Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but no one is entitled to his own facts. Yesterday’s editorial in the Daily Monopoly Los Angeles Times, like so many others, is a prime example of the latter. In this case, the topic is a federal bill, known as the DREAM Act, that would allow states to reward illegal immigrants by charging them in-state tuition at public universities.

The Dream of Education

Doesn’t that name make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? Beware.

What a waste. Every year, as many as 60,000 immigrant teenagers who go through high school in the United States and graduate fully prepared for college simply cannot afford to go because their parents came to this country illegally.

Translation: Every year, as many as 60,000 illegal aliens who manage to get a high school diploma don’t go to college because they don’t want to pay their own way like other foreign (or even out of state) students do. Whether their parents also happen to be illegal aliens is, of course, irrelevant.

U.S. immigration law makes it tough for states to charge such students in-state tuition, rather than the much-higher out-of-state fees.

Correction: U.S. immigration law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1623, makes it illegal for states to charge illegal aliens in-state tuition, rather than the much-higher out-of-state fees. [Hat tip: Angry Clam.]

However, California and three other states - New York, Texas and Utah - decided that the benefits of having these kids finish their education were significant.

Translation: however, the legislatures of California and three other states decided that it was more expedient to pander to the illegal immigration lobby than to obey the law. In California’s case, this was after the voters themselves had made their position clear by passing Proposition 187 overwhelmingly.

They passed laws to get around a federal regulation that forces states to give out-of-state residents an equal break if they give any break to illegal-immigrant children.

Translation: They passed illegal state laws that violate federal immigration law.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

These states don’t “get around” the law; they break it.

But students in the other 46 states are not as lucky.

Translation: But taxpayers and students who are citizens or legal immigrants in the other 46 states are luckier.

Congress has a chance to help them by passing legislation that would restore a state’s right to determine its own criteria for public higher-education benefits.

Ah, it’s so touching to hear liberals talk of states’ rights. The only problem is that setting immigration policy was never one of the states’ rights to begin with, so there’s nothing to “restore” here. Perhaps we should next pass a federal law “restoring” the states’ right to, oh, I don’t know, coin money?

A Senate bill by Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) - the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM, Act - and a House bill would repeal the troublesome rules, in a 1996 immigration law.

“Troublesome rules” that say people who aren’t supposed to be here should not get better treatment than those who are. It’s a good thing that this bill has a corny name; maybe that will keep it from passing.

It also would allow illegal-immigrant students who met a list of requirements to earn permanent legal status - because as matters stand, those who are in the U.S. illegally and do make it through college cannot work here legally.

Carts, horses, etc. First you get your legal citizenship, then you get the benefits of citizenship. In. That. Order. Bah!

If the U.S. could increase the college completion rate of 18-year-old Latinos by just 3 percentage points, projected Social Security and Medicare contributions would grow by $600 million, a 1995 Rand Corp. report found.

Note the bait and switch. The bill at issue is aimed at illegal aliens, not “18-year-old Latinos,” most of whom are either citizens or legal immigrants. Of course you weren’t suposed to notice that. Move along people, there’s nothing to see here.

By conservative estimates, the economic contributions of Latino immigrants aided by the proposed legislation would pay back a state’s education investment - including the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition - within three to four years of their joining the workforce.

There’s nothing “conservative” about that estimate; in all likelihood they simply made it up. Even if it is true, however, there is no reason to think that illegal aliens are a better “investment” (note how politicians never spend your money, they only “invest” it) than legal immigrants or U.S. citizens domiciled in other states, neither of whom would benefit from this bill at all.

The two bills differ slightly on which students would qualify, but both require applicants to be under 21 years of age, have earned a high school diploma or equivalent, be of “good moral character” and have lived in the U.S. for at least five years.

Here’s a better idea: define “good moral character” to require adherence to a host country’s immigration laws. Failing that, let’s require them to have lived legally in the U.S. for at least at least five years. No rewards for illegal activities.

It shouldn’t take a doctorate to figure out that the majority of these aspiring college students are, for all intents and purposes, Americans.

It shouldn’t take a high school diploma to figure out that that sentence is, for all intents and purposes, utter and complete rubbish. Americans are Americans. Non-American’s aren’t. No one is an American “for all intents and purposes.” Indeed, one has to wonder what other country, if any, would even entertain such a silly concept.

Congress would be smart to make it easier for states to help them become well-educated and productive citizens.

Note the last word: citizens. I have no problem with the idea of liberalizing citizenship laws, in and of itself, though again that is the province of the federal government, not the states. I have a huge problem with rewarding people who flout the law by pretending they are “citizens,” particularly when their faux “citizenship” gets them privileges that are not available to immigrants who obey our laws, or even to U.S. citizens who recently moved from another state.

UPDATE: Lonewacko has more.