Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Front-Page News: “Dreamers Face Uphill Path to College”
My hometown newspaper (The Island Packet, here in Hilton Head) had a front-page news story today about “Dreamers.” Note: this was not an editorial. This is supposed to be news. The headline: “Dreamers work long hours, face uphill path to college.” Subhed: “Supporters say tuition policy hurts Dreamers, taxpayers.” The first paragraph: “While South Carolina taxpayers spend roughly $13,200 annually to educate each K-12 student, state policies obstruct one group of SC students from advancing their education beyond high school.”
The “news” story makes the point that because “Dreamers” must pay out-of-state tuition rates at SC universities, they have “few affordable in-state options” and some don’t go to college at all. So the author believes, apparently, that it’s ok to pay out of state tuition if you’re from Georgia, but not if you’re from Ecuador. This seems like satire, so I included a picture of the front page, just in case some of you weren’t sure if this post was a parody or not:
This is accompanied by another story about a hard-working, intelligent, athletic, virtuous, talented, honest student in Houston who is simply a wonderful person despite being, technically, an illegal alien by some out-dated irrelevant definition. What some kid in Houston has to do with an article about in-state tuition at Clemson, I’m not sure. Unless, of course, this is simply propaganda, and is not a news story at all. But it’s a front-page news story. So, I guess, I don’t understand.
Oddly, this “news” story does not simply report the facts. In fact, there are very few facts to be had in this, um, news story. Instead, the uninitiated observer might think that this was written in an effort to persuade the reader to a certain point of view.
I doubt that the media was ever impartial, but I think they used to at least try to put on appearances. At least somewhat. But no longer. They are simply an extension of the Democrat party. Those who mock conservatives for imagining a left-wing bias in the media are out of their minds. Or stupid. Or college professors. Or progressives. Or, of course, all of the above.
Modern media has jumped the shark.
I know that this post lacks in originality. But we should keep pointing this out. Endlessly. Because the media are hostile partisans. Endlessly.
They never stop, and neither should we.
Published in General
You are correct. Lack of originality doesn’t stop them, and shouldn’t stop us, either, no matter what James Carville might say.
This strikes me as one of the occasional good uses of Facebook. I’m hoping the paper, and this story, have a comments section. Not that they probably care what I think from 600 miles away, but I do like Clemson’s football coach, so that’s something
Smaller papers are finding it harder and harder to find a niche. “Local news” is fine, as long as there is any. My hometown paper is now about 50% sports, with extensive coverage of high school teams. They appear to be targeting the parents and grandparents of the student-athletes.
Other than that, there are a smattering of news-wire stories and here and there a story of some interest.
The ABQ Journal had what is probably the same article today, focusing on Arizona, where the dastardly supreme court ruled that illegals gave to pay out-of-state tuition, and that was costing them thousands of extra dollars. Nevermind that the change doesn’t apply yet, nor that the beloved moppets profiled (is there a high school valedictorian who isn’t an illegal immigrant?) are in no way typical. I am certain that this is a coordinated attack, since it was full of the typical “Americas who support Trump are anti-immigrant” blather.
If the Ds are expecting this to be a winning strategy in November, I expect them to be sorely disappointed.
Thank God for the Australian secret ballot.
The article ought to mention that during the Obama Administration, enough GOP Senators we’re ready to vote for a bi-partisan bill to legalize the “dreamers” (and only the “dreamers”) that they would have had permanent legal status.
Harry Reid killed the measure by inserting “poison pill” amendments to kill the bill. Why? To preserve the dreamers as the poster children for all illegals. They are the most appealing. Without them, support for de facto amnesty drops significantly.
Also note that Trump’s offer on DACA was less restrictive than Obama’s in important respects.
So the Democrats continue to keep these kids hostile in a cynical ploy to jam through sweeping amnesty (The Harry Reid Memorial Electoral Victory Program).
Funny that the Narrative-echoing zombie journos never include the political reality behind the issue.
Considering they’re all between 15 and 36, I think we can stop calling them “kids”.
The immigrants and Democrats seem to think there is an unlimited fund of charitable dollars sitting around somewhere in the United States. Meanwhile, we are nearly $20 trillion in debt, and the homeless camps keep growing.
This is caused by having so much centralized government and a central bank that is constantly “helping” the economy by constantly easing. Voting just makes it worse.
To put a finer point on it, apparently the author believes its OK for every American citizen not living in South Carolina to pay out of state tuition but not if you’re from Ecuador.
Additionally, I assume that for every illegal alien admitted to any school of higher education an American citizen is denied admission.
The dreamers are (IMHO) one of the most confounding problems we face. I taught a fair number of them at a rural Texas high school, and the vast majority are decent enough young people. Their parents played the lottery with them, moving here on the assumption that they would get to stay, lured by corrupt businesses that used their parents’ labor at below market rates. Lots of these kids are really stuck between their illegal presence here and their lack of affinity for their parents’ home, overwhelmingly Mexico. I really do feel for the kids, but I didn’t put them in this position – their parents did. I’d love to see a solution whereby the kids can be put on a path to residence as long as whoever brought them here has to leave. Someone needs to pay the bill.
And unaccompanied juveniles crossing the border should immediately be returned to their home country.
No voting rights, either.
Too bad being ravaged by the vapidity and obsequiousness of the mainstream media cannot be considered a #metoo moment.
Love the comment – but I would’ve liked it if only for using those words. :)
I’m not defending the impartiality of the article, but the point may be that the student from Ecuador who has been illegally residing in South Carolina since he was a child, cannot get in state tuition in any state. The legal resident from Georgia is free to go to a state school in Georgia if he can’t afford the out of state tuition.
Personally, if a state doesn’t want to reward illegal immigrants by giving their children discounted college education in addition to the free high school education, it’s okay by me. I’m with @tex929rr, the fault lies with the parents for putting their kids in that situation. This is just another symptom of the underlying problem. We have kids that have grown up here but are not legal residents. Most of us don’t want to send them back to a country they’ve never known, but we don’t want to reward the illegal behavior of the parents either.
Correct. Because he is not a legal resident of any state. Any American state, at least.
Citizenship has it’s privileges.
It just dawned on me that the headline of this article fits me perfectly. I grew up on a hog farm, but I dreamed of becoming a doctor one day. So I worked long hours for many years, and eventually my dream came true.
Allowing the left to define terms used in public policy debates is dangerous, because of this. The headline makes perfect sense, in my context. But then they subtly substitute their own context by redefining terms, and declare that they have won the argument.
When you’re on the wrong side of every debate, I suppose techniques like this are a reasonable approach to take.
But this is why we can’t allow terms like “Dreamers” to become part of the public debate. When the left controls the media, however, I don’t see how we can prevent them from doing this.
But aren’t the “Dreamers” residents in the state? It seems that the in state tuition reduction is for residents. If the Georgian moved to South Carolina then they would get the reduced tuition would then not?
To me the fair thing would be that if you pay state taxes (income and/or property) you should get the instate rate because you already subsidies the schools. Simple, fair, hassle free.
Evidently you have not met a “Dreamer” who was brought here at the age of 3 and has never been back to her native Mexico. I have. She is employed as a Dental Assistant, who hands instruments to a Dentist and laughs at his jokes. Consider this when you next see the dentist.
I am not advocating for her parents to receive amnesty, they came here as adults. But she was 3 years old and should have a path to legal status.
Trump had a deal on the DACA Dreamers with money for his beloved wall, which he threw away under pressure from the so-called “Freedom Caucus.”
I hope that the current House discharge petition allows the will of the House to vote on the four different options, and send one on to the Senate. That is the role of a legislature, to legislate.
Illegal immigration is such a “cluster”.
How many “Dreamers” subscribe to LaRaza’s views?
No thank you; however, I would consider buying her a one-way bus ticket back to visit granny and gramps.
Really? This is an interesting and new reality for me. Please explain.
Kind of makes you wonder if being a citizen has any benefits at all, given how much our politicians want to take from hard-working, tax-paying citizens to give to non-citizens. Free college, free healthcare, free everything for the non-citizen; burdensome taxes and regulations for the citizens.
Yes, unlike the manner in which DACA came into existence. It’s unfortunate that you appear to support unconstitutional executive actions, while constantly criticizing the alleged “authoritarian” in the White House
Herein lies the problem. What’s the plan for dealing with the parents?
I suspect that I have met far more Dreamers; I taught them in school, I have been to their weddings and observed their children being baptized. Frankly, even many of the parents are decent people lured by a broken immigration system. Every generation we reform immigration, accepting a large cohort who arrived illegally with the promise that it wouldn’t happen again. The parents had a reasonable expectation that there wouldn’t be any penalty for taking a chance.
So here we are, again. I really don’t want to be Charlie Brown, trusting Lucy that she will hold the football this time.
If Republicans would stop lying to us, I could go along with that. The trouble is, how will you know when the Republicans are done lying to us? I’d say that when they eliminate corporate welfare that will be a good enough sign that they are turning a new leaf, and then I’d recommend listening to them on their immigration ideas.
We also need to get rid of birthright citizenship for the children born of those here illegally or on a tourist visa.
I thought this was really good on the current state of “conservatism” and then I got criticized because it left out entitlements. The other good one is the Whisky Politics interview of D.C. McAlester.
Trusting Our Rulers and wishing for government to “work” seems like such a waste of time.
Then people get wistful for Ronald Reagan. Personally, I don’t think he’s that big of a deal because his hands were tied by the USSR among other things. I agree with David Stockman’s criticism of him. Stockman’s Real Vision interview was just brutal.
The left keeps the ground they take. I have my opinions on this.
I hope they hold the House.
When their lips stop moving.
Hearing experts explain the various dimensions of birthright citizenship is really angering. What are we doing to ourselves?