Debate highlights issues regarding financial aid bill
By Benjamin Baxter
The Collegian
A state senate bill that would extend public aid to undocumented immigrant students was featured prominently in a Wednesday debate in the Free Speech Area.
The bill, SB160, would only apply to those who are students in the California State University system, if the students have proof they are in the process of receiving citizenship.
Vianey Nunez, speaker pro tempore of Associated Students, and Maria Sofia Corona, coordinator for Chicano student group ESPINO argued in favor of the bill, while Tal Eslick, president of Fresno State’s College Republicans, and Doug Halderman, Fresno State instructor and local architect, argued against it.
The debate was sponsored by the political science department, the College of Social Sciences and the Political Science Association, a non-partisan, student-run organization intended to promote civic involvement.
The event drew significant student response. Some statements from both sides drew applause from the crowd, but there were many students that were drawn there from less than purely genuine interest.
“I’m here for extra credit in my political science 2 class,” said geomatics freshman Nathan Cunningham, who said his professor was debate moderator Yishaiya Abosch. “He asked all his students to show up for at least a little bit.”
Biology junior Freddy Gonzalez agreed, estimating that one-fourth of the students in audience were in one of Abosch’s sections. “Most of these people are from his class,” he said. “We’re scattered all around here.”
Other audience members were drawn by the crowd. “I haven’t heard anything about this,” said Clint Lara, a dietetics junior. “I’m just checking it out, seeing what the issues are.”
The debate became heated during the question-and-answer session and it provoked responses from both sides.
Those who argued against the bill said people without citizenship would forced to take lower-paying jobs, whatever their education, and mentioned California’s budget concerns to bolster their argument.
“Undocumented immigrants drive our economy. Nobody can argue that. They’re hard-working, family-oriented people,” Eslick said. “This is not an issue of having more money, this is an issue of making more people eligible for the money. We just can’t afford to provide unlimited services to undocumented immigrants.”
One audience member asked Corona how anyone could be certain that those in the process of receiving citizenship would complete the process.
In response, she cited the significant financial burden involved to reach that point of eligibility and argued the immigrants would stay in California.
“These are people who are committed to the state,” she said. “These are the people who contribute to the well-being and the economy of the state. Maybe it’s my common sense that if someone is working here and living here that they would want citizenship.”
“The point of the debate was to discuss the issues behind and those resulting from the senate bill,” said political science senior Holly Meeks. “They stayed to the emotional ties behind the issue rather than addressing the issues. Conversely, the point of the debate was to promote discourse. In this, it was successful.”
Comment on this story in the News forum >>
|
