Rep. Hunter to Calif. Governor: Nix illegal immigrants instead of cutting middle class scholarships

Congressman Duncan Hunter Congressman Duncan Hunter 20 Comments

There has been significant positive interest in a recent Washington Times article regarding my letter to Governor Brown, so I wanted to share the letter in its entirety:

January 25, 2017

Dear Governor Brown:

In a recent Los Angeles Times article titled, “If Brown phases out college scholarships for middle class students, stressed parents wonder: ‘How are we going to make this work?’” H.D. Palmer, the Deputy Director for External Affairs with the California State Department of Finance, was quoted as saying, “We believe that gradually phasing out the Middle Class Scholarship Program will allow us to continue to maintain the Cal Grant entitlement program that’s focused on those students with the greatest financial need.”

Although I appreciate your desire to ensure fiscal stability in our State, I have significant concerns that you are proposing to cut spending for education programs that benefit middle class families and students, while at the same time, continuing to offer Cal Grants, in-state tuition and other financial aid benefits to students who are in the United States illegally, as authorized in AB 540.

And, while I am well aware of policies adopted by your Administration and the California State Legislature to make California a Sanctuary State for illegal immigrants, I struggle to understand the justification for putting illegal immigrants ahead of middle class American families.  Doing so puts a clear, undue burden on the backs of hard-working families in our State while further incentivizing illegal immigration with the promise of education benefits.

This kind of disregard for federal law is one of the many reasons I introduced the No Funding for Sanctuary Campuses Act earlier this month, which would block federal funding from going to institutions of higher education that offer in-state tuition to students who are in the United States illegally.

With that being said, as I work with my colleagues to consider California’s FY17 and FY18 funding requests, I would appreciate the following information:

  • How much money does the State of California plan to spend on Cal Grants and other financial aid benefits over the next five years for students who are in the United States illegally?
  • In order to ensure the Cal Grant program is fully funded, is the State of California able to maintain full funding for the Cal Grant program by phasing out state-based financial assistance to students who are in the United States illegally?
  • If yes, why does the State of California wish to eliminate the Middle Class Scholarship Program instead of phasing out Cal Grant eligibility and state-based financial assistance for students who are in the United States illegally?

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.  I look forward to your timely response and appreciate your consideration of my questions.


Duncan Hunter, Member of Congress

# # #


Comments 20

  1. In most cases, in California today we don’t charge ANY tuition to a UC college if the student’s family makes less than $80K. This is NUTS.

    For Hunter to posture about “illegal aliens” (which in his mind doubtless includes anchor babies) plays well to his conservative white constituency, but its the all-purpose boogeyman that allows him to avoid facing the FAR bigger problem of such middle class subsidies. 55% of UC students pay zero tuition, another 14% pay only partial tuition.

    How will these middle class families cope without such largess? The same way as such families in the OTHER 49 states that do — states who do not NOT have this subsidy to such a high earnings level.

    Hunter is a pathetic example of today’s GOP (Gerrymandered) representative — obsessing over illegals (to the delight of his voters) in order to avoid making the tougher decisions about subsidies to AHMERICANS.

  2. Off topic but why aren’t any of the Trump supporters here writing posts defending his multitude of executive orders? Just curious how you would square that with all the complaining about his predecessor’s “illegal ” orders.

  3. Hypocrisy: Writing posts? Nah. I’m having too much fun watching Trump make the leftists and bureaucrats shake in their boots. #newsheriffintown.

  4. Richard,

    Are you saying that all of President Trump’s executive orders were made simply to repeal a previous executive order?

    I’m curious.

  5. Richard,

    In direct answer to your question, I have no issue with executive orders that repeal a previous executive order. In fact, I don’t have a knee-jerk opposition to executive orders in general.

    However, it seems to me that Republicans did have an objection, usually on Constitutional grounds, to any executive order issued by President Obama. I was simply, as you are well aware, pointing out the hypocrisy of those same Republicans, who now seem to have no problem with President Trump issuing executive orders at a pace that would put President Obama to shame.

  6. On that we can agree. Executive orders are for minor matters, carrying out the laws passed by Congress AS CONGRESS INTENDED. It was not be used to pass laws when Congress would NOT pass them.

    You are right to criticize Republicans for their toleration of Trump’s EO usage. But then, where were you and the other Democrats while OBAMA was doing the same thing? Obama raised (or lower) the bar for such misuse. Only NOW are Democrats unhappy with the outcome.

    All in all, I have to credit Obama as a (perhaps THE) major factor for Trump’s election — helped out by the Democrats picking the WORST candidate for THEIR party as well.

    Trump should thank you Democrats for his election. He couldn’t have pulled it off without your help. As ye sow . . . .

  7. Richard,

    Good try.

    You Republicans nominated Trump, you Republicans voted for Trump and you own his presidency and the results that follow.

  8. Good try, HQ.

    I railed against Trump until he was elected. I voted for Gary Johnson, and urged others to do the same. It’s on my blog and my Facebook page for all to see.

    On the other hand, YOU surely voted for Hillary, YOUR party’s awful nominee — the corrupt, dishonest candidate YOU Democrats nominated!

    Your vote tells us all about your good judgment — or lack of same.

  9. Richard,

    The person who voted for Gary “Aleppo” Johnson has the audacity to question someone else’s good judgement. Thanks for the laugh. You made my day.

  10. “You Republicans nominated Trump, you Republicans voted for Trump and you own his presidency and the results that follow.”

    It’s kinda working out better than I ever expected.

    When POTUS issues EOs to repeal that horrible EOs of the last President, there are going to be a lot of them. Let’s measure what happens in May

  11. Brian,

    I am even willing to measure what happens at the end of the term. And I still remain hopeful.

    However, the one thing that I have found enlightening, and not in a good way, is the blatant hypocrisy on both sides. Just look at three issues (there are more):

    1. Free Trade
    2. Executive Orders
    3. Attempting to have good relations with Russia

    I find it more than a little disheartening how the Parties have switched long-held positions on each of these issues.

  12. Gosh HQ, YOU elected Obama, the only Presidential candidate in history to publicly state that there are 57 states. Actually 58 or 59. He couldn’t decide. Naturally YOUR MSM pretty much downplayed the gaffe, if they reported it at ALL.

    The President who lied through his teeth about Obamacare allowing people to keep their present doctors and present health plans.

    To be fair, you think Obama’s lies were OK because he lied for a good cause. I get that.

    You made MY day!!

  13. Richard,

    Are you referring to the President who left office with a 60% approval rating?

    I am glad that I made your day better. I know President Obama made your last eight years better.

  14. HQ, you having to rely on “approval ratings” as the measure of your Savior’s honesty, intelligence and effectiveness is sad, but not surprising. As you see it, his only failure was his inability to institute full European-style socialism.

    Hitler controlled the media in Germany. As a result he had a “high approval rating” right up until Germany was being overrun by Allied troops.

    No, Obama was no Hitler. But like Hitler he owned the MSM — where he could do no wrong. The resulting positive approval rating would only be a surprise if it were otherwise.

    As for the economy improving, that’s in SPITE of Obama, not because of it. It was the longest and slowest recovery since the Great Depression. The main thing that saved him was the fact that millions dropped out of the labor market, making it APPEAR that Obama was somehow responsible for the resulting low unemployment percentage.

    BTW, I note you had no response to Obama’s dishonesty or ignorance (57 states and Obamacare). But then, what could you say except a lame “Aleppo” dig? You adroitly changed the subject — a wise decision on your part.

  15. Richard,

    Let me guess. According to you, the fact that the economy was stagnant under George H.W. Bush was not his fault, Bill Clinton deserves no credit for eight years of prosperity and George W. Bush was not in any way at fault for the economic collapse during his tenure. Is that about right?

  16. Wrong again. You’d be right more often flipping a coin.

    Over and over, you think in GOP vs. Dem, “black-white” terms. Go back to the Bush years on this blog or elsewhere, and you’ll find I was a stern critic of Bush policies — and Congressional policies. I’m no Trump fan. I’m no Bush fan.

    I understand your confusion, for in your mind EVERYTHING is Dem vs. GOP. For you, all Dem policies are good, all GOP policies are bad. Then you reverse engineer your facts to fit that mindset.

    But, that being said, let me note that Bush was pushing Dem policies — especially mandatory easy credit for homebuying. Too many Republicans support what logically are Big Government Dem policies, and I can see where that might be baffling for you to discern.

  17. Richard,

    I will take you at your word that you haven’t supported the policies of any of our Presidents since the one who won the 1984 election. It it is good to know that you have no more respect for our nationally elected leaders than you do for the ones elected statewide.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *