Saturday, January 29, 2011

Zarelli nails it: slash services to illegal aliens.

.
If I haven't made my position clear enough in the past, let me restate it: If you are here illegally, then you deserve nothing in the way of state services except arrest and transport into federal custody.

The most deserving illegal alien is not as deserving as the least deserving citizen. Any program providing any service to any illegal must be eliminated at every level. Why any level of state or local government PROVIDES any service to illegals, save assisting in their deportation, is simply beyond my comprehension.

Well, it appears that we've finally reached the point where these truths are becoming increasingly clear. It's unfortunate that those conclusions are not innate; a major part of the reason illegal aliens still come here is that we represent something of a resort destination for those breaking our laws. Frequently, we subvert our own laws with moronic "sanctuary cities" and garbage like that... we even provide in-state tuition for illegals under many circumstances, a moronic bill by a faux Republican from the 49th, Don Carlson, who carried the WEA's water like Gunga Din for years, only to get tossed under the bus at their earliest convenience... but not before he moronically saddled the taxpayers and education system with a privilege that American citizens don't even get if they don't live in Washington State... the right to in-state tuition; a bill that Carlson blathered would only cosy $50,000 per year that has, in fact, cost us millions.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: illegal aliens should not be allowed in our schools at any level. But they certainly shouldn't be allowed to take up the slot of a legal resident/citizen at the Washington citizen/in-state tuition rate.

That much was obvious when Carlson idiotically ran that bill, costing kids here legally the ability to attend our schools and university because their slots are taken up by illegals.

It does not appear that this program is on the chopping block... but it assuredly needs to be.

Meanwhile, Zarelli is asking many of the tough questions that need to be asked. And while the headline of this article says: "Immigrants may be affected by state budget cuts," it should say "Programs providing services to illegal aliens are ended."

Immigrants may be affected by state budget cuts

The state's grim financial shape is pushing lawmakers further into the immigration debate, forcing a state historically friendly to immigrants to consider cuts that will impact large segments of legal and illegal immigrants.

Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. —

The state's grim financial shape is pushing lawmakers further into the immigration debate, forcing a state historically friendly to immigrants to consider cuts that will impact large segments of legal and illegal immigrants.

The proposed cuts are on top of introduced bills that call for stricter enforcement of immigration law, specifically bills that would force the state to ask for proof of legal residency when obtaining a driver's license.

"My whole point is that we ignore, ignore, ignore - now we have to make real decisions: Does the public think it's a priority to provide benefits for people who are undocumented?" said Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, the Senate GOP's budget chief. "I believe it's time for prioritizing what we can afford to do. We gotta have that debate."

More:
.

10 comments:

Martin Hash said...

I'm more of a weenie when it comes to illegal immigrants. My family probably descends from illegal aliens, and I've always liked adventure films where the goal is simply to cross the finish line - so if you can make it here, you can start your engines. HOWEVER...

Citizenship should have its privileges, and higher education is one of them. So is partaking of the social safety net.

The one place where we really disagree is in voting – with 15-25 million unrepresented people living in this country, we’re asking for trouble – everyone should have the right to vote as a way to relieve the kind of pressures that are happening in Egypt right now.

Lew Waters said...

If you are in the country illegally, you deserve nothing more than an escorted bus ride back to where you came from.

Just a guy said...

Can you clarify your position a little bit, Martin?

Do you mean to say that the only requirement for voting in this country should be an individual's presence?

Martin Hash said...

Often my "liberal" arguments are ivory tower, Constitution-based ideology, but in the case of illegal immigrants, I'm a full-on pragmatist. 25 million people is a huge number - 8% of the population! If anyone thinks we're going to pack 25 million people into train cars and ship them back across the border, or into concentration camps, has not thought this through. And not letting 8% of your population vote is almost as bad.

Just a guy said...

Martin,

Your position is problematic for a variety of reasons:

First of all, many (Half or more?) of those illegal are children. In every election, we forbid fully 30% or more of our own population from voting because they don't meet the age requirement.

Should we also do away with that?

Second, how long would it take our politicians to forget their "America First" creed if they have to pander to illegals as a voting block?

The one thing that separates us from those who are not here legally... hell, from those around the world... are the rights of our citizenship.

Martin, when I had a uniform bolted on and wound up spending 1 day out of every 8 I've been alive overseas to defend my country... it wasn't to defend the rights of those breaking our laws with their presence, let alone to defend their right to vote.

"Voting" is a right. It is a fundamental right to citizenship, because those who vote without being citizens have no requirement to vote for what's best for the country.

Your position, as I understand it, strips away at the importance of citizenship and would result, were it enacted, in the slippery slope of no differentiation between legal and illegal... and in the further weakening if not elimination of borders in anything but name.

Giving illegals the right to vote would open the flood gates and overwhelm our already strapped social service and school system. Plus, what kind of message would that send to the rest of the world?

You, in effect, seem to be advocating a complete amnesty where those who get in this country illegally are rewarded for their perfidy, and not penalized... because the next question becomes this: how can we deport a voter?

We can't. Once allowed a vote... they WOULD be allowed to stay.

There are a variety of ways we can get illegals to leave voluntarilly... without "rounding them up and shipping them out on freight cars."

Arizona is a perfect example of a state where enacting a single law, HB 1070, resulted in a flood of illegals leaving on their own. Arizona still seems to be there, so their departure didn't prove particularly harmful.

But to stem the flood, we need to eliminate the incentive and the incentivizers.

Eliminate government services, that they shouldn't be receiving anyway. Make it illegal for illegals to own property. Confiscate the property they do own. Make it illegal for, well, illegals to go to our schools or universities or colleges. Make it illegal for illegals to drive or own vehicles. Make those caught here illegally permanently banned from ever getting citizenship.

Treat those who hire illegals the same way we treat those who sell drugs.

Imprison them. Confiscate their property.

End this nonsense of "sanctuary cities." Tell these cities that any effort to provide a snactuary... any effort to keep ICE from knowing they've arrested an illegal for ANY reason, for example, or to provide any services to illegals will result in an immediate cut off of federal funds for ANY reason.

No, we don't have to round anyone up. We just have to get serious about removing any of the myriad incentives they have to come here in the first place.

This isn't Egypt, where oppression was, more or less, applied across the board. This is America, where there are ways to get here legally. And if a large segment of the population is here illegally, then they SHOULD be "oppressed," since they shouldn't be here at all.

Martin Hash said...

I'll focus on the things we DO agree on:
1) DON'T LET THEM IN!!!
2) Deny social services
3) Make employment difficult
4) There are probably other things we could come to terms on.

Make it so that only the truly committed, go-getter, America-loving, work-aholics would come.

Just a guy said...

The only way to meet your qualification (which I agree with, BTW) is to make it untenable for anone to come here illegally.

And I'm still mystified as to how extending the vote to illegals accomplishes your goal:

Make it so that only the truly committed, go-getter, America-loving, work-aholics would come.

Martin Hash said...

Voting doesn't make people come to America or affect their choice to stay or even leave. Voting is America's way of providing representation. Whether you agree with illegals being here or not - 25 million people need representation. (Children are represented by their parent's votes.)

Your argument is that 8% will probably change the outcome of elections - yes it will. That's what representation is all about. Peaceful representation prevents violent representation. So, it all comes down to either somehow getting 10s of millions of people to voluntarily or involuntarily leave the country, or represent them.

Just a guy said...

"Your argument is that 8% will probably change the outcome of elections - yes it will."

Actually, that is just one segment of my multi-faceted reasoning to oppose this proposal.

Your observation:

Voting doesn't make people come to America or affect their choice to stay or even leave.

Makes precisely zero sense to me.

Eliminate the citizenship requirement and we would be flooded by illegals who would then take over the electorate, particularly in the SW US. And I have a concern over "sanctuary cities..." what would happen if we had "sanctuary STATES?"

The battle cry would become "just sneak over the border and we can use American laws to take over!"

Then what?

Do you believe any other country on the planet allows this? And why don't they?

Further, if you can vote, you can run for office.

The requirement to BE a citizen to be elected here is part and parcel of rights of citizenship... rights that you seem to want to dilute substantially under the guise of a concept that say, effectively, "because so MANY illegals are here, their sheer numbers make them deserving of a say."

Over my dead body.

You see, Martin, this is my home. And I will oppose, with every fiber of my being, any reduction or dilution of MY rights.

The Constitution that you so claim to revere is not a series of suggestions to be cast aside for matters such as this.

Citizenship is a requirement to vote. And I'll risk the wrath of those who shouldn't be here in the first place because we don't give them a say any more then prisoners in our jails have a word in the administration of those facilities.

That is not what I and millions of others defended this country for... and I won't have it.

Further... I don't see myself standing alone on that issue.

Martin Hash said...

Okay, both sides of the argument have been presented. We put into action those things we agree on then address the next issue. Anyway, that's how I work.