Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 6:39 AM:
Most universities have considerable international student enrollment. Most do, in fact, seek them out. Part of that, I believe, is for the clout of being able to boast of having them. Another is financial - international students do not recieve discounts or pay in-state tuition rates for enrollment. I posted a link on another thread here about California's efforts to boost international enrollment to the exclusion of in-state students because they couldn't afford to operate without them.
I've met many international students, and have had no bad experiences with any of them. They generally come here for the educational opportunities and life experiences which an American university affords them.
If I understood the news reports correctly, however, it seems that SEMO did not do their homework on the student currently in question. The news reports indicate that he was academically unqualified for the university. Perhaps he chose SEMO because he was able to enroll without a transcript. That is mere speculation on my part, but I have to wonder how a student who failed at his high school was able to attend. I would expect foreign students to be held to the same enrollment standards as U.S. students. If not, then it does seem to be purely about the money.
"My son couldn't have done it," Quazi Ahsanullah said, weeping. "He is very gentle and devoted to his studies," pointing to Nafis' time studying at the private North South University in Dhaka.
"Belal Ahmed, a spokesman for the university, said Nafis was a terrible student who was threatened with expulsion if he didn't bring his grades up. Nafis eventually quit coming to school, Ahmed said."
I do see it refers, not to his high school grades, but to his grades at the university in Dhaka.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 6:44 AM
I have met with and worked with many international students. Couple of thoughts.
a) All of the ones I have worked with are usually excellent students paying a lot of money either by their country's government or their families. They take their education seriously. I've never met a true international student that was blowing off their classes. Doesn't mean there aren't any out there, I've just never been involved with any.
b) They do bring in a lot of money to the programs at a time when revenues are shrinking. They also bring their culture into the picture and I like that. They're different and interesting.
c) Sometimes I think that they get a view of the US and take that home. I know many a chinese student that has never had as much clean water and restrooms as we have. The food selection we have. The transporation. Literally the money. When they go back to China I'm sure they would try and help improve their country to a standard of economy and democracy as ours.
Just my two cents...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 5:25 PM
Gee, I never knew the colleges had the key to the front door of America, I thought that was controlled by the federal government.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 12:37 AM
"It is great that a US senator (NY) classified SEMO as a phony university on national tv. What a wonderful way for Cape Girardeau to make national news."
I caught that, too. I see Claire McCaskill has signed onto the bill to crack down on 'phony' colleges. I wonder if she, too, meant SEMO.
I believe there are phony schools, or at least schools that abuse the privilige. There was a report a few years back about a truck driving school in Southern Missouri, West Plains I think (my apologies to West Plains if I have the location wrong), that had over 90% enrollment of foreign students, mostly from Middle-Eastern and Northern African nations. I'm sure they taught them to drive trucks, but one would think that such a high demand from that part of the nation would lead to the establishment of a truck driving school closer to them. Particularly one that teaches them the rules of the road in their own countries...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 7:24 AM
Me'Lange.
Thanks. I see that you did include the copyright at the end of the pasted article. My apologies.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 8:01 AM
I read a few more posts and a couple of synapses flew.
I don't have a problem with foreign students - any number of them - attending American universities as long as they are here legal and cannot work here without a federally approved work visa.
I just had a conversation with a Chinese student this past Wednesday and he was pushing for an appointment as a teaching assistant because he really could use the money - tuition is high, costs are very high re: China standards, etc. I asked him if he had a work visa and he said "no. I can't get one as a student."
I think they ALL should be checked out and followed up on when they arrive here. Any suspicious students should be booted. Having said that we should never push to keep them out or impose any limits. They are paying big bucks to get an American education and don't take jobs away from legal Americans (or illegals Mexicans). It is interesting that some would push to lower their amounts when they pay to live here yet liberals are pushing for low tuition/scholarships for illegal immigrants. Bass-ackwards to me.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 11:21 AM
Foreign students like "illegal immigrants"?
My point about liberals is they want to give illegal immigrants lower tuition, scholarships and in some cases a free ride to public schools and universities. I don't think we should be concerned about international students paying big bucks to learn and fund our universities. And I don't think we should give tuition breaks and free education (taxpayer money) to illegal immigrants that we don't offer to our own citizens or military members. It's happening.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 11:37 AM
Mike Rozeff has an article on LRC this weekend regarding the phony terrorism scams from the secret police...
"A sting operation like this doesn't foil anything. It SETS UP someone for a fall. It's an enhanced frame-up done with the FBI-encouraged participation of the person framed. The FBI agents literally become criminals, conspire as criminals, further the planned crime, and create the crime. They should arrest themselves."
I don't know if the FBI intentionally found a dupe with connections to this part of the country to frame, but they hit a homerun with this idiot given the large, predictable reaction of combinations of jingoism, xenophobia, and patriotic puffery from the "natives".
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 4:46 PM
Just wondering...what identifying documents are required for entry into colleges these days? I recall taking an entrance exam prior to admission, but I can't remember what documents they ask me for.
The reason I ask is that SS cards are easy to get. Ten years ago you could buy one for $100. I saw that first hand.
I went to a private military high school for 12th grade and had an Iranian roommate. His parents were both doctors in Tehran. He told me the sent the funding for tuition and his daily expenses. He said he was there under a visa.
-- Posted by dchannes on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 5:11 PM
Yamamoto was Harvard educated.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 11:41 PM
Bc, I never knew Albert Einstein studied in America. Quite an impressive list of accomplished people.
Did Einstein need a visa and/or have the rules-credentials for 'international' students entry into the country changed since then?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 12:48 AM
All Visa's need to be halted in the time of war, my opinion only.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 8:34 AM
"A sting operation like this doesn't foil anything. It SETS UP someone for a fall. It's an enhanced frame-up done with the FBI-encouraged participation of the person framed. The FBI agents literally become criminals, conspire as criminals, further the planned crime, and create the crime. They should arrest themselves."
I've kind of wondered about this thing myself. We seem to have a rash of people driving around with FBI-provided fake bombs which they try to blow up, and then are arrested for it.
Part of the laws we've passed since the 1930s restricting access to weapons of mass destruction was to prevent people who might otherwise use them for sinister ends. The idea in those days was that, just because you want to blow something up that doesn't make you a criminal, you actually have to blow something up, or try to blow something up and fail in order to be one. One has to question whether or not this guy would have tried to blow something up had the FBI not convinced him they could help him fulfil his dreams.
It's not as if you can just walk into Wal-Mart and buy a home truck-bomb kit otherwise.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 9:04 AM
Swampeast,
We are in a perpetual state of war.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 9:22 AM
"Shapley, Many explosives are surprisingly easy to make from every-day products."
True, but it's not as easy as some believe. As Mr. Ayers learned, many would-be terrorists end up killing themselves trying to make bombs rather than killing their intended targets.
"I don't know for sure, but my guess is that one can not be convicted of attempting to explode a product of mass destruction without allowing the mode of explosive to be built and the criminal to detonate. I'm sure we all agree, it makes no sense to allow "real" explosives to be detonated to gain conviction."
And that's the question. How much 'assistance' by the FBI can be extended before it becomes 'entrapment'. I read a book many years back about an FBI 'plant' that began to question his duties. He joined the FBI intending to root out crime and yet, as a 'plant', part of his duties involved committing them or turning a blind eye to them, in order to work his way up in the organization.
The book and film 'Prince of the City' dealt with that, as well, though in a different vein. It dealth with the psychological impact of an informant in the NYPD as he began to inform on the transgressions of his fellow officers. His past transgressions became interwoven with the ones he exposed, and threatened to undermine the case. I think the implications of that are key here: Did the FBI merely provide materiel to the man, or did they actively guide him towards attempting the commission of a crime he might never have attempted without their coercion?
No, we don't want 'real' explosives being detonated, which is the intent of laws prohibiting their general ownership. However, our laws are supposed to require the actual commission of a crime for conviction thereof, and not merely a desire to commit a crime. We permit the sale of fake guns, fake hand-grenades, and fake bombs in America, and their possession is not a criminal act. Would the tossing of a fake grenade be a crime, if we assume the person tossing it thought it was a real one? What kind of crime would it be?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 9:43 AM
Obviously, tossing the fake grenade would be a crime, much like the proverbial yelling of 'fire' in a theatre. I assume it would be attempted murder if the assailant thought it was real, whereas it would be more a case of 'creating a disturbance' if he did not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 9:45 AM
"I assume it would be attempted murder if the assailant thought it was real," -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 9:45 AM
Unless the assailant admitted that he thought it was real, I wonder how they could prove what he thought. ---Just my thought.---
-- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 10:05 AM
"Unless the assailant admitted that he thought it was real, I wonder how they could prove what he thought."
That's always been my concern. This whole concept of 'intent' has troubled me. In some ways, it's the same problem I have with 'hate crimes'. Is it really more a crime to kill a man because you didn't like his colour than it is to kill a man because you want his money? Is he not just as dead in either case?
If you toss a hand-grenade thinking it's real when it isn't, are you guilty of attempted murder or mere stupidity? Is stupidity a crime. Tossing a hand-grenade which does not explode, real or not, into a crowd will probably cause a panic, and for that one is chargeable, but does it matter whether you thought it real or not?
I seem to recall that, back in the 1960s, if you brandished a weapon it mattered whether or not it was loaded, but it did not matter whether or not you knew it was loaded. Brandishing a loaded firearm carried different consequences than brandishing an unloaded one. If I recall correctly, brandishing an unloaded one carried no more penalty than brandishing a fake one.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 10:17 AM
Dug claimed, "...give illegal immigrants lower tuition, scholarships and in some cases a free ride to public schools and universities." Cite your sources please. Rick, Dug is confusing two different groups of individuals. His claims will be difficult for him to support. And agree, if he finds some incentive I am unaware of for illegal immigrants; it would have been supported by both parties. -- Posted by Me'Lange on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 2:09 PM
You are easily confused. I'll try it again.
1-International students by and large are smart, pay cash and work hard in classes in universities. I don't care if their numbers are "8 times what I expected" (your words) or 200 times what you expected. They (or their governments) pay good money and they are motivated to do well.
2-If you are concerned about things that are going on in colleges you should focus on the tuition breaks, grants, scholarships offered for ILLEGAL immigrants that we are all paying for. Many of these tuition breaks are not available to US Citizens. How do I know? I watch the news and read. I haven't even begun to look up sources but I know it will be easy to find them. I'll take one minute to cite you a bunch. Here they are:
The problem? Your attitude. I don't quote things off-the-cuff. I know what I'm talking about. You said "His claims will be difficult for him to support". I've supported my claims with many links and there are many, many more. Why would you denounce someone's claims when you are, in fact, CLUELESS on the topic? I would at least first look something up before I called someone out and got egg on my face. Think first. Comment second.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Oct 21, 2012, at 7:30 PM
This WAS a respectful thread until your 7:30pm post. Some of us prefer it that way.-- Posted by Me'Lange on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 2:11 AM
Respectfully, you couldn't be more wrong. If you don't know the difference between "in state" tuition and "out state" tuition then I suspect you don't understand college and tuition. There is a huge difference.
Again, I'll work hard to make this simple for you. If I am a LEGAL American in California and want to attend college in another state I must pay "out state" tuition. If I'm an ILLEGAL immigrant and want to attend college at another state I get to pay "in state" tuition.
Being able to pay "in state" vs. "out state" is a tuition break. I suppose in your own mind you're smarter than the article writers who also termed it "tuition break"??? Go read the articles again yourself. I think the writers have much more credentials than you do.
As far as respectful, you are one of the more disrespectful people here. Do you want me to cut and paste your former name calling and disrespectful posts? Just because you have a moment of "respect" doesn't mean you can call others out for your own past behavior. I used no name calling. You said it would be difficult for me to prove - again, your judgement is terrible. You made a claim with zero knowledge of the subject and called me out. Now, did the professional writers call it "tuition break"? I'll save you the trouble - yes. Admit it, you're wrong.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 7:48 AM
No one can deny the possibility that some international students want to access our country via a student visa, yet do not really wish to complete a course of study. If no one really cares whether they are actually students while here, do away with the student visa, and just let everyone in.
If the law/regulation/rule/ukase is not going to be consistently enforced, it's a demoralizing charade. For the love of all that's holy and honorable, just do away with it! The least the very expensive government we are all saddled with can do is not demoralize us--at least not demoralize those of us who are awake and paying attention. Our time/lives/property is no longer our own...please, please, just don't demoralize us.
At my friend's university, as I posted elsewhere, there was a rather malevolent young person who completely fell off the radar. The professor aware of the situation was pretty concerned, but International Student Affairs basically told him to "butt out." This probably should have been taken up with the nearest state legislator; I don't know if it was, or not.
For me, it's not about "xenophobia" at all. So, the other country is inadequate to meet the needs of its own citizens: educationally, technologically, in terms of protection of individual rights such as to self-determination, representative government, property (including intellectual property) rights...will the other country suddenly reform when the citizens most enlightened about the shortcomings leave? Maybe the U.S. would help those countries best by not siphoning off their brighter, less contented, citizens. They are the ones who would improve that country.
No, the U.S. wants to be on the front of the wave of creating the "global country." Too many cultural differences among different people for that to ever fly, IMO.
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 9:27 AM
Dug,
Its up to the individual state as to allow for instate tuition for undocumented students.
My recommendation is to not live in those states.
I also suggest Missouri do the same. However, allow instate tuition only for fields of need. IE. Special education, Medical, Nursing, etc.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 9:35 AM
No, the U.S. wants to be on the front of the wave of creating the "global country." Too many cultural differences among different people for that to ever fly, IMO.
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 9:27 AM
FYI...The colorado "Joker" shooter was not an international student.
What about those wackos?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 9:37 AM
And this is America's concern/problem because...??
-- Posted by .Rick. on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 9:32 AM
Its not a problem. Its an advantage. Where would the medical profession be if we only had to rely on US born doctors.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 9:38 AM
Its up to the individual state as to allow for instate tuition for undocumented students.-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 9:35 AM
I agree. I think it's still wrong that an illegal immigrant can get tuition breaks that American citizens can't get. LEGAL international students, to me, are no problem if properly documented and monitored.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 9:55 AM
I agree. I think it's still wrong that an illegal immigrant can get tuition breaks that American citizens can't get. LEGAL international students, to me, are no problem if properly documented and monitored.
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 9:55 AM
I think you are confused.
American Citizens can get the same breaks. All they have to do is move to the state they wish to go to school.
Sorry, but I have no patients for the ignorant and lazy. This includes American students who don't want to move/too lazy to move to a different state, then whine about out of state tuition.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:03 AM
"This includes American students who don't want to move/too lazy to move to a different state, then whine about out of state tuition."
Many states have minimum time requirements for in-state tuition. Merely moving there to attend school does not qualify one for in-state tuition, as one has to have been a resident for a number of months or years before applying. Otherwise, all resident students could qualify simply by virtue of being a resident student.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:06 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:06 AM
Not to mention driver license changes, tax implications (dependents in household), etc. It's not just that simple to move to Little Rock, AR and say "I'm a citizen and want in-state tuition".
The solution? Keep illegals - who shouldn't be in college since they are, technically, ILLEGAL - paying out-of-state tuition. Then they don't get breaks.
Here's the other half of my posting above. A 26 year old military vet was denied in-state tuition at a college in North Carolina where she owned a home. Yet illegals are given a break and get in-state tuition. I saw this on the news this past week. The link to one of the stories:
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:21 AM
Many states have minimum time requirements for in-state tuition. Merely moving there to attend school does not qualify one for in-state tuition, as one has to have been a resident for a number of months or years before applying. Otherwise, all resident students could qualify simply by virtue of being a resident student.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:06 AM
Again, they simply have to meet those requirements.
More whining and complaining.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:40 AM
More whining and complaining. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:40 AM
The question that is continually ignored here is this: Why should illegals get in-state tuition and US citizens be denied this? Why should a US vet that owns a home and pays taxes in North Carolina be denied in-state tuition when illegals get in-state tuition?
Maybe whining to you, but 1000's of dollars to American citizens.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:45 AM
Not to mention driver license changes, tax implications (dependents in household), etc. It's not just that simple to move to Little Rock, AR and say "I'm a citizen and want in-state tuition".
The solution? Keep illegals - who shouldn't be in college since they are, technically, ILLEGAL - paying out-of-state tuition. Then they don't get breaks.
Here's the other half of my posting above. A 26 year old military vet was denied in-state tuition at a college in North Carolina where she owned a home. Yet illegals are given a break and get in-state tuition. I saw this on the news this past week. The link to one of the stories:
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:21 AM
Again, whining and complaining.
Worried about paying higher taxes, but then want to complain about lower tuition?
It is that simple. Research where you want to go to school. Either pay out of state tuition, or live meet the requirement for instate tuition.
i am not seeing why this is so hard.
Seriously, If an person can sneak into this, illegealy establish residence....
I think an American can live in Arkansas 6 months.
And again, my question is if a person disagrees so much with the issue, why do they want to go to school there.
I find it interesting how people wavier when it comes to states rights.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:50 AM
I think an American can live in Arkansas 6 months.-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:50 AM
Yes, and in the 60's blacks could go to separate schools and further back women couldn't vote. Let's just apply inequitable laws to anyone and if they don't like it - they're "whining".
=======================================
And again, my question is if a person disagrees so much with the issue, why do they want to go to school there.-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:50 AM
Agreed - just pack up and move a couple thousand miles to somewhere else. Problem solved. Your solutions are so genius - I don't know why citizens just don't move to wherever illegals don't get in-state tuition breaks. I can't believe I didn't think of this.
=========================================
I find it interesting how people wavier when it comes to states rights.-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:50 AM
I can't believe that a poster thinks that "states rights" that discriminate are OK. But hey - liberals are everywhere!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:02 AM
"Research where you want to go to school."
Apply for residency in each state in which you want to go to school. Finish high school in each of those states, so that you meet the minimum eligibility requirements. Then, when you are accepted to any one of those to whom you've applied, you'll be ready, since you won't know by what colleges you've been accepted and for which scholarships, tuition breaks, and other financial incentives you've qualified at each college to which you've applied.
You'll also have to research what impact your moving out of state will have on your parents taxes, in order to decide whether it's cheaper to pay in-state tuition or to remain on their taxes.
Or, you limit yourself to attending college only in your own state.
What could be simpler?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:06 AM
I think an American can live in Arkansas 6 months.-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:50 AM
Yes, and in the 60's blacks could go to separate schools and further back women couldn't vote. Let's just apply inequitable laws to anyone and if they don't like it - they're "whining".
=======================================
And again, my question is if a person disagrees so much with the issue, why do they want to go to school there.-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:50 AM
Agreed - just pack up and move a couple thousand miles to somewhere else. Problem solved. Your solutions are so genius - I don't know why citizens just don't move to wherever illegals don't get in-state tuition breaks. I can't believe I didn't think of this.
=========================================
I find it interesting how people wavier when it comes to states rights.-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:50 AM
I can't believe that a poster thinks that "states rights" that discriminate are OK. But hey - liberals are everywhere!
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:02 AM
So now you are comparing instate tuition with segregation?
Seriously, you have failed this argument.
Dug-
"just pack up and move a couple thousand miles to somewhere else. Problem solved. Your solutions are so genius"
Yes. If you want to go to school there so darn bad.
Dug-
"I can't believe that a poster thinks that "states rights" that discriminate are OK. But hey - liberals are everywhere!"
No. Poser conservatives are everywhere. Its people like you that have damaged the republican party. You have real concerns about state vs. Fedral govenment.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:27 AM
"Research where you want to go to school."
Apply for residency in each state in which you want to go to school. Finish high school in each of those states, so that you meet the minimum eligibility requirements. Then, when you are accepted to any one of those to whom you've applied, you'll be ready, since you won't know by what colleges you've been accepted and for which scholarships, tuition breaks, and other financial incentives you've qualified at each college to which you've applied.
You'll also have to research what impact your moving out of state will have on your parents taxes, in order to decide whether it's cheaper to pay in-state tuition or to remain on their taxes.
Or, you limit yourself to attending college only in your own state.
What could be simpler?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:06 AM
Go to the instate school.
Or pay out of state tuition.
Or move to a different state, set up resendancey and pay insate tuition.
Not complicated at all.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:28 AM
Nor is Dug's argument. He's not arguing that out-of-state residents be permitted to pay in-state tuition (though some states allow that on reciprocity agreements). He's arguing against allowing illegal aliens who are not, by definition, state residents to be permitted to attend schools while paying in-state tuition.
Not complicated at all.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:57 AM
Nor is Dug's argument. He's not arguing that out-of-state residents be permitted to pay in-state tuition (though some states allow that on reciprocity agreements). He's arguing against allowing illegal aliens who are not, by definition, state residents to be permitted to attend schools while paying in-state tuition.
Not complicated at all.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:57 AM
Actually, Shapely he is not. That has been my argument.
It should be up to the individual state to decide who receives in-state tuition.
From a financial stand point, Like it or not, Illegals pay income tax and pay city and county taxes. In fact, illegals pay more for these taxes in Missouri than does a kid in Arizona.
However, I would modify the instate tuition to push illegal students towards needed services.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:07 PM
So now you are comparing instate tuition with segregation?-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:27 AM
Absolutely. Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word segregation - in-state citizens pay a different tuition rate than out-state citizens - segregation. I get tired up looking up definitions for liberals. From Webster: "Set apart from the rest or from each other; isolate or divide."
====================================
Poser conservatives are everywhere. Its people like you that have damaged the republican party. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:27 AM
Of course, conservatives are for in-state tution to illegal immigrants - laughable. No illegal ethnic group should get benefits from public institutions over legal citizens. You're a liberal - face it. Sounds like lumbrg twisted logic again and you're losing the argument.
========================================
Actually, Shapely he is not. From a financial stand point, Like it or not, Illegals pay income tax and pay city and county taxes.-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:07 PM
Again, more lumbrg logic. Shapley is right - that is exactly what I'm arguing and when you lose the argument, you change my points. You have zero proof that illegals pay income tax and city and county taxes.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:31 PM
Dug-
"Absolutely. Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word segregation - in-state citizens pay a different tuition rate than out-state citizens - segregation. I get tired up looking up definitions for liberals. From Webster: "Set apart from the rest or from each other; isolate or divide."
So now I a liberal because you can't admit you made a terrible argument? Am I also a liberal because of your also ignorant 401k statement? In-state tution is racial segregation? Come on Dug, you are not trying to stick with this statement. Let it go. It was a stupid point.
______________________________
Of course, conservatives are for in-state tution to illegal immigrants - laughable. No illegal ethnic group should get benefits from public institutions over legal citizens. You're a liberal - face it. Sounds like lumbrg twisted logic again and you're losing the argument.
Bllomburg? In New York?
I will explain it again...As a republican, I think it should be up to each state to decide. Its people like you who want to expand federalism and pretend its the other party.
If north Carolina wants to deny Veterans in-state tuition...That is their prerogative. I don't agree with it, but its their decision to make.
_____________________________
Dug:
"Again, more lumbrg logic. Shapley is right - that is exactly what I'm arguing and when you lose the argument, you change my points. You have zero proof that illegals pay income tax and city and county taxes."
Dug,
That is not what not what you are arguing. You mentioned soldiers in North Carolina, Drivers licence, none of which makes a point about illegals going to college....
So is it your point that they should still have to pay in-state tution?
I can't tell. First you say they don't, now you say they do?
And do you seriously think illegals pay no taxes at all? Do you also need proof the sun rises. Research it.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:50 PM
Am I also a liberal because of your also ignorant 401k statement?-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:50 PM
I admitted my mistake on that - something that you are entirely incapable of. Grow up lumbrg.
========================================
Bllomburg? In New York? -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:50 PM
"Bloomberg" is a liberal - and so are you. You're getting in deeper!
========================================
So now you support racial segregation? You are OK with that? Why am I not surprised? And then you support discrimination against a 26 year old veteran who pays taxes but doesn't get the same benefit as an illegal?
Please explain to us your support of racial segregation and discrimination?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:55 PM
So now you support racial segregation? You are OK with that? Why am I not surprised? And then you support discrimination against a 26 year old veteran who pays taxes but doesn't get the same benefit as an illegal?
Please explain to us your support of racial segregation and discrimination?
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:55 PM
Wow. You got lots of issues going on.
Can you at least act mature.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:07 PM
Is this Dug guy always like this?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:07 PM
I think most just ignore him. He is not willing to debate, but he does get irrate.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:18 PM
"It should be up to the individual state to decide who receives in-state tuition."
You may believe that, but federal law prohibits it. Even so, twelve states ignore the law and permit it anyway.
"From a financial stand point, Like it or not, Illegals pay income tax and pay city and county taxes. In fact, illegals pay more for these taxes in Missouri than does a kid in Arizona."
That does not matter. An illegal immigrant cannot, by law, be a legal resident of the state, and therefore cannot be eligible for the perquisites granted by the state to its residents.
I'm generally a states' rights kind of guy. But, immigration policy is a federal prerogative, not a state one. If it were within the purview of the states to grant or not to grant citizenship regardless of the federal government, the issue would be meaningless. But the federal government has argued, in its opposition to Arizona's immigration laws, that the states have no authority over immigration policy. If that is to hold true, then the federal law prohibiting states from granting the privilege of in-state tuition is lawful.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 2:17 PM
"It should be up to the individual state to decide who receives in-state tuition."
You may believe that, but federal law prohibits it. Even so, twelve states ignore the law and permit it anyway.
"From a financial stand point, Like it or not, Illegals pay income tax and pay city and county taxes. In fact, illegals pay more for these taxes in Missouri than does a kid in Arizona."
That does not matter. An illegal immigrant cannot, by law, be a legal resident of the state, and therefore cannot be eligible for the perquisites granted by the state to its residents.
I'm generally a states' rights kind of guy. But, immigration policy is a federal prerogative, not a state one. If it were within the purview of the states to grant or not to grant citizenship regardless of the federal government, the issue would be meaningless. But the federal government has argued, in its opposition to Arizona's immigration laws, that the states have no authority over immigration policy. If that is to hold true, then the federal law prohibiting states from granting the privilege of in-state tuition is lawful.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 2:17 PM
That is a good point Shapley.
However, I guess it comes down to determining if in-state tuition is a benefit.
I am not a lawyer so I am not sure about the legal aspect of it.
But it is is an interesting point none the less. I had no idea this law even existed.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 2:43 PM
-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 2:28 PM
That is the same for most states and schools
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 2:44 PM
I suppose the question may boil down to whether the state relies on 'legal' or 'illegal' (documented or undocumented) alien status, or the IRS' 'resident' or 'non-resident' alien status.
The IRS, for tax purposes, says an illegal (undocumented) alien can still be a 'resident' alien if they meet the 'substantial presence' test. Whether or not this can be considered valid for state residency, and thus state tuition rates.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:19 PM
Wow. You got lots of issues going on. Can you at least act mature. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:07 PM
If you don't like it when people put words in your mouth then don't do it yourself. That was the point of the post. And as for the "issues" - funny. You're getting personal again - just like the great potato war.
=================================
Yes always. It is pointless to attempt to have a "discussion" with him. . -- Posted by Me'Lange on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:14 PM
You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. When it gets tough you cry "bully". You were wrong on the facts numerous times on this thread alone. And then the name calling.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 4:02 PM
Is this Dug guy always like this? -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:07 PM
If you and sister Me'Lange would go back and read the posts here you will find the discussion was very civil until you - and your cohort Me'Lange - became rude. Is that what you called it? If you are going to get personal, you can definitely expect it back. Sounds like you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Here are some of you, and your buddy Mel's, initial "rude" comments. Again with liberals - "do as I say, not as I do".
Again, whining and complaining. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:50 AM
Sounds rude to me - your first personal attack. Argue the point.
Its people like you that have damaged the republican party. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:27 AM
More personal "rude" comments.
The list is long and it begins with your comments. If you can't handle "rude" then don't start it. You'll likely get it back. Again, reread the posts and you'll see where you began. Thin skinned won't do you much good here.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 4:46 PM
Foreign students have been a great asset to the US economy. SE Asian students have been exceptionally beneficial. -- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:40 AM
Absolutely. They are somewhat like retired senior citizens - everybody wants them. The have money, spend it, contribute to knowledge/society but hold no job on a student visa.
And if they become citizens or get a work visa they tend to be very smart and hard working. I've always said I'll take one hard working immigrant if their country will take two lazy entitled Americans in trade. This country would be prospering!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 9:11 AM
BTW..there are countless numbers of "College Graduates" walking the streets unemployed with no way to pay-off their student loans or put their education to use .
They have to move back in with mom and dad .
-- Posted by .Rick. on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 4:25 PM
Agree. But a lot of those can blame nobody but themselves.
I got my first job, not because of my degree, but because of my work experience and volunteer activities. Its amazing how little college graduates have to put on their resume, but yet expect salary jobs.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 11:13 AM
Absolutely. They are somewhat like retired senior citizens - everybody wants them. The have money, spend it, contribute to knowledge/society but hold no job on a student visa.
And if they become citizens or get a work visa they tend to be very smart and hard working. I've always said I'll take one hard working immigrant if their country will take two lazy entitled Americans in trade. This country would be prospering!
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 9:11 AM
You do kind of a point here.
Our greatest just might be laziness. Wonder if Obama can convert that into some form of green energy.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 11:15 AM
obama hasnt been able to convert green energy into green energy. But he has been able to convert green energy into a money pit for taxpayers.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 11:43 AM
"two lazy entitled"
speaking of rude ignorant lazy and entitled.
-- Posted by survivalist on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 11:44 AM
speaking of rude ignorant lazy and entitled. -- Posted by qi on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 11:44 AM
Agree. Too many on welfare and food stamps with their hands out. Glad you finally agree to something conservative.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:18 PM
Yes , some College Graduates are a victim of circumstance but I would bet a dollar against a donut the majority did not .
-- Posted by .Rick. on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:56 PM
According to the resume's I have seen, you would loose that dollar.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 1:55 PM
Rick,
Sorry. Read your post wrong. You would win that dollar actually.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 1:57 PM
Menu
Most universities have considerable international student enrollment. Most do, in fact, seek them out. Part of that, I believe, is for the clout of being able to boast of having them. Another is financial - international students do not recieve discounts or pay in-state tuition rates for enrollment. I posted a link on another thread here about California's efforts to boost international enrollment to the exclusion of in-state students because they couldn't afford to operate without them.
I've met many international students, and have had no bad experiences with any of them. They generally come here for the educational opportunities and life experiences which an American university affords them.
If I understood the news reports correctly, however, it seems that SEMO did not do their homework on the student currently in question. The news reports indicate that he was academically unqualified for the university. Perhaps he chose SEMO because he was able to enroll without a transcript. That is mere speculation on my part, but I have to wonder how a student who failed at his high school was able to attend. I would expect foreign students to be held to the same enrollment standards as U.S. students. If not, then it does seem to be purely about the money.
Replies (57)