Main Index of the Weekly Forecast & Review


Ultrapolis Weekly Forecast & Review

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

© Copyright 2010, The Ultrapolis Project – May be used freely with proper attribution.  All other rights reserved.


Illegal Aliens With More Education Rights Than U.S. Citizens

Texas Governor Perry Stands by Law, After Debate Misstep


Governor Misspeaks, but the Truth is Out There…

At the second Texas gubernatorial debate for candidates seeking the Republican nomination, held on January 29, a Houston TV reporter asked Governor Rick Perry the following question: “You pointed out that for illegal immigrants to get the in-state tuition they have to apply for legal residency, correct?”  Governor Perry responded “Yes, sir.”  The reporter then followed up with “According to the bill it says you have to promise to apply. Does the state then follow up to verify that the application has been made for residency?”  Perry responded with Clintonian certitude, "It is my understanding, yes, sir, absolutely.”  The reporter asked for confirmation on who was checking, and Perry repeatedly assured his questioner twice that the Texas Education Agency was on the job.  As it turns out, he was wrong.  Andy Kiesling with Texas Higher Education later had to explain that “there's no provision in the statute that requires follow up,” and the agency is not on the job.  The Governor’s office retracted the Governor’s remarks, but re-asserted the governor’s support for the law.

The law, which allows illegal or undocumented aliens to benefits from taxpayer-subsidized tuition rates under certain conditions (three years in the U.S., a Texas high school diploma, and a promise to apply for U.S. residency), signed into effect by Perry himself in 2001 (not widely known by many in Texas), was recently challenged (again with little news reporting) by a lawsuit filed in December in Houston against the University of Houston, Houston Community College and Lone Star College systems.  The lawsuit claims the state law violates federal law, and seeks an injunction against the practice.   Almost identical laws passed in other states at coincidentally the same times, are now also under legal challenge for the same reasons. 

At the federal level, starting also in 2001, but with less success, the attempt has been made to guarantee this benefit for illegal aliens nationwide.  The latest incarnation is called the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act), and was re-introduced in March 2009. 

The laws have the odd effect of providing illegal aliens from foreign countries with more rights to tax-supported benefits than U.S. citizens that cross state lines.  Prior to these laws, and judicial rulings on public school access, all aliens had to pay tuition, even at the elementary and high school level, on the premise that they or their parents did not pay property taxes.  Today, of course, many illegal aliens do own property in the U.S., even though American citizens cannot do so without a valid Social Security Number.

National Public Sentiment 0, Corporate Interests 3

The national debate on illegal immigration, and the right of undocumented aliens to access taxpayer-funded benefits, and citizen rights and license privileges, has been documented by two major opposing forces:  on the one-side, the overwhelming public sentiment, across ethnic, racial and cultural lines, that has favored curbing illegal immigration and access to benefits and privileges (in some polls in majorities of up to 70%); on the other, an unusual conjunction of far-Left, “no borders” activists, and powerful corporate interests who are keen to maintain a cheap workforce that is likely to remain cheap and easy to control so long as it is ‘undocumented.’   And, even if it does not remain undocumented, studies on the subject have shown the obvious:  that an influx of cheap labor lowers wages at the lower economic rungs (a simple matter of supply and demand).  Less educated African-Americans have been the most adversely affected.  In this face-off, the people cannot win, because copious corporate money far outweighs public sentiment of needs in the political calculations of those in our governor mansions and capitol domes. And, while Americans are generally in consensus on the matter, they don’t feel strongly about it.

As pointed out in an earlier weekly report covering the new free corporate speech, corporations are driven by profit, and when the profit motive conflicts with national interests, the profit motive almost always wins.  This is why American corporations have been caught selling illegal weapons technology to the likes of China and Iran.  So, when it comes to the effect illegal immigration has on those at the bottom of the U.S. economic ladder, or on how border county hospitals are going bankrupt and are closing, or on how U.S. citizens end up strangely with less right to benefits than foreign nationals illegally in their own country, it is of no profitable interest to them.

So, it does not matter what the public feeling is on this matter.  Benefits will continue to be extended to illegal aliens – and expanded, with the helpful cover of the far-Left rhetoric of misguided humanitarianism.  And when public healthcare reform is eventually passed, it too will eventually cover illegal aliens – no matter what President Obama says to the contrary.

Mexico to U.S.: Do as I Say, Not as I Do

Incidentally, Mexico has its own illegal alien problem originating from Central America, particularly Guatemala.  However, the Mexicans, despite their rhetoric aimed at the U.S., have a completely different attitude towards illegal aliens:  No access to any benefits, school, or healthcare.  No political rights, no right to sue, and no right to free speech.  Mexicans themselves actually do enjoy a remarkable level of free speech, plus government-secured healthcare, and decent public schooling – it is just reserved for their citizens.  This is not to say we are obligated to follow their example.  But it does suggest a certain level of insincerity in the Mexican demands on the U.S. regarding American treatment of Mexicans who cross the border illegally, and literally cut in front of the line of those legally applying for U.S. visas around the world.

Nor are we here to malign the illegal migrants themselves, who are merely seeking to improve their lot in life, a human right if there ever was one.  But we all understand that hungry people cannot be allowed to steal bread, or that sick people cannot physically force others to provide medical care, however we may sympathize with their plight.   We recognize the long-term consequences to the rule of law.  And so, while illegal aliens may benefit directly in the short-run from the increasingly open - even institutional - disregard for American laws, they along with the rest of us will inherit a degraded social order, and we will all pay a price for that.

Vancouver Olympics Open With Typical Western Drab

Mismatched Costumes, Slapdash Dance Moves Outshined by Technology


In an approach reminiscent of the underwhelming London Bus at the end of the closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics that heralded London’s Olympics in 2012, the opening ceremonies of the Vancouver Winter Olympics featured a ménage of grungy and haphazard dancers and performers that scampered about in what we were supposed to believe was an intricate and highly complex routine, but still looked liked a mob of dancers improvising on the spot.  Starting with the Native American tribal dancers jumping up and down in a manner that if performed by any Anglo-white would have been seen as an offensive spoof, to the edgy, heavily-tattooed punk leather look, to the “I just threw this on” look of the main dancers, we could not help but suspect that very little time and money was put into the human performance.  Contrasted with the imposing and dazzling Chinese display of pageantry, precision, composition, and grand scale, it looked like what it was: A common tactic used today by Westerners who try to pass off costuming that looks like ‘just wear whatever’ with routines that look like ‘just do whatever,’ as high art, to save money.  In this regard, we understand:  the artistic director only had one-tenth the funds of his Chinese counterpart in 2008 (another sign of the times), and he apparently chose to devote it to the spectacular technology deployed at the show to create stunning and breathtakingly beautiful backdrops.  So, it was not a total loss; and the show did come together at the end with a semblance of composition that rallied to inspire. But, the emperor is still naked.




Main Index of the Weekly Forecast & Review

© Copyright 2010, The Ultrapolis Project

May be used freely with proper attribution.  All other rights reserved.