This wasn't the first time some of them had a problem.

If they were arrested for murder, wouldn't they have bigger problems than worrying about their immigration status? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here and I have not followed that case to understand the relevance but when someone is already arrested for a crime then yes, some of their rights may be forfeit, like their right to not be in jail for instance. Cops would not even have to ask, they can run all the background checks they deem necessary to solve a crime.

Quote:

It might be, but who would be dumb enough to volunteer that information to a police officer?

When a person commit a crime you lose your privacy. Cops are not allowed to ask criminals about their status. This issue became a hot topic in Newark when four teenagers where shot and three killed in a school yard several years ago by illegal immigrants. Newark was called a sanctuary city I guess JC is too.

There's nothing 'Latin' about respecting people's privacy. Cops cannot and should not pry and search unless there is probable cause.

While there may be more Latino illegals due to their proximity of origin, then it should also make sense that they are the ones deported the most. I dare you to show me statistics that can dispute that assertion. I would guess that over 90% of illegals deported are from other parts of the Americas.

They come here to work and they get exploited by those who want to profit off cheap labor. What are we doing about those people? Reagan sure didn't do a thing.

The problem is - it is illegal for cops to ask someone if they are illegal. That is ridiculous. The Latin politicians are trying to protect their base. Also when you stop illegal immigration you will cut down on the amount of illegal drugs coming into this country.

Yvonne - shows how long the US has been fighting a losing battle over immigration. From a economic perspective, it would be better to allow freedom of movement and employment within NAFTA. But limit social benefits to migrants until they've contributed x years to social security. That means if they're coming to the US, they're coming to work, pay taxes and not live off state handouts.

Perhaps it's time for the US to stop acting like a closed-shop trade union.

In 1986, President Reagan did an amnesty bill, saying we will not send people back but now (1986) but this country will not allow more illegal immigration. Well that was a joke, it really depends on what ethnic group you come from. I personally know Irish and Canadians who were deported. Some were married to Americans and had "American children." Several years ago, the JJ wrote about an African woman married to an American. They were part of St. Patrick's church. Father Schiller spoke in favor of this woman in the JJ. She had children, but she was deported. We break the rules for Latin groups here illegality. This bill will encourage more illegal immigration at time when the State of NJ cannot pay its bills without raising more taxes.

http://www.nj.com/ledgerlive/index.ss ... y_illegal_immigrants.html

If Rick Perry can sign a similar bill in Texas, why wouldn't Chris Christie?

What the video didn't show is the real fall-out from the absurd immigration policies. Without documentation, a large number of these immigrants are forced into the black economy - prostitution, drug-dealing, human trafficking, gang-activities, etc.

If deporting all illegal immigrants is not feasible, wouldn't it make sense to to find a way to allow them to work legally and pay taxes? Wouldn't that offset complaints about subsidizing their housing/education if they are earning their keep? It might also increase tax revenues and drive down crime.

But then I suppose the US would lose another set of second-class humans they could inflict their intolerance on.

Quote:

Off topic, but do you think it's unfairly discriminatory to say that women should be spared the ordeal of compulsory military service?

Quote:

You'll need to call the Governor. The bill passed the senate on Monday 25-12.

http://newjersey.news12.com/news/nj-s ... grants-1.6457442#comments

Quote:
I will make the call thanks for posting !!

Quote:
What is unfair about that? It has always been the case, in my memory, that out-of-state students pay more in order to enable more state residents - presumably lower income - to take advantage of lower tuition rates. It seems perfectly fair to give something back to residents who have paid state taxes, by way of helping their kids go to college.

But the grievances expressed here seem not to have anything to do with "fairness" or the importance of "playing by the rules", given how those words are being thrown around over this particular issue. Play fair? Play by the rules? I do - was it fair Wall Street/CEOs of the Big 3 Automakers get bailed out for f*cking up and destroying the economy, jobs, and livelihoods while we pick up the tab?

Quote:

Deport the illegal immigrants, or stfu and provide for their basic needs which includes housing and education.

Subsidized housing and subsidized education are not immigration issues. They are both badly designed and badly managed programs, that meet few if any of their objectives. How immigrants are housed and educated has been an ongoing squabble almost since the country was founded.

Subsidized housing, education and immigration policy may all be broken, but they are different issues and should be addressed separately.

Do you have any idea what this will cost? As it is, we spend a fortunate on public education for illegal immigrants and many also live in subsidized housing.

Quote:

Out of status individuals are subject to the draft. So if you're here "illegally" and you're 18 years old, you are required to register with Selective Services. Perhaps one provision of the bill should be proof of registration in the SSS at the age of 18 as an indication of their good faith effort to move toward citizenship (as lopsided as that sounds as SSS is for males only, at this time):

From the Selective Service website:

Some non-citizens are required to register. Others are not. Non-citizens who are not required to register with Selective Service include men who are in the U.S. on student or visitor visas, and men who are part of a diplomatic or trade mission and their families. Almost all other male non-citizens are required to register, including undocumented immigrants, legal permanent residents, and refugees. The general rule is that if a male non-citizen takes up residency in the U.S. before his 26th birthday, he must register with Selective Service.

Source - Expanded Info

I am against this bill, I remember the Viet Nam period when young men were drafted. There were many immigrants in Hudson County then but they were not subjected to the draft. Furthermore, we do not know the cost of this bill. The state budget is expected to grow. We cannot afford this. Plus this will just encourage more illegal immigration.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013 ... dgets.html#incart_m-rpt-1

While I'm not debating the issue, I do want to mention a few more benefits. When we invite someone from another culture to attend school with our students it expands our students perspective on a global level.

This can create competition at a base level in a global economy.

This mainstreams the immigrants while elevating their opportunities.

IMHO, all around good things.

This is a tough call. My wife, a legal immigrant who has followed all the immigration rules, would probably be against this bill. She feels that people who break immigration laws ruin it for people who come in legally and follow the rules. I avoid debating that issue with her.

But the overwhelming majority of people who this bill would affect probably came to this country when they were very young, with their parents and had no control over the situation. It's not their fault that they are illegal, and I don't think they should be punished for that, especially if they are trying to remedy the situation. I see too many instances of young adults being deported completely out of the blue because they came here illegally as a child with their parents, sometimes the result is heartbreaking - an older brother born abroad getting separated from his younger siblings who were born here, for example.

However, Senator Beck also makes a good point about this law potentially creating new loopholes as well. Hopefully the law will be fine-tuned accordingly.

DTC thank you for posting the text of the bill in issue. Now that I have had the chance to read it, I actually support the bill.

The provisions are very fair and appropriate. The student has to have gone to high school in the state and sign affidavits that they are applying for citizenship.

I think it's a fair bill. We're a country of immigrants. My grandparents came from Italy and my grandfather served in the US military.

An American student from another State has the option of going to the State school in their home state. The resident immigrant has no options.

The OP got the title wrong. If you follow the original JJ link it should have been S2479.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/S2500/2479_R2.HTM

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... html#incart_most-comments

This is the text of the bill, which says nothing about in state tuition: NEW JERSEY 2013 SESSION LAW SERVICE Two Hundred Fifteenth Legislature, Second Annual Session Additions are indicated by Text; deletions by Text. Vetoes are indicated by Text ; stricken material by Text . CHAPTER 110 SENATE No. 2468 RULES AND REGULATIONS?MOTOR VEHICLES?IMPOUNDMENT AN ACT concerning impoundment of certain motor vehicles and supplementing Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes. Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey: << NJ ST 2C:43?2.4 >> 1.[FN1] a. Any law enforcement agency is authorized to impound: (1) a motor vehicle in which a violation of subsection a., d., or f. of N.J.S.2C:39?5 was committed; (2) a motor vehicle in which possession of a handgun, rifle, or shotgun for an unlawful purpose in violation of N.J.S.2C:39?4 was committed; (3) a motor vehicle in which a violation of subsection b. or c. of N.J.S.2C:39?5 was committed in addition to the motor vehicle being used to commit a separate crime of the first, second, third or fourth degree under Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; (4) a motor vehicle which was used in the commission of any offense under subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:34?1; and (5) a motor vehicle which was used in the commission of an offense under subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:35?10 or sub-section a. of N.J.S.2C:35?5. b. A law enforcement agency impounding a vehicle pursuant to this section is authorized to charge a reasonable administrative fee in addition to the fees charged for the towing and storage of the impounded vehicle. The law enforcement agency is further authorized to retain custody of the vehicle until the fees are paid. All administrative fees and towing and storage fees shall be imposed on the registered owner of the motor vehicle. The registered owner shall be entitled to a hearing, upon request. The administrative fees shall be collected by and paid to the municipality imposing the fees. The towing and storage fees shall be collected by and paid to the person or entity that tows and stores the impounded vehicle. c. The registered owner of the vehicle shall be provided notice of the impoundment and of the right to request a hearing. d. If the owner-lessor or registered owner of an impounded vehicle fails to claim the impounded vehicle by midnight of the 90th day following the day on which the vehicle was impounded, that vehicle may be sold at auction; provided however, a vehicle shall not be sold until the lessee or registered owner has been convicted of the offense, or offenses pursuant to paragraph (3) of subsection a., for which the vehicle was impounded under subsection a. of this section. Property impounded under this section shall not be sold if the owner of the property establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the owner was not involved in or aware of the unlawful activity and that the owner had done all that could reasonably be expected to prevent the proscribed use of the property by an agent. A person who uses or possesses property with the consent or knowledge of the owner is deemed to be the agent of the owner for purposes of this subsection. Notice of the sale shall be given by the impounding entity by certified mail to the owner of the vehicle, if the owner's name and address are known, and to the lienholder, if the lienholder's name and address are known, and by publication in a form prescribed by the chief administrator by one insertion, at least five days before the date of the sale, in one or more newspapers published in this State and circulating in the municipality in which the vehicle is impounded. At any time prior to the sale of an impounded vehicle, the owner or other person entitled to the vehicle may reclaim possession upon showing proof of registration and insurance and paying all costs associated with the impoundment, and reasonable towing and storage fees and administrative fees. The owner-lessor of an impounded vehicle shall be entitled to reclaim possession without payment or proof of in-surance and the lessee shall be liable for all outstanding costs associated with the impoundment, towing, and storage of the vehicle and the administrative fees. e. Any proceeds obtained from the sale of a vehicle at public auction pursuant to subsection d. of this section in excess of the amount owed for the administrative fees, towing and storage fees and any other costs associated with the impoundment of the vehicle shall be returned to the owner of that vehicle, if his name and address are known. f. Nothing in this section shall be construed to in any way limit or abridge the authority provided by N.J.S.2C:64?1 et seq. or any other law regarding forfeiture. 2. This act shall take effect immediately. Approved August 8, 2013.

Quote:

If they're paying full tuition that's no different to any overseas student coming here to study. It's the in-state tuition that's messed up, not just for immigrants, but for residents too. In-state tuition is simply a free state cash handout with no strings.

Why are we educating kids at the college level that won't be able to hold a legal job without papers when they graduate, let alone allow them to pay in-state resident tuition?

The whole in-state tuition discount seems a bit stupid to me. Instead, the state should be encouraging grads to stay. I'd rather see everyone pay the same tuition, but make tuition costs state tax deductible over a period of up to say 5 years after graduation. And that would apply to everyone that works in the state and pays taxes after graduation, irrespective of immigration status.

The question then is one of, can children of immigrants qualify for financial assistance? I don't see why not if their parents have paid taxes on declared income.

Did you read the bill? Ah, no.

S2468 Authorizes impoundment of motor vehicles for certain crimes and offenses

You shouldn't form your opinion based on a poorly written article.

Your State Rep's contact Info

There I even give you a way to find your rep. Call them email them and tell them that this is a bad idea for you, for your kids, for your neighbors that are legal immigrants, for NJ. This is a bad idea.

Why should a child born to a US citizen, US Veteran, living in PA and NY attending college in NJ pay out-of-state tuition while an "illegal" immigrant gets a free pass?
N.J. bill to offer in-state tuition, financial aid to immigrants in the country illegally gains momentum

From the article it seems that the bill S2468 will pass through the state senate and I only hope that our tough talking Governor veto the bill and the senate does not have enough votes to un-veto the bill.

I am an immigrant and I paid my dues followed the rules, yes paid out-of-state tuition and graduated. Don't tell me its about the children ... if that in indeed the argument then put a flat fee for everyone. The kids already got the taxpayer sponsored public high school education. I am going to stereotype and assume they already got the taxpayer sponsored federal and state aid for life's necessities.

This is not about being fair or the lack of. This is about an out-of-state LEGAL resident sending their child to study in NJ paying a premium while an illegal resident sending their child getting a subsidy. That is being un fair to the people following the rules.

The way I see it ... this is a long-term strategy to get future votes and nothing beyond that as every poll says residents are against it.

Wake up legal residents and call your state rep and ask them to vote NO. BTW if our kids went and studied abroad they would pay premium $$ ... no exceptions.