Thread: California Dream Act's opponents gather signatures

Originally Posted by teamosil

No, inflation is when the cost of things goes up over time, not when the cost differs from place to place.

Just to note...the cost difference from one place to another affects inflation also. If X person/state see's that Y person/state is getting Z amount of more money for D service then X person/state will increase the cost to provide for D service because Y person/state is getting Z amount of more money.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

Not a strawman. That is exactly what is happening. Just because they are using money not originally allocated towards students does not mean that the money couldn't have been used towards those that were not accepted due to there not being enough money. Or that the money couldn't have been used towards other things that legal residents could use.

What do you mean "not accepted"? I don't think you understand how financial aid works. You submit some forms, they estimate what your ability to pay is, financial aid covers the remainder. Always.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

Also if a prosector says that there is nothing then it is up to the defense to prove them wrong. That is the way our courts work. The prosecutor puts forth an offense that shows the jury/judge how X person did X thing and the defense puts forth a defense that shows why the prosecutor is wrong.

No, that isn't how our courts work. Prosecutors don't just wander into court and blurt out "I think this guy committed murder" and then it's up the the defendant to prove they didn't... The prosecutor needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy committed murder.

Originally Posted by teamosil

What do you mean "not accepted"? I don't think you understand how financial aid works. You submit some forms, they estimate what your ability to pay is, financial aid covers the remainder. Always.

Do you not understand that the money that the government gives to help financial aid programs is limited? You are right that they allocate the money based upon how many students will apply. But they estimate how many students will apply. They do not know before hand or wait until a student applies to allocate that money to the program.

If they estimate that a financial program is going to serve 20 thousand students they will allocate enough money to serve those 20 thousand students for the average cost of college. Not the max or the minimum but the average. Lets say just for arguements sake that in order to send those 20 thousand kids to college it will cost $700 million for one year. So they give that program $700 million. Now they start accepting applications to recieve aid. Only instead of 20 thousand students applying for aid they end up getting 30 thousand students applying for aid. That means that there are 10 thousand students that will not recieve financial aid because the program does not have enough money allocated to it in order to serve 30 thousand people. And it doesn't matter if those 10 thousand students qualified. If there is no money they cannot get help until the program gets more money.

Originally Posted by teamosil

No, that isn't how our courts work. Prosecutors don't just wander into court and blurt out "I think this guy committed murder" and then it's up the the defendant to prove they didn't... The prosecutor needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy committed murder.

No, what they would do is show that they tried everything that they could to show that the person was a legal person. That means they must show thier investigative work, what that investigative work turned up (if anything) etc etc etc. They may also bring in witnesses that knows the defendent and have heard them say that he/she are in the US illegally.

I was just simplifying it for the sake of arguement. Obviously that was a bad call on my part since you seem to think that I don't know obvious things.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

If there is no money they cannot get help until the program gets more money.

I'm sure that if they ever were unable to deliver on their obligations Congress would approve more money...

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

No, what they would do is show that they tried everything that they could to show that the person was a legal person. That means they must show thier investigative work, what that investigative work turned up (if anything) etc etc etc. They may also bring in witnesses that knows the defendent and have heard them say that he/she are in the US illegally.

Ah there you go. So they are in fact proving that the person is here illegally. That's what those witnesses are about. So you see why they need a trial then, yes?

Originally Posted by teamosil

I'm sure that if they ever were unable to deliver on their obligations Congress would approve more money…

Here, of course, is one of the primary points where liberalism always goes wrong—the assumption that there is some unlimited pool of wealth into which government can always tap more deeply, to support any additional spending that it thinks is needed. If there isn't enough revenue now to support the desired level of spending, they always think that they can and should raise more taxes, particularly on “The Rich”—and that somehow they can do so indefinitely with no adverse consequences, or at least with sufficiently small adverse consequences to not negate the good that they think government can do by spending that money.

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Here, of course, is one of the primary points where liberalism always goes wrong—the assumption that there is some unlimited pool of wealth into which government can always tap more deeply, to support any additional spending that it thinks is needed. If there isn't enough revenue now to support the desired level of spending, they always think that they can and should raise more taxes, particularly on “The Rich”—and that somehow they can do so indefinitely with no adverse consequences, or at least with sufficiently small adverse consequences to not negate the good that they think government can do by spending that money.

Kal'Stang is arguing that by extending financial aid to the children of undocumented immigrants we are somehow preventing citizens from getting financial aid. Do you think that is true?

Originally Posted by teamosil

Kal'Stang is arguing that by extending financial aid to the children of undocumented immigrants we are somehow preventing citizens from getting financial aid. Do you think that is true?

Yes, I think that is exactly what Kal'Stang is arguing. I'm not sure why you're asking me this question, though. If you're not sure what it is that he is arguing, wouldn't it make more sense to ask him if it's true that he is arguing that?

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Yes, I think that is exactly what Kal'Stang is arguing. I'm not sure why you're asking me this question, though. If you're not sure what it is that he is arguing, wouldn't it make more sense to ask him if it's true that he is arguing that?

Well, do you have any stance on the topic we're debating in this thread? I don't want to get into just some generic debate about you think liberals suck or whatever.

Originally Posted by teamosil

I'm sure that if they ever were unable to deliver on their obligations Congress would approve more money...

They could.... but they don't. The legislature has to deal with more things also. And like Bob basically says in his post...we do not have an unlimited amount of money. There is a limit. They give those programs a set amount of money to last for a specific amount of time. If the money runs out before that time is gone then there are people that do not get aid.

Originally Posted by teamosil

Ah there you go. So they are in fact proving that the person is here illegally. That's what those witnesses are about. So you see why they need a trial then, yes?

No they do not. At most they need an arbiter...not a whole trial. And the arbiter does not need a law degree to review some evidence as simple as there being documentation or not or to understand the legalities of a witness saying that X person said that the illegal said he was here illegally.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

If the money runs out before that time is gone then there are people that do not get aid.

Is it your contention that that has ever actually happened? Or are you just theorizing that who knows maybe someday it could happen?

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

No they do not. At most they need an arbiter...not a whole trial. And the arbiter does not need a law degree to review some evidence as simple as there being documentation or not or to understand the legalities of a witness saying that X person said that the illegal said he was here illegally.

Well, that just goes entirely against the basic ideas of the constitution and our system of justice. We believe that the government needs to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that people are guilty of crimes before it can impose criminal penalties on them.