People are upset that more kids aren't eating taxpayer-furnished breakfasts at government schools. No - really.  According to this LATimes.com blog entry by Mary MacVean, over a million "low-income" children in California who are getting taxpayer-furnished lunches aren't also taking  taxpayer-furnished breakfast. Something called the "Food Research and Action Center" provided the information, of course. Fortunately, the LATimes.com readers who responded were overwhelmingly sensible about the matter (see some of that below).

California ranked 33rd in low-income-student participation in the School Breakfast Program for 2008-09, the same ranking it received a year earlier. In terms of the number of schools that offer breakfast, California’s ranking fell from 35th to 40th, the Washington-based group said.

So what?

In 2008-09, 8.8 million children took part in the breakfast program on an average day; the lunch program served 18.9 million children.

I'm sure that’s a nationwide figure.

"The program is seriously underutilized," center president James Weill said Monday.

Maybe these kids don't need it.

Children have consistently increased their participation since the early 1990s, but "it's not across the board, and it's not fast enough," Weill said.

Not fast enough? They're not becoming dependent on hand-outs fast enough?

"We really think of the School Breakfast Program as a modest miracle of good public policy," he said.

No, the miracle would be teaching the families to be self-sufficient.

The program, which began as a pilot project in 1966 and became permanent in 1975, helps alleviate hunger, improves student achievement and reduces levels of absenteeism, the group said.

Interesting. So all the kids just starved to death before 1975?

One way to improve participation is to "fit the program to the actual lives of children in schools," Weill said.

Again, why not spend that effort helping the families?

"When you serve breakfast only in the cafeteria, 30 to 40 to 50 minutes before school starts, too many kids don’t get there on their school bus or public transportation or they understandably want” to be with their friends rather than in the cafeteria, he said.

Well, yeah. You forgot to add in their public housing. It can't be that the kids are having breakfast at home or elsewhere, or bringing it with them, you see.

In addition to nutrition and hunger issues, the lack of participation in the breakfast program represented a lost opportunity to bring in more federal dollars - because the federal government reimburses the state for meals eaten under the programs, advocates said.

Uhm, does anyone see the problem here? Those dollars are supposed to cover the cost of the program. Lower participation means less money is needed. Shouldn't that mean a loss of dollars? Is the concern here feeding children or grabbing taxpayer money? This is like when government schools fret about enrollment/attendance, because having fewer students means less money. If you have fewer people participation, you need less money!

I have a "solution". Offer housing and dinner on-campus. That way, the kids will be sure to be there for breakfast, where they can take one bite of the sweetest thing on the menu and through the rest of the food away, like so many of them do with the lunch.

The reader comments were interesting. Here are some.

"Mike" wrote December 11, 2009 at 01:53 PM:

I Feel for these kids being a parent of two kids, but the parents of these children should be the one feeding their own children, not the tax payers.

"good for taxpayers" wrote December 11, 2009 at 01:57 PM:

Seriously? Good, I'm glad. They're probably all overweight anyway.

"Dirty Politic" wrote December 11, 2009 at 01:58 PM:

I totally agree that we should expand the program. The government should raise the kids for the low income family so that the welfare money the parents receive can be dedicated on drugs and drinks for the parent.

"KK" wrote December 11, 2009 at 02:10 PM:

Are people milking the system by under reporting their income? That's an awful lot of children in that category but you just don't see the wide spread poverty anywhere.

"blm" wrote December 11, 2009 at 02:16 PM:

Did it occur to any of these people that perhaps the children were getting breakfast at home, even if they do qualify for the program? Perhaps we should add dinner, that way the parents can abdicate more responsibility for their children.

"Ferret" wrote December 11, 2009 at 03:21 PM:

I remember a brief period of time when I was a child, (many, many moons ago). Right after my father passed, and it was just my mother raising my little sister and I, we "qualified" for free lunches. I remember quite clearly that I would rather have gone hungry than to live with the embarrassment and the social stigma of being a "welfare" case...When my mother found out that the method by which my sister and I were getting "free lunches" was through the use of little green "coupons" we were to hand over to the cashier in the cafeteria, she was absolutely mortified. She went out and got a second job that week, so that "her kids" wouldn't ever have to use those disgusting little green "I'm a poor kid" coupons again.

The writer goes on...

Our State is flat busted, broke. Is it so surprising that we don't have enough money in the Public School system to pay for breakfast and lunch? Not to sound cold-hearted, but we DO have welfare programs, along with Food Stamps and WIC vouchers, to cover this very real, and very serious, problem. Our schools are for educating our children, not for feeding them.

"Jim Q. Citizen" wrote December 11, 2009 at 03:56 PM:

Have you seen these kids and their mom's? They're so obese they have trouble walking! Maybe a little less free chow is in order. These are the same "poor kids" who have plenty of cash to stuff themselves at Micky D's after school. Has this state gone absolutely insane?

"nothing's free" wrote December 11, 2009 at 09:23 PM:

I worked at an LAUSD school for many years. Even though these families look poor on paper, many aren't poor at all. Anyone care to look into how many of them own their own homes? It's true, they collect Welfare...as well as food stamps, Healthy families "free" medical insurance, and many other "free" goodies, including breakfast and lunch (when they feel like partaking of it)...they drive pretty nice cars (uninsured), and their spouses make low wages (nothing the rest of us could live on without assistance), under the table, or with stolen SS #'s (hence, they look poor on paper - no wages, or very little...Those illegal wages, combined with all the freebies make for a pretty good life, and you'd be surprised at how much money gets sent back to their home countries, rather then cycled back into our dwindling economy.

There were a couple of eugenics/let-them-starve comments, and some "don't have kids you can't afford" rants, but mostly comments were from fed-up taxpayers who see that it is the moral obligation of parents to provide for their children before spending money on nonessentials.

Then came this comment rebuking the others, from "David" December 15, 2009 at 05:50 PM:

The cruelty and selfishness expressed by these comments is incredible. My tax dollars are wasted on wars, prisons, over-paid law enforcement, etc. So let's just call it a push.

Here's the difference, David. National defense and law enforcement have been mandated by our Constitution from the beginning as basic functions of our government. Nowhere does the Constitution permit the federal government to take money from someone in one state and use it to pay for breakfast for people in another state. Want a meal paid for by taxpayers? Join the military.

It is cruelty to encourage people to be dependent on taxpayers. It is cruelty to use the force of government to pry money away from those who are working, but struggling, to pay for wasteful programs catering to others.

In case you haven't heard yet, an eight-year-old boy was sent from school and ordered to undergo re-education - er, uh, a psychological evaluation - because he understands that Christmas is about Christ. He drew a stick figure of Jesus on a cross. Associated Press writer Eric Tucker has the story.

Chester Johnson told WBZ-TV that his son made the drawing on Dec. 2 after his second-grade teacher asked children to sketch something that reminded them of the holiday.

The crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are central to Christianity, and why many Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. God came to this world as a boy, taking on a human nature, and ultimately, dying for our sins, offering us a gift beyond comparison.

Johnson said the teacher became upset when his son said he drew himself on the cross.

In a sense, we were all crucified with Jesus.

Johnson, who is black, told WBZ he suspects racism is involved.

I wonder why he suspects that? Sounds to me like Christophobia.

He said he thinks the school overreacted and wants an apology.

They did overreact.

An educational consultant working with the Johnson family said the teacher was also alarmed when the boy drew Xs for Jesus' eyes.

Was the teacher unaware that Jesus died on the cross?

The boy was cleared to return to school on Dec. 7 after the evaluation found nothing to indicate that he posed a threat to himself or others.

He may pose a threat to the sensitivities of the historically and religiously ignorant.

In June 2008, a Taunton fifth-grade student was suspended for a day for a stick figure drawing that appeared to depict him shooting his teacher and a classmate.

That is apples to oranges. The Christian boy was not implying a threat against against anyone.

I'm sure it is a mere coincidence that this happened in Massachusetts. I wonder if the great classical artists who depicted violence against Jesus would have been sent home as well?

Michael Berliner of Los Angeles got it right when writing in to the Los Angeles Times about increased fees for University of California students:

Fees are being raised because the state is in debt. And why is it in debt? Because it spends more than it takes in. And why does it spend more than it takes in? Because it refuses to cut spending. And why does it refuse to cut spending? Because of entitlements -- i.e., the belief that people have a right to the wealth of others in the form of education, healthcare, etc.

And what's the source of the altruist morality of entitlements? The university classrooms.

It's a cycle, too be sure. Public education in general, staffed with Big Labor union members, churns out students who expect to rely as much as possible on the government. This helps swell the ranks and compensation of government employees, who are... ta-da... unionized!

Previously: A False Promise of a Cheap University Education

The leaders of California decided long ago that just about anyone in California, including illegal aliens, who wants to get a university degree, should have relatively easy (in terms of availability and tuition/fees) access to a university education. Thus, a two-tiered state university system was built - University of California, and California State University, the landscape was flooded with community colleges, and the word went out that a quality "affordable" university education was being promised to the people of California (and Mexico, and...).

So now we've created a situation where a heckuva lot of people assume they have a "right" to this, without having to pay the full costs of it. Whenever there is mere talk of raising the amount that the students have to pay, there are protests. So when the University of California Regents took a vote yesterday to raise the amount by close to a third per year, there were very angry and noisy protests. Listening to some of the protesting students in news coverage, it is quite clear that a lot of them have already been thoroughly indoctrinated into Leftist victricrat mentality... I heard one say, for example, "This is a bunch of rich white men trying to kick minorities and the the poor out of the education system!" Never mind that everyone in California is a "minority". Many of these protesters believe they have a right to a university education without paying more for it.

I do have some sympathy for most of the students impacted by this. It was foolish of the state to make promises to them we couldn't keep. If these students were raised in California, then their parents (at least the ones who actually pay taxes, instead of having it all refunded) have been paying for the university system in their taxes. They planned on their education costing a certain amount of money, and now it going to directly cost them significantly more.

This is the problem when government promise things they can't deliver. California is facing something like a 20+ billion dollar deficit. Either the students are going to pay more or taxpayers, many of whom do not use the state university system, are going to have to pay all of the cost increases.

Perhaps the UC system should institute a policy that freezes rates for continuous students. I'm not talking about the kind of student who stays in college forever (yes, I have seen that). But especially for students who make it through in four or five years, how can they possibly plan and budget when they have no idea if the increase is going to be five percent or thirty percent? Of course, this would force the UC system to either get more tax money or charge incoming students more, and I would opt for charging incoming students more. That might mean that students have to put off going into the university system another year as they work to save up the money, but it simply isn't moral or in the spirit of our Constitution to force me to pay even more in taxes so that people I don't know can get a UC degree.

As long as the MSM focuses (and, usually, promotes) marriage neutering, I will respond. So for all of you marriage neutering advocates sick of seeing me write about this subject - well, I didn't set the discussion agenda.

I've posted two entries over at The Opine Editorials today. The first is analyzing an Associated Press article about the effectiveness of the "neutered marriage will be taught in public schools" message in encouraging people to vote for marriage defense.

Education unions support marriage neutering. The same groups pushing for marriage neutering have long pushed the rest of their agendas in public schools, often deciding to go ahead without parental approval and leaving it up to parents to find out, object, and pull their individual students out of the situation - and even then the parents face hurdles.

If we had separation of state and school, this would be one battle that wouldn't have to place out in public.

The second looks at a poll reported to show that California voters now favor neutering marriage.

Their polling - according to them, anyway - shows that a small majority of California voters are in favor of neutering marriage. Say, didn't the polls that right before the voters adopted the California Marriage Amendment? The poll also shows a stronger sentiment, though, against having the issue back on the ballot in 2010 - in other words, strongly against an attempt to repeal the Amendment.

See you there.

I got a kick out of the tagline to Howard Blume's Los Angeles Times article on lower enrollment at Los Angeles Unified School District:

The loss of students, apparently to charter schools in some cases, is bad news for the district's budget -- with funding based on attendance.

Well, sure, if you have less work to do, you get a smaller budget, right? Or at least a budget that isn't increasing at a faster rate. Isn't the budget supposed to enable you to educate students? Fewer students means that you don't need as much money. How hard is that to grasp?

Local independently run charter schools added more than 9,500 students this fall, a surge of almost 19% to more than 60,000. At the same time, enrollment is down more than 19,000 students, about 3%, at schools affiliated with the Los Angeles Unified School District.

By the way, the LAUSD, in budget and number of employees, is larger than the government of many states.

Many factors affect enrollment, including birth rates, the availability of jobs and housing prices, but the growth of charter schools hasn't abated. Charters are publicly funded and operate free of many district regulations.

In the LAUSD, some it could also be illegal aliens going home or to other places, due to the economy.

LAUSD, like many other public school districts, is largely using a model that is half a century behind the times. Charter schools are just a start. Separation of state and school would be better.

Two columns in the Los Angeles Times caught my eye. The second one is on a "student loan bailout". In this first one, though, Tim Rutten bandwagons with his bemoaning of California's voter initiative process. He cites Chief Justice Ronald M. George's statements before continuing...

Serious political historians also agree...

So you are a moron if you disagree, you see.

that, as currently utilized, the California initiative process is a perversion of what the Progressives intended when they inserted these direct-democracy provisions into the state Constitution.

Let us, for the sake of argument, grant that as true. So freakin' what? We all have to play by the same rules. Maybe the "Progressives" were hoping that only their pet initiatives would pass a direct vote, but that's not the way law works. Ain't equality great?

Just because it isn't being used the way those folks wanted way back then is not a good reason to scrap it now.

Moreover, Californians are not particularly unhappy with the initiative process.

Ah, but we’d better find a way to chuck it anyway, right (but only after using it to repeal the California Marriage Amendment, of course)? I'm open to refining the initiative process, but only if California is broken up.

David Lazarus has a column entitled, "How About a Bailout for Student Debtors?"He cites rising fees/tuition costs for higher education. Doesn't he realize that more government involvement, especially in the form of bailouts, will raise those costs? The institutions note that people "have more money to spend" and so they will charge them more. It is called supply and demand.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (HR 3221) passed the House last month pretty much along party lines. It's now working its way through the Senate.

The bill would eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan Program, thus making student loans much riskier (and hence unattractive) for banks. The Education Department would continue offering direct loans and would presumably dominate the market.

Democrats say the legislation would free up more funds for Pell Grants and other financial aid. Republicans say the federal government would be playing too large a role in higher education.

The Republican’s are wrong. The federal government already is playing too large a role in higher education.

I have no problem with the government, rather than banks, deciding who gets a college education and who doesn't, just as it's the government's responsibility to ensure that everyone gets at least a high school education.

Gotta love incrementalism. Maybe it is time for government to get out of high school education? Banks don't decide. Students and admissions staff decide.

I'm sympathetic, but only because the government has already shown itself to be a soft touch for banks, insurers, carmakers and especially for homeowners, who in many cases had no business taking out loans they couldn't repay.

In that context, I think it's perfectly reasonable for college students and recent grads to seek a little bailout of their own.

Of course! It's a version of the domino theory at work. Government intrusion into one area justifies having it intrude into others. "They got paid!" means everyone else should get "paid", too.

So what about recent grads who did what I did and purposely choose an institution they can afford? Are they just suckers? They sure are, if they could have gone to a more expensive (and thus, more prestigious) university, and had taxpayers pay the entire bill. Boy, I went to school at the wrong time. I bought my house at the wrong time. I bought my car the wrong time. In each case, I missed handouts from other taxpayers. I guess I’m a sucker.

Caren Bohan reports in this Reuters piece that Obama is criticizing banks for being against further government involvement in financing higher education.

President Barack Obama criticized the largest U.S. banks on Monday for trying to thwart legislation that would overhaul federal student loan programs.

Of course businesses are going to seek to protect their interests. This is part of a larger problem. The more power the central government has, the easier it will be for the elite to manipulate the system to their advantage. This is why we need limited government with separation of powers.

He singled out in particular banks that have received bailout money from the federal government, saying they want to maintain the status quo on student loans because they get an "unwarranted subsidy" from it.

So what if that is true? Welfare-dependent crackhead Democrat voters do the same thing.

The U.S. House of Representatives last week approved legislation that would cut major banks and student loan giant Sallie Mae out of a large slice of the $92 billion university student loan business, shifting most lending into a program run by the U.S. Education Department.

Where is the Constitutional justification for the federal government being involved in any of this?

"The large banks -- many who have benefited from taxpayer bailouts during the financial crisis -- are lobbying to keep this easy money flowing."

He says that like it was wrong for the banks to take the bailout money, but that's not what he seems to believe, if the rest of his actions are taken into account.

Many U.S. students take on crushing debt loads to pay university bills that can total $50,000 a year or more at the country's private universities.

Why? We are paying so much for public universities and community colleges. Why should we make it easier for private universities to increase tuition rates? Maybe if the federal government wasn’t providing loans and outright grants, the universities would have to keep tuition rates lower or risk not getting enough students. I just don't see the justification for any kind of federal involvement in higher education, except when it comes to military academies and scholarships for military veterans.

...you may have been right.

A community college professor has plead guilty in a case where she has been accused of stalking Fritz Coleman. Coleman is a weatherman for the NBC "owned & operated" station in Los Angeles. (His position was previously held by none other than Pat Sajak.) Coleman is a comedian who has long been the weatherman on that station. He even goes to do stand-up nearby between the evening and late-night newscasts.

Anyway, these are the people teaching students on our dime.

Forecast: Scary.

According to this Los Angeles Times article by Jason Song and Jason Felch, California Governor Schwarzenegger is asking state legislators to adopt education reforms to qualify for some federal funding.

The governor's proposed legislation, to be considered during a special session that ends by Oct. 5, was met almost immediately by criticism from the powerful state teacher unions, which called Schwarzenegger's plans rushed and unnecessary.

The union will oppose anything that will do any of the following:
1) empower parents
2) reward good teachers and punish bad teachers
3) reduce the number of public school teachers, or the planned increase in the number of teachers (= dues payers)
4) make it easier to be a teacher who is not a member of their union, or to not support the union's political activities
5) reduce the ability of a teacher to have the time and energy to do the union's political bidding

The only federal funding there should be for education is for military academies, tuition reimbursement for federal employees, and scholarships for military veterans, so in this case I'd rather the federal funding not go ANYWHERE. In California's case, it would be getting some of our own money back, as we are a "donor state". Regardless of federal funding, we should be doing what's right as far as increasing liberty and encouraging innovation.

Not only should the federal government be out of education, but California’s state government should be out of education as well. The Left, however, will fight that tooth and nail, if for nothing else because this is one way they hope to keep making more Leftists - taxpayer-funded indoctrination and social engineering.

People living in the Los Angeles Unified School District, in addition to federal income taxes and gasoline taxes, are paying state income and gas taxes, utility taxes, a sales tax just shy of 10%, and property taxes... and various other fees and assessments.  Now, the LAUSD wants to sharply raise their property taxes.  Howard Blume has the Los Angeles Times article.

The district is allowed to raise taxes under little-known legal protections for bond holders. In essence, if revenues from property taxes can't cover installment payments for bond debt, L.A. Unified can raise tax rates, even if they rise above past projections.

The current rate is about $123 per $100,000 of assessed value. That's actually lower than the original projections, but the good news ends there.

Officials wouldn't reveal estimates for next year but, when pressed, said they expected rates above $200 by 2012. In an interview, L.A. schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines mentioned a rate of $207, though he didn't specify the year.

For a home worth the current Los Angeles County median assessed value of $325,300, the difference, using Cortines' figure, would be about $275. For a $700,000 home, the rise would probably exceed $550, for a total bond tax bill of about $1,450.

Drip... drip... drip...

Under the $20.1-billion construction program, 80 new schools have been built, with 51 more on the way, and thousands of others have been repaired and modernized.

Guess what, though?  Enrollment is down.

The increasing tax rates could also spell trouble for L.A. Unified's nascent effort to put a different kind of property tax before voters. A parcel tax could be used to pay for ongoing expenses, such as teacher salaries, but it must be approved by a two-thirds margin.

More money!

For future construction projects, officials have time to figure out alternative funding sources, said Guy Mehula, chief facilities executive. The options include arranging for builders or banks to front the money. The district would repay them with interest.

Where are they going to get the repayment money?

A year ago, officials used a rosy forecast to justify Measure Q, the school system's fifth bond issue since 1997. An analysis projected that property assessments would grow an average of 6% a year. Experts characterized that as conservative.
...
The district's analysis failed to adequately consider the possibility of a real estate downturn, even though fewer than 20 years have passed since the prior downturn and history suggests that changes in home values are cyclical.

Whoops.  Keep in mind that there are very few schools in the LAUSD that I find usable.

Public education - it just gets more and more expensive.  Is there a lesson there when it comes to public health care?

Another day, another unconstitutional social engineering spending spree announcement by Obama.  Associated Press writer Darlene Superville reports.

President Barack Obama is proposing a multibillion-dollar investment in the nation's community colleges, a $12 billion effort to help the two-year institutions reach, teach and train more people for "the jobs of the future."

And the Constitution tells the federal government to get involved in community colleges in which clause?  Oh, that's right.  It doesn't.  Maybe some of that funding can teach our leaders about the Constitution?

Dropout rates would be addressed by designing programs to help students who want to earn an associate's degree or transfer to a four-year institution do so.

Uh, aren't students doing that now?

"In an economy where jobs requiring at least an associate's degree are projected to grow twice as fast as jobs requiring no college experience, it's never been more essential to continue education and training after high school," Obama said Sunday in a Washington Post op-ed piece.

I know highly successful people who don’t have a degree higher than a high school diploma.

In his speech to a joint session of Congress earlier this year, the president urged every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training.

Why?  Not all jobs or lifestyles need that.  Or is the plan to fill all of those jobs with shamnesty aliens?

Look, I’m all for higher education.  I went to a university and got a BA.  But it isn't for everyone, and at some point it becomes wasteful trying to accommodate everyone.

Howard Blume at the Los Angeles Times updates us on the Chino Valley Unified story I blogged about earlier.  The gist was that a California school district was adding 34 more days of instruction to the school year, taking the kids through to the end of July to make up for a scheduling problem throughout the school year.  The remainder of the session was canceled.

Chino Valley Unified hoped the extra 34-day session would satisfy state officials, who could impose a penalty of $5 million based on the number of both the missed days and the affected students.

If we must have taxpayer schools, how about keeping the funding and control at the local level?

On Thursday, the state's Board of Education voted unanimously to reject the extra session as inadequate.

Chino Valley Interim Supt. Wayne Joseph said that the poorly attended supplemental classes would end Friday: “Why continue at more of a cost to the district?”

What a mess.

The district can still avoid the hefty fine. The district could appeal to a state audit committee. And the Legislature is considering a bill that could give Chino Valley relief in exchange for offering a smaller number of extra instructional days.

The state board, for example, retains the authority to waive the penalty if the district lengthens the school year by the number of days missed for the affected students during each of the next two years. The district also could appeal to a state audit panel.

Ugh.  How convoluted.  These kids missed something like FIVE MINUTES and the entire day wasn't counted.

“Frankly, the [state Board of Education] isn’t interested in seeing the district pay the financial penalty,” said board president Ted Mitchell in a statement. “We just want to ensure that students get all of the instructional time they need and deserve, and that the district was paid to provide.”

Deck chairs.  Titanic.

Some letters in today's Los Angeles Times address the paper's editorial I discussed in this posting, about how a California school district is sexualizing children in the name of promoting "LGBT" causes.  Tracy Jensen of Alameda, a member of the Alameda Unified School District Board of Education, takes the editorial board to task, then goes on to write:

You correctly point out that the curriculum will teach second-graders that same-gender parents exist.

Yes, but what make them different from mere friends?

Children will learn that those parents are part of loving families, along with single parents, adoptive parents and biracial parents.

Define "loving".  And there's a difference between same-sex couples who obtain children and  those other households (except for some single parents) – they are, by design, depriving the children of a mother or a father.  "Biracial" parents can naturally make babies.  No same-sex couple can do that.

Given that the lessons actually do not contain descriptive sexual information and do include attention to values, I am puzzled how you could support teaching students "not to belittle others" but call it inappropriate to teach respect for LGBT students, staff and parents.

Whose values?  Jensen apparently misses that the problem that should be addressed is bullying, not personal distaste for homosexual behavior.

Sam Chaidez of Mission Hills got it:

Teaching students to respect one another without exception is sufficient to prevent bullying of any kind, be it based on race, religion, physical features, language or countless other reasons.

Exactly.  I blog a lot about fighting the push towards marriage neutering, but I do not hate or personally disrespect people for their sexual orientation.  In my personal and professional life, I treat people equally based on their behavior in interacting with me.  That's the decent thing to do.

Illegal aliens held mock graduation ceremonies yesterday.  Why?  Well, read on.  Cindy Carcamo and Jessica Terrell of the Orange County Register report.

About 100 students in caps in gowns – some illegal immigrant college students in Orange County – made up the more than 250 attendees who support the DREAM Act.

Is it really news that Group A wants Group B to pay for Group A’s voluntary choices meant to benefit Group A, despite law-breaking by Group A?

The act would allow undocumented students to apply for legal permanent resident status, protect them from deportation and make them eligible for student loans and federal work study programs.

Oh, I'm sure they have plenty of documents.

Tuesday's crowd at the Teamsters Local 952 Hall in Orange cheered and others cried when a Santa Ana College student by the name of Abraham gave something of a testimonial in rap-song form.

It's shocking, shocking! that the union would allow their facility to be used for this.

"I still have a dream," said Abraham who only gave his first name. But right now, "We are doctors, teachers and lawyers, living in terror from ICE."

Ah yes… illegal aliens would all be rocket scientists of NASA if only they were given a pass and subsidies.

Students from Cal State Fullerton, Santa Ana College, UCI and other nearby higher-education institutions wore caps and gowns and signs – some reading "What now?" at the Orange ceremony.

So they've already received taxpayer-subsidized higher education, in addition to all of the taxpayer funded education they had before that.  Our generosity is repaid with... demands for more.

Supporters of the bill have said that students find themselves without jobs after college due to their legal status.

A lot of citizens are having trouble finding jobs right now.  But I understand people in prison also have trouble finding jobs because of their "legal status".

How about studying immigration law so that you can explain what is going on to your parents? Our studying the business, political, and social climate of your home countries, so you can go back there and make it better?