The reason is glaringly obvious, really. Colleges and universities are incubators for “socialist thought”, if that’s not an oxymoron, being run largely by socialism-biased professors and administrators.
Fallen vets’ kids will most likely be of conservative opinion and would disturb the socialist voter incubation programming. Illegals, already dependent on that state and imprinted with socialism from their countries of origin, and already on the state breast financially, will be easier to programme into socialist/Democrat voters.
They are replacing the exodus if minorities from the Democrat support base with a new imported voting block.
There’ already a program for it. Funded by NY. And the reason given as to why these additional few hundred thousand wasnt added to the budget seemed legitimate. Seems like something made to make Fox News. Guarantee that Trump tweets about it.
That there is a program for this already. That this was a post budget addition. That the additional few hundred thousand requested wasn’t there this year in the budget, that they’ll make sure its there next year because they care about the troops and their families.
But State Sen. Robert Ortt (R-Niagara), a sponsor of the measure, said the Assembly’s failure to act sends a distressing signal to military families.
“Assemblywoman Glick should be ashamed of herself,” said Ortt. “We set aside $27 million dollars for college for people that are here illegally… Apparently $2.7 million is all that the families of soldiers who are killed, get. If you’re a child of a fallen solider, you do not rank as high and you know that by the money.”
Glick called the criticism a “cheap shot” on Twitter.
Can anyone explain why she’d label this a cheap shot? Is it or is it not…true?
However, Democrats who control the Higher Education Committee feel they had no choice given the timing of the bill’s introduction (after the budget session ended), and without any financial estimates attached to the bill.
‘When I see ‘to be determined’ on a bill, that says to me the sponsor is doing this more for political posturing and not for any sincere purpose,’ McDonald stated. ‘Gold Star families, they lost somebody and we shouldn’t be using them as pawns on political discussions.’
How am I being played? What you just said is that someone ■■■■■■ up and the their ■■■■ up cost the children of gold star families. It’s also being stated that this same ■■■■ up, didn’t take place regarding the children of illegal immigrants. I’d say…you’re the one being played if this doesn’t get under your skin. In the private sector, these kinds of ■■■■ ups of this magnitude cause bankruptcies and those responsible have to pay dearly. The “hack” is bringing to the attention of those who were previously unaware, the major screw up that these politicians should be held accountable for.
So you believe that these children of gold star families were intentionally left out and those of illegal aliens sponsored for no other reason than to generate hostility? Wow…talk about conspiracies? If that were true, both sides would be equally responsible so…we’re still where we are and it should be exposed for all to see.
If it was so important to the sponsor of the bill, then why wasn’t it introduced during the budget session and with financial estimates?
There is no “both sides” to this. This falls squarely on the inability of the sponsor to get it to committee within the timeframe and with the proper work out into the cost.
This can lead me to a couple of conclusions.
One is that the sponsor is incompetent. The other is that the sponsor is crass.
Why would the sponsor of the 27 million dollar bill for the children of illegal aliens not do that first? That author is just as much responsible. In my world, being cognizant of the direct and indirect effects of your proposal is the politician’s responsibility and if I were king, they’d be fired.
