They Took Our Slots!

Tim Craig's story on Virginia Republicans' efforts to bar illegal immigrants from state colleges is a gut-buster. Republicans (openly diverting attention from their cosmically unpopular transportation plans) are claiming that immigrants are stealing university places from hard-working sons of the Commonwealth—Dey took arr slots!

What's the evidence? They don't have any.

But most four-year colleges prohibit illegal immigrants, advocates and college officials said. "We don't enroll illegal aliens," said Jeff Hanna, a spokesman for the University of Virginia. "A student who applies and is accepted must produce documentation." In 2004, a federal judge in Alexandria upheld the right of U-Va. and six other Virginia colleges and universities to deny admission to illegal immigrants. The suit was brought by illegal immigrants upset that they were being denied entry.

O'Brien couldn't present any evidence Wednesday that illegal immigrants are gaining access to Virginia's colleges.

But GOP leaders offered statistics showing that 36 percent of applicants to a four-year public college in Virginia were rejected last year. They couldn't say how many of those denials occurred because the applicants weren't academically qualified.

Seriously? If you did that kind of work on a term paper, you'd flunk out of school.

Comments

[Brian Sorgatz]

We might as well admit that the average illegal immigrant is considerably smarter than the average Virginia Republican.

[JW]

...and actually does real, productive work.

[Warren]

The same people that have a conniption when race is a factor in slot allocation. Black students can only be admitted for merit, but merit is irrelevant when it comes to Mexicans.

[Timothy]

Those uppity immigrants, trying to go to college! Next they'll want to be treated like human beings and...and...they'll start marrying white women. RUN! IT'S THE BROWN MENACE!

[Shannon Chamberlain]

I really like the part where the Democratic governor is sort of agreeing with them.

This is what I don't get when people tell me I'm "wasting my vote" on a third party. Given the choice between a douche and turd, which one should I pick?

[Hans Bader]

Occasionally, colleges do admit illegal aliens, and when they do, they often get racial preference in admissions because they are Hispanic.

Still, admissions of such students are fairly rare.

I know firsthand that they occur because as an attorney, I used to sue colleges and law schools for reverse discrimination, and read their admissions files and decisions. (Court protective orders bar me from giving you specific details).

I always wondered why on Earth a law school would admit an illegal alien, anyway, given that an illegal alien can't be admitted to the bar or practice law. (Conceivably, they could be amnestied and then apply, but that's speculative and could take years). It seemed like a real waste of taxpayers' money.

[lunchstealer]

Vote or die, Shannon. Vote or die.

[x,y]

Dave, I thought this post was going to be about slot machines. Vegas on the mind, I guess.

[Episiarch]

I love that illegal immigrants sued the colleges for not accepting them. If I were an illegal, openly declaring it in a court of law is not the first thing I would consider doing. I'd be a little worried that ICE would be waiting for me in the parking lot after leaving the courtroom.

[Just Askin\']

Hans,
Are the rare instances of illegal immigrants being admitted to law school any more of a waste of taxpayer resources than the cost of defense against borderline frivolous "reverse discrimination" lawsuits lodged on behalf of marginal rejects that could technically be admitted to the bar and practice law, but most likely won't be because they can't pass the bar exam in the allotted number of tries (which is why they are on the margins and didn't make the cut in the first place)?

[BG]

Should we expect a Lou Dobbs episode in which he criticizes student visas? Will that be considered merely amnesty for students who would otherwise be illegal alliens subject to deportation before they get to class?

[Lamar]

If the glove doesn't fit,
You must vote GOP.

[Hans Bader]

Every one of my clients who sued a law school for reverse discrimination, and then attended (another) law school, was subsequently admitted to the bar, and managed to pass the bar exam.

The same cannot be said for many of the African-American students who attended those same schools (the schools that rejected them).

As Richard Sander and others have chronicled, bar passage rates for minority students admitted through affirmative action programs are low.

I make these points in response to "Just Askin's" question in the blog post at 11:23 a.m. on August 30, which asks,

"Are the rare instances of illegal immigrants being admitted to law school any more of a waste of taxpayer resources than the cost of defense against borderline frivolous 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits lodged on behalf of marginal rejects that could technically be admitted to the bar and practice law, but most likely won't be because they can't pass the bar exam in the allotted number of tries (which is why they are on the margins and didn't make the cut in the first place)?"

I do think it is a waste of taxpayer money, and often an illegal alien's own tuition money, to admit that illegal alien to law school when the alien is legally barred from practicing law, and in fact will not be admitted to the bar.

[Happy Jack]

immigrants are stealing university places from hard-working sons of the Commonwealth

Next thing you know, all the pretty white woman are eating salsa instead of ketchup.

[acm]

Another South Park reference on reason? Me likey.

[T]

Hans,

I guess the number of illegals going to school depends on which state you're in. How's that work in states like Texas, where illegal immigrants get in-state tuition? If they aren't attending school, then why would they (or anybody else) care about the tuition rates they aren't paying?

[NoStar]

OH NO! I can't believe they took our....

Wait. Nevermind. I thought you said sluts.

[GILMORE]

Another case of, "without a law, something BAD *might* be happening...therefore we need more laws!"

[TLB]

It's too bad Reason doesn't hire people who can do math and who can think things through. And who, as the other comment discusses, are able to research what's happening in states like TX and CA.

I illustrate - with fun, easy-to-understand paint.exe graphics - what giving discounts to those who are here illegally results in here.

Eventually, I have to think someone is going to ask that question of her (shorter version: youtube.com/watch?v=Q_l4Lawj14A) or someone else who supports the same thing, and hopefully it will end or greatly damage their political career. Because, if you don't support basic concepts like U.S. citizenship then you have absolutely no qualifications for public office.

[wayne]

You have to admit there is something wrong with telling a kid from Arizona that he has to pay $30,000 per year in "out of state" tuition to attend a Univ of Cal school, and charging an illegal alien in-state tuition of about 1/5 the Arizonan.

[MikeP]

You don't have to admit anything of the sort.

It is entirely reasonable that someone who is a resident of a state and who -- usually along with his family -- pays state taxes would pay in-state tuition.

[Anonymo the Anonymous]

LoneWacko:

Back in the pile!

[TLB]

You have to admit there is something wrong with telling a kid from Arizona that he has to pay $30,000 per year in "out of state" tuition to attend a Univ of Cal school, and charging an illegal alien in-state tuition of about 1/5 the Arizonan.

You have to admit that if you believe in things like the U.S. Constitution and the concept of citizenship. If you're more of a "free agent" who transcends things like the U.S. Constitution, such as those at Reason, things are a bit different.

[MikeP]

Lonewacko,

I must have missed the part of the Constitution that empowers people in other states to care who a state admits to its state schools or what it charges them.

As for "the concept of citizenship", you are probably right that many here idolize that concept somewhat less than you appear to. But that's okay, because the topic at hand is residence -- not citizenship -- so citizenship doesn't really enter into the discussion.

[TLB]

Obviously, when you're taking things away from U.S. citizens in order to give them to foreign nationals who are here illegally, citizenship does enter into the discussion.

It's clear that libertarians just don't believe in fundamental concepts like citizenship.

[MikeP]

Taking California as an example, what is actually happening is that the legislature of the State of California is taking things away from California taxpayers in order to give them to California residents.

It is true that the former are mostly US citizens, and that the latter includes a number of foreign nationals who lack legal US residency. But the State of California is not trying to provide a reward and punishment system geared toward a person's nationality. Rather it is trying to use state revenues to provide an educational system that raises the quality of and opportunities available to its residents.

Your statement misses that essential point, but it may be true in some sense. Then again, so is the assertion that you're taking things away from Catholics in order to give them to Protestants who don't even believe in an infallible Pope.

[MikeP]

It's clear that libertarians just don't believe in fundamental concepts like citizenship.

In order for citizenship to be fundamental, the state must be fundamental. Most libertarians do not believe that the state is fundamental. The state is at most a necessary institution deriving its powers from the consent of the governed.

Try reading the Declaration of Independence again...

[okcawenoL]

Those uppity immigrants, trying to go to college! Next they'll want to be treated like human beings and...and...they'll start marrying white women. RUN! IT'S THE BROWN MENACE!

But don't you dare call him a racist...

[Lilathe]

MikeP said "Then again, so is the assertion that you're taking things away from Catholics in order to give them to Protestants who don't even believe in an infallible Pope."
Actually, about 90% of illegal aliens are from Mexico and countries to the south of them. Around 90% of the illegal 90% are Catholics. So... depending on where you are from (I am from the bible belt where 95% are Protestant and I am in the lowly 5% that are Catholic) You are actually taking education away from Protestants and filling their spots with Catholics that do believe in the infallible Pope in the line of infallible Popes began with the first Pope Peter that Jesus appointed.
So I am alright with Catholics being given the spots meant for Protestants since it kind of evens the playing field in my neck of the woods. I am just not so sure that illegal aliens (that do not for the most part pay taxes by the way) should be taking the spots away from American citizens.
Mexico is the 6th richest country in the world. Why is America paying to educate its adults?

[wayne]

"Mexico is the 6th richest country in the world. Why is America paying to educate its adults?"

Ah, the essence of the whole illegal alien debate. Why, indeed, are American taxpayers obligated to subsidize the citizens of foreign countries?

[wayne]

Mexico is the 6th richest country in the world. Why is America paying to educate its adults?

This is classic, comical and expected. A race-baiter spews hurtful, racist words and attributes those words to somebody else because "he just knows that is what the other guy thinks".

[wayne]

My apologies to Lilathe, I made a cut and paste error. What I meant to quote was this:

"Those uppity immigrants, trying to go to college! Next they'll want to be treated like human beings and...and...they'll start marrying white women. RUN! IT'S THE BROWN MENACE!"

This is classic, comical and expected. A race-baiter spews hurtful, racist words and attributes those words to somebody else because "he just knows that is what the other guy thinks".

[wayne]

"I must have missed the part of the Constitution that empowers people in other states to care who a state admits to its state schools or what it charges them."

I won't speak for the lonewacko, but the constitution is irrelevant to what I care about. It is entirely reasonable to look at the stupidity being inflicted upon the citizens of other states as these same stupidities will likely make their way to my own state.

[wayne]

...lodged on behalf of marginal rejects that could technically be admitted to the bar and practice law, but most likely won't be because they can't pass the bar exam in the allotted number of tries (which is why they are on the margins and didn't make the cut in the first place)?

What utter, unmitigated bullshit!

[Bopo]

Whatever happened to the argument that being here illegally should prevent you from getting into college? For god's sake, people who were born in this country, outside of Virginia, have to pay more than criminals with no rights at all to be here.
But hey, merely bringing this up makes me a bigot, because I have nowhere acknowledged the fact that I am really anti-Mexican.

[Bopo]

"Black students can only be admitted for merit, but merit is irrelevant when it comes to Mexicans."

"Those uppity immigrants, trying to go to college! Next they'll want to be treated like human beings and...and...they'll start marrying white women. RUN! IT'S THE BROWN MENACE"

I knew libertarians opposed government expansion, but who knew they took it to such extremes that they would openly advocate breaking the law. There is a reason they are called illegal immigrants. As the snide comments concerning racial preferences indicate, it is obvious that the libertarians' supposed fealty to the Constitution can be dispensed with if they costs them a chance to attack the Republican Party.

[Bopo]

"order for citizenship to be fundamental, the state must be fundamental. Most libertarians do not believe that the state is fundamental. The state is at most a necessary institution deriving its powers from the consent of the governed.

Try reading the Declaration of Independence again"

Hahaha, yeah ok. Are you honestly trying to make the argument that the founders of this country did not believe in the sovereignty of nations, and the right of said sovereign nations to make laws determining, oh I don't know, our borders? Give me a fucking break. Spare me the "all men our brothers, we are all part of one big world" bullshit that the founders clearly did not believe at all.

[MikeP]

Are you honestly trying to make the argument that the founders of this country did not believe in the sovereignty of nations, and the right of said sovereign nations to make laws determining, oh I don't know, our borders?

Um... No.

I was responding to the assertion that citizenship is fundamental. It is not, and it was not considered so by the founders as evidenced pretty obviously in the Declaration of Independence.

[Lawyer]

I am just not so sure that illegal aliens (that do not for the most part pay taxes by the way) should be taking the spots away from American citizens.
Mexico is the 6th richest country in the world.

[MikeP]

Mexico is the 6th richest country in the world.

This is the second time someone has said this. Where does it come from?

By nominal GDP, Mexico is number 14, and by purchasing power parity, it is fighting Canada for number 12.

Nonetheless, it hardly seems relevant. California, were it a separate country, would be the 7th richest in the world. Does that mean that the state of California should pay the tuition at Arizona State University for a person born in California but resident in Arizona? Of course not. Each state sets up its residency requirements for in-state tuition. Shockingly, these requirements often are based on... you know... residency.