The Dream Act, or SB167, grants tax funded tuition to illegal immigrants through the in-state tuition program in Maryland. Interestingly, the bill explicitly specifies illegal immigrants for the benefit, but not legal aliens (or in the bill language “nonimmigrant aliens”). Non-immigrant aliens would include persons from outside the United States who are here on student visas, as an example.
An opinion was submitted to Governor O’Malley by Attorney General Doug Gansler just one day prior to the governor’s signing of the bill, and consequently AFTER the legislature voted on the bill. (The AG is the “Counsel to the General Assembly”, not to the Governor.) In the opinion, the AG makes several important points as referenced in Delegate Michael Smigiel’s blog. But most interestingly, on page seven, it states, “Any person who invalidates his or her visa by staying past the allotted time or activity becomes an undocumented immigrant and could qualify for the exemption offered by Senate Bill 167.”
This bill not only penalizes Maryland citizens by forcing them to subsidize the tuition of those who are breaking our nation’s immigration laws, but also delivers a slap in the face to those aliens who come here legally. Life is Pavlovian, folks. When we reward bad behavior, we invite more of it. When we punish good behavior, we prevent more of it.
Why would our legislators provide financial benefits to illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense and also exclude from the same benefit those aliens who come to Maryland legally? How is that consistent with and serve their argument that a better educated populace, regardless of immigration status, is an investment in Maryland’s future? Never mind that it is unlawful to hire illegal immigrants in our country, whether we’ve paid for their college education or not.
Following the “logic” of the liberal mind is like trying to follow the ball under the teacups of an illusionist.
DISCLOSURE: The writer is a county coordinator for the petition against the Dream Act.
Click here to see other articles on the Dream Act.
Comments