.... Now that to me is insane!

I agree with Arnold here. UGH (shivers)

wrong, wrong, wrong. We do NOT give benefits to people who break our laws.

Should we deny Medicare to people who have been convicted of jaywalking?

I SHOULD have said that if people come to the United States either without a visa, or overstay that visa, they should not be allowed to get government benefits like a driver's license.





And yes, I did call you a smartass. The OP was related to illegal immigrants and my response was to a comment about Elliot Spitzer giving illegal immigrants a driver's license.
You took the response I posted to a conclusion that not too many people would have gotten from the thread.

It sounded like the latter, at first. Now it sounds like your objection is based on breaking the immigration laws. If so, can you explain how breaking the immigration laws is a more serious offense than other crimes, like rape and murder? Please note that our govr ENCOURAGES felons like that to get an education as it is believed to reduce recidivity

From the way that you explain it, it sounds like the felons and rapists are already citizens and because of that, ARE eligible for the benefits that come with citizenship or residency.
The punishment for those laws are a lengthy stay in prison.


Illegal immigrants are just that, people who break the law to come here.
The punishment for violation of that law is the violator is SUPPOSED to go home on the first plane, train or automobile to their country of origin.

If we give those who violate our immigration laws rewards for coming here, there is no discouragement of repeated violation of our laws.

"From the way that you explain it, it sounds like the felons and rapists are already citizens and because of that, ARE eligible for the benefits that come with citizenship or residency."

When it comes to criminal laws, non-citizens have all the rights and all the protections a citizen does, per the Constitution.

"The punishment for those laws are a lengthy stay in prison."

And yet, for this law, you want additional punishment. Why? How is this worse than rape and murder?

"Illegal immigrants are just that, people who break the law to come here."

Not true. Many enter legally, and then overstay their visa. Many have their renewal applications lost by the INS.

"If we give those who violate our immigration laws rewards for coming here, there is no discouragement of repeated violation of our laws."

The same applies for ALL laws, yet it's only this one that's being singled out. Why?

"When it comes to criminal laws, non-citizens have all the rights and all the protections a citizen does, per the Constitution.
You are comparing apples and oranges here. Having rights and protections is different than having a privilege that is afforded to non citizens. We do not allow non citizens to run for office or vote in our state and federal elections.

And yet, for this law, you want additional punishment. Why? How is this worse than rape and murder?
What I want in this law is one of the incentives to stay here in violation of our federal laws removed.

Not true. Many enter legally, and then overstay their visa. Many have their renewal applications lost by the INS.
Federal law states that when the visa expires, you should go home. If the application is lost, then I do apologize to them.
I have applied for jobs and had my application lost. I found out because I called the employer to find out the status of the application.

The same applies for ALL laws, yet it's only this one that's being singled out. Why?
Because the mainstream media has found that it is worth a boost in ratings to point out the "horror" stories when a cop or young child is killed by an illegal immigrant. Conservative groups have also managed to set the rules for the debate over illegal immigrants by pointing out the cost of housing and schooling the children of illegal immigrants, detaining those who violate additional laws, etc...

of being a legal citizen vs an illegal alien... If you are a legal citizen that breaks the law you are entitled to certain protections under the Constitution.

You have several posts on this thread saying that NO ONE who breaks the law should get help from the govt. Now, you're backing away from that (and trying to pretend you havent) and saying it's because they're not citizens. Even sillier, you try to hide behind the constitution, and end up only revealing your ignorance.

The protections offered to the accused by our constitution apply to all "persons", not all "citizens". That's why non-citizens accused of crimes are entitled to all of the rights and protections that a citizen is. Non-citizens get lawyers, trials, due process, etc just like citizens

Want to try a third time?

better watch it, your using logic here

In criminal matters, the Constitution give more rights to the accused if they are not a citizen

Non-citizens have a right to contact their consule. Citizens do not

smartly (the state's in a financial crunch), yet it was a good bill, imho.

Higher education support for an immigrant who has attended 3 years of high school in CA, graduated, has been accepted at a college/university and has applied for citizenship or will do so as soon as eligible.

in educating themselves, so they can improve their lot in life and become good, solid, productive American citizens (which we ALWAYS can use more of!), we punish them for the sins of their parents. Good one, Arnie. Way to play to the pyscho-xenophobe base. There are lots of GOOD ways to help discourage illegal immigration--vetoing the DREAM act isn't one of them.

We have to be practical about this.

and things of this nature.


I fucking hate Der Gropinfuhrer.

I think his recent decisions regarding immigration have been fair. Good for him.