Texas DREAM Act - Is Everyone Allowed to Get Higher Education?

In his blog's article “Texas GOP Needs Abbott to Lead”, which is about the Texas DREAM Act, David Jennings states that it is a problem that all four republican candidates running for Lt. Governor oppose DREAM. The Texas DREAM Act would allow “illegal” children to pay in-state college tuition. He explains, that if Texas already puts so much money into the K-12 education of those children, it doesn't make sense to have them pay out of state college tuition. Most republicans voted for the bill, so why are all republican candidates for Lt. Governor against it? Greg Abbott, who will probably run for Texas governor doesn't oppose the Act, so Jennings thinks that he should make his opinion clear and stand up for the children.The blog is written for people who are interested in DREAM, who are affected by DREAM, and who want to see different opinions on DREAM. To underline his argument, Jennings uses several links to official websites to show evidence of the time when DREAM passed.

Since the Texas DREAM Act doesn't help to establish permanent residency, as the US DREAM Act does, I don't see a reason why it would hurt to keep it. It only helps them to get a higher education. Many children who come from illegally immigrated families don't even get to the point where they even consider college. Either they weren't good enough in high school, or they don't even see a chance of paying the colleges' tuition. Now, when they are ambitious, and want to use the chance they have by going to school in the US, why not make it a little easier, and allow them the benefits everyone gets, who received a high school diploma from an institution in Texas? And to get to another one of Jennings points, why did republicans vote for the Act, and now they are turning away from it? Is this a change in the republican philosophy? Or does it just depend on who you'd ask, no matter whether the person would be republican or democrat? Questions that remain unanswered for now, but influence many children's lives in Texas.  

Voter ID Laws – More Trouble than Good

The article “Editorial: Shakedown for Silly Voter ID Law” in the Dallas News, comments on the new laws about voter IDs. Since the new law concerns all voters, it is written for people who would like to know more about voter IDs, and the cons concerning the laws, since the article is very obviously against the IDs.

The author's point of view becomes very clear right in the beginning of the article. After describing the state's governments effort to help voters to get IDs, he comments on those with an anaphora (“Of course […]. Of course […]. Of course […]”), which underlines his dislike of the new voter ID laws. Even though voter fraud was never proven, the bill passed after the Republicans refused to include the Democrats' idea to extend office hours to make it easier to get voter IDs. After a filed lawsuit, this changed immediately. People went exactly for that problem: the Democrats' mandate that was struck down. However, the author assumes that the newly extended DPS hours were only made due to politics, not to help voters to get their hands on IDs. The next problem that came up, which he mentions, was the question, on whether the DPS would run a background check before issuing the IDs, but the DPS soon denied that this would happen. The author is sure that the need of voter IDs and the confusion about it will cause a low voter turnout in upcoming elections.

There are definitely pros and cons concerning voter ID laws, but over all, the way the laws are enforced, causes more trouble than good. Of course it makes sense that you have to identify yourself, as you have to for so many other things. But if it is obvious that so many people don't have IDs they can show, how can those laws be put into effect, without taking care of the ID-problem first?

It is well known that mainly voters of color, voters with low income and elderly people don't have IDs. So by simply enforcing the laws of voter identification, their right to vote is denied, and this should be known by the politicians who made the law. And even if the IDs are issued for free, there is documentation needed to apply for IDs. Some of those documents, cost money. So the IDs aren't really free. If people live on the edge of existence, will they spend the money and time to become eligible to vote after they didn't have to for the past decades? Probably not. The costly part of getting an ID explains where the idea of poll-taxes comes from, and yes, from that perspective it makes sense. Some people even go as far, and compare voter IDs to Jim Crow Laws, or "Separate, but Equal", but here, I can't say whether they go too far or not. And as the author of the article “Editorial: Shakedown for Silly Voter ID Laws” says: There is no evidence for a high amount of fraud. 

In the past, the laws that were passed usually extended voting rights, but this one seems to take a step backwards.