Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I really don't like him either. What the hell am I supposed to do if the contest ends up between Clinton and Huckabee? Or any Democrat and Huckabee?

Posted by kayawanee at November 26, 2007 10:57 AM

Vote for John Anderson?
H. Ross Perot?
Lyndon LaRouche?
Ralph Nader?
Harold Stassen?
Henry Clay?

....

Nope, sorry. In that contest, the best bet is to bend over and kiss oneself goodbye.
....

Or eat lint.

Mmmm... lint!

/* end Homer Simpson Mode

Posted by MG at November 26, 2007 11:14 AM

There are so many political temptations here, but I'd rather stick with philosophy:

It is worth making the distinction between punished, unfairly punished, and unwisely punished. If you deny a handout to one group only because of their membership in that group, that group is being punished for something. If you offer tuition breaks only to kids who score well on the SAT, you are punishing the kids who didn't score well, which, leaving aside any problems with the SAT, seems fine to me. If you offer tuition breaks for children of alumni, I think children of non-alumni are being punished for where their parents went to school, and while this might be fair, it seems unwise to me.

Denying tuition breaks to the children of illegal immigrants is clearly punishment. You might argue it is a fair policy. But I don't think the children are going home anytime soon, and I think America would be better off if their education was encouraged, so I think it is unwise to punish them.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 26, 2007 11:58 AM

I disagree H-S. I think it's fair to say that people who get tuition reimbursements because they score well on tests, or because their parents obeyed the law, are being rewarded. But I think that it's Orwellian to say that people who don't get them, for any reason, are being "punished." They are not an entitlement, at least morally. No one has an intrinsic claim on the public purse.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 26, 2007 12:18 PM

I really don't like him either. What the hell am I supposed to do if the contest ends up between Clinton and Huckabee? Or any Democrat and Huckabee?

Isn't that how we ended up with W? Bush 41 v Clinton 42 was a bad choice either way, so people made a statement with Perot and ended up with Clinton. I think Hillary would love that scenario to play out again.

Posted by Leland at November 26, 2007 12:34 PM

I disagree with H-S description of the issue. The reason in-state tuition breaks are offered to students in the state is because their parents living in the state paid taxes in the state, which ended up at the school. After all, must public Universities are subsidized and funded by state tax dollars. The reason in-state tuition should be denied to illegal aliens is that their parents didn't pay taxes. It's not a punishment at all. It's the student not getting other people's money.

Posted by Leland at November 26, 2007 12:41 PM

A question from a Canadian:

What of children of illegal immigrants, who are born in the US? Do they automtically get US citizenship? If so, should they tuition breaks?

Keep in mind that by being born in the US - even to illegal immigrants - they might not have citizenship in any other country.

Posted by Roger Strong at November 26, 2007 01:08 PM

Leland, your argument shows why the punishment is fair, which I acknowledged.

However, I think I was wrong about one of my examples. A punishment is a penalty imposed in response to an unwanted behavior. In that case, giving tuition breaks only to the children of alumni would usually not be a punishment.

Withholding tuition breaks to the children of illegal aliens is clearly a penaty in response to an unwanted behavior. I acknowledge it is fair. I'm saying it is unwise, since the kids live here, and presumably a well-educated populace is in every American's interest.

Huckabee is asking "why visit the sins of the father upon the child?", which I think is worth asking, but the answer isn't a pre-ordained conclusion. In the case where the child is a US citizen, the answer should be clearly be no. In the case where the child is not a citizen, it might be fair to answer yes, and I think that's what we are talking about, but I think it is poor policy.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 26, 2007 01:14 PM

What of children of illegal immigrants, who are born in the US? Do they automtically get US citizenship?

Unfortunately, yes.

If so, should they tuition breaks?

I don't know.

The point is not about whether or not children of undocumented workers (many of whom do in fact pay tax, at least sales tax, which is where many states, such as Florida, get a lot of their revenue) should get tuition breaks, but whether or not it is a "punishment" for them not to get them. I continue to maintain that it is a perversion of the language to call it that, because it implies that they are being deprived of something to which they are naturally entitled. They are not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 26, 2007 01:33 PM

I think entitlements aren't implied by punishments. If a parent tells a child "No video games for you tonight, because you were bad", the parent is punishing the child. But, at least in most families, the child was never entitled to video games. Is the immigration example different?

(To anyone who thinks this isn't useful, please forgive the philosophy. I think Rand started it by talking about what was Orwellian instead of talking about what was good policy!) :-)

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 26, 2007 01:50 PM

If the child normally gets to play video games, then depriving them is a punishment. It is not at all analogous with illegal aliens (or anyone else, for that matter) getting handouts from the state.

Not Rewarding != Punishing

I refer again to the example of the panhandler. If I give a handout, it's a gift. Withholding a gift is not a punishment--it is a neutral act.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 26, 2007 02:07 PM

I see your point.

I was viewing the video game as "a hand out" or more colloquially, "a reward" - something special that the child can qualify for, if certain conditions are met, and I see the act of taking away the possibility of earning something special as a punishment. Even if the child normally gets to play video games, many parents won't say that the child is entitled to play them.

Withholding a gift because of a certain unwanted circumstance constitutes punishing that circumstance.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 26, 2007 02:29 PM

Re: bums.

I gave money to bums my first week in the big city, and then I realized they were professional bums. I learned to ignore the passive ones and I surprised the some of the insistent ones -- if they said they were hungry, I offered McDonalds gift certificates, which were almost always refused. I only had two takers in the 9 years I lived in an urban area, and one of them was someone with a child in tow. I was punishing the professional bum's choice of jobs (by either not offering the bum anything, or offering them something that they didn't want, despite what they had claimed), while rewarding actually hungry people with food.

Back to the original post: Huckabee isn't completely a statist (re: the tiny political quiz) - he is against gun control.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 26, 2007 02:41 PM

Withholding a gift because of a certain unwanted circumstance constitutes punishing that circumstance.

Apparently, you're unfamiliar with the true meaning of the word "gift." ;-)

And in the case in which you were "punishing" the bums by not giving them things, or giving them things they didn't want, you were actually doing them a big favor. To me, actually punishing a bum would be to beat him for the temerity of asking for the handout. Punishment is a negative consequence, not the absence of a positive one. Words mean things.

It reminds me of an obstreperous teenager, whose convenient definition of being good is simply the absence of not doing things that are bad, even though there is no positive activity going on.

There is good, there is bad, and there is neutral. Not rewarding someone is not equivalent to punishing them, any more than withdrawing punishment (e.g., ceasing torture in return for the provision of needed information) is a reward. It may be an incentive, but it's not a reward. A bounty payment is a reward. In both cases, withholding pleasure or pain are neutral acts.

You "liberals" (just in case you're unfamiliar with my policy, I don't consider most people who call themselves liberal these days that--they hijacked the word from the true classical liberals, who are today called libertarians) are debasing the currency of the language by redefining words like "punishment" (and "hate" and "torture" and "racism"). That's why I'm beating on this subject, and it's why I find Huckabee so problematic. It's not just the policy--it's the misleading and duplicitous rhetoric used to justify it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 26, 2007 02:56 PM

The reason in-state tuition breaks are offered to students in the state is because their parents living in the state paid taxes in the state, which ended up at the school. After all, must public Universities are subsidized and funded by state tax dollars. The reason in-state tuition should be denied to illegal aliens is that their parents didn't pay taxes.

Not sure what state H-S is talking about, but here in Texas, this is apparently not the case, Leland (and I believe you're in Texas?). A recent report by the Texas Comptroller estimated that illegal immigrants contributed $424.7 million more to the state's economy than they received in services.

Since there is no state income tax in Texas, one might argue that since NO one pays that tax, NO one should get tuition benefits.

Posted by Andy at November 27, 2007 08:29 AM

Andy,

What you didn't mention from that same report is the 1.44 BILLION in costs local governments spent in heathcare and law enforcement costs for those same people. That would be a cost to the taxpayers of over a billion not a contribution.

Posted by Bill Maron at November 27, 2007 09:35 AM

To be clear, the so-called "handout" in this case is in-state college tuition, which is a completely standard state service that is supposed to be available at least to all legal state residents. There is no principle that in-state tuition is only paid for with your parents' taxes. Even if your parents never held a job, even if moreover they are in prison for murder, you will still have to pay taxes towards the university system for the duration. That may include income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. In fact, much of the point is that college graduates are more productive: in-state tuition is an economic investment that pays dividends.

If some American citizens are ineligible for a standard government service because of what their parents did, then that certainly is a punishment. You may as well make them ineligible for vaccinations and fire department service. None of these Republicans who want to take away in-state tuition for children of illegals have any intention of taking it away from other American citizens, not even children of murderers. The subtext is that if you are a American citizen child of illegal immigrants, your own citizenship is suspect.

That would all be so even if immigration law were logical and enforceable, but it is also true that the law is anything but that. Not only the immigrants themselves, but also businesses and even tax agencies have given up on the immigration service as an incompetent agency with an impossible mandate. So that means, yes, the "illegal" immigrants pay taxes. They have always payed sales and property taxes, but for some years many of them have even paid income taxes with legal Social Security numbers. At the level of libertarian ethics, these taxpayers are already citizens in every respect other than untenable government say-so.

It is also interesting that of lot of people who describe in-state tuition as a handout took advantage of it themselves. That would appear to include both Rand Simberg and Fred Thompson. Maybe those who say that out-of-state tuition isn't a punishment ought to be subjected to it.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 27, 2007 09:40 AM

If some American citizens are ineligible for a standard government service because of what their parents did, then that certainly is a punishment.

My understanding is that this is not about American citizens, or what their parents did. It is about children of illegals who were not born here. If they were born here, then I agree that they should get the benefit of residency.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 27, 2007 09:45 AM

I should temper my tone if you're willing to say that fair is fair. Anyone can be gullible about politicians from time to time. In any case your understanding is wrong, the issue is indeed American citizens whose parents are illegal immigrants.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 27, 2007 10:09 AM

Hey Jim,
Explain how Rand's understanding was wrong. The post was about the position Romney and Huckabee had, not the state of Colorado. Also, the status of the children for the Romney/Huckabee thing is not identified anywhere in the article that I can find. Tuition break for US kids of illegal aliens, okay. Illegal alien children of illegal aliens, not okay. This would be my position just because I doubt we will ever make them leave.
But just to take this farce one step further,i.e. your US criminal argument, if a mobster with a fortune in illgotten gain is caught, his assets are siezed and his children are tossed out on their ear. By your reasoning if you're Romney, the government should take it since it would punish the son for the sins of the father like the tuition argument. Of course this already happens and families of criminals are punished in so many harsher ways than the loss of in-state tuition breaks it makes that logic ludicrous. We will reward illegal behavior by giving tuition breaks to the children of illegals but apply much harsher penalties to the children of US criminals but still give them tuition breaks. If that illegal alien hadn't broken the law, the kids wouldn't be Americans in the first place. Why is one acceptable and not the other?

Posted by Bill Maron at November 27, 2007 11:31 AM

Since there is no state income tax in Texas, one might argue that since NO one pays that tax, NO one should get tuition benefits.

Texas has an ad valorem tax instead of a income tax. Your point is invalid, but then I knew the source ahead of time.

Posted by Leland at November 27, 2007 11:54 AM

Agreed, but this is local government v. state (unreimbursed). Local taxpayers may be taking the hit in those areas, but state coffers aren't. And tuition benefits at state schools are not, tmk, provided by localities, but rather by the state.

Texas has an ad valorem tax instead of a income tax

You think undocumented immigrants don't buy or own things?
Must be redneck economics.

Posted by Andy at November 27, 2007 12:19 PM

You think undocumented immigrants don't buy or own things?

Andy, you moron, legal citizens of Florida can buy and own things in Texas and not qualify for Texas residency tuition. Why should illegal immigrants be granted in-state tuition by the virtue of breaking US laws that law abiding citizens can not?

I assume you haven't read the Texas requirements to qualify for Residency tuition, or perhaps you are to illiterate to comprehend them. Let me help you with an example:

A student who:
Was born in the United States.

Parents are illegal invaded the United States and ignored US immigration laws for decades.

Attended Texas schools and graduated from a Texas High School.

Has lived in a Texas domicile in the last 3 years

That student qualifies for Texas Residency tuition, so long as they are not a minor or are claimed as a dependent under federal income taxes. Considering it would be difficult to for someone to track the federal income tax paid by an undocumented worker, it would be tough for undocumented worker to claim a child as legal dependent for federal tax purposes. BTW, there are exception even if they student is a minor. If you attend a state funded college in a border county, you can even qualify for residency tuition if you live in Mexico and claim Mexican citizenship.

Again Andy, your point is invalid and moronic. I'll also add your "redneck" comment goes a long way to illustrating how much of a bigot you are as well.

Posted by Leland at November 27, 2007 01:17 PM

Explain how Rand's understanding was wrong.

The residency requirements in Arkansas are here. Rand was at least partly wrong even on your terms, because under current Arkansas law, a US citizen with illegal immigrant parents has to either get a job after graduating from high school, or wait until age 23 to be eligible for in-state tuition. So under current law, there are American citizens who watch their high-school friends go to college, and can't join them for years because of their parents' legal situation. It wouldn't happen if their parents robbed a bank, for example.

It is true that the law that Huckabee supports (HB 1525) also applies to families where everyone is an illegal immigrant. And I see that you think of illegal immigrants as basically all thieves and squatters who need to give back everything that they "stole" from America and go live in some other country. Huckabee doesn't. This is not about handouts so much as the realities of immigration, legal and illegal.

The whole reason that these people are illegal is that immigration law is unrealistic and unreasonable. These immigrants want the American dream: they work, they generally obey other laws, and they even pay taxes. Some of them even want to enlist in the military. The only law that they all have to break is the one that says that the American dream is only available up to a quota. But no truly free nation only offers freedom up to a quota. America is turning by degrees towards freedom for Mexican immigrants and away from impossible quotas.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 27, 2007 09:03 PM

Post a comment