In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants

[1654134681665465]

Of course not. 

[??????]

Two responses, as I feel this is a very interesting topic. 

1) The real question should be the basis for granting "in-state" tuition for residents.  A previous poster argued that Florida funds education through sales tax, and illegal immigrants and citizens both pay sales tax, so illegal immigrants should therefore have the same right to in-state status as citizens of the state.  In the state where I grew up educational costs are funded by property taxes. Using the previous logic one would then argue that illegal immigrants in that state would only have rights to in-state education if they paid property taxes.  Would citizens who don't pay property taxex (i.e. renters?) then have no right to in-state status? This seems fallacious.

I would argue that the determination of residency should be independent of parental taxation status in all circumstances and be based on the student's last tax filing or educational status.  A child of an illegal immigrant who completed high school in a given state should be considered a resident of that state, just as a legal citizen high school graduate would be.  Yes, this would create a potential situation where one could be a resident of the state and not the United States.   However, the state has provided that child a k-12 education just as it has a legal citizen; changing the child's residency for higher education would be inconsistent with providing a K-12 education in the first place (insert new argument here).   

2. In reponse:

"Of course poverty is a vicious cycle, but there are millions of people all over the world who live in poverty.  Poverty is not an excuse to break the law-especially when the law is in no way discriminatory or repressive.  Opening up our borders won't bring an end to poverty.  These countries are poor because of the corrupt and unaccountable leaders.  I feel that  all the energy put into trying to change the laws of the U.S. would be better put to use calling for reform and accountability in those countries that people are fleeing from".  

The ENTIRE history of immigration and immigration law has been overwhelmingly proven to be extremely discriminatory and repressive.  This country has had a long history of established ethnic groups discriminating against new immigrants, both socially and legally. Yes, improvements have been made since the Immigration Act of 1917, but arguing that the law is "in no way discriminatory or repressive" is incredibly ignorant. 

Furthermore, corrupt and unaccountable leaders are not the only reasons for poverty.  Many of these sorts of leaders in Latin America were put in to power with the help of the United States.  With that in mind, does the burden of responsibility lie with the United States to provide for those country's citizens that are poor due to inept leadership?  We put the idiotic leaders in power, many times for our own political or monetary gain. 

You're correct, opening the gates won't solve poverty around the globe, but ignorance about basic facts surrounding this issue won't solve anything either.   

[aerynn]

I haven't done a state-by-state comparative analysis on the approach of education as a right vs. the federal constitution's approach that education is a privilege.  I only know what I read in my Con Law book and the Chemerinsky hornbook, which was focused on the federal approach.  Probably it would take hours of research to put together a good response comparing various state approaches and then contrasting with the federal approach.

I do agree that in states that follow the federal approach there is no state or federal constitutional justification for granting illegal immigrants in-state tuition, but that doesn't mean it is a good public policy.

To learn more about the law, check out FindLaw (no passwords needed): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1325

Looks to me like it is both a criminal and civil offense, but not a big one and the penalty is a fine/jail time not automatic deportation.  So, given that it is a crime, but a small crime, does that change your position on illegal immigration?  What would you say if shoplifting parents would deprive their children of in-state college tuition FOREVER if they shoplifted, because most parents who shoplift do so to support their children, thus penalizing the children's status in the state would discourage parental shoplifting?  It seems like a really unjust approach.

Policy for supporting in-state tuition and channel for children of undocumented immigrants to become legit citizens would help create a class of hard working immigrants who are not permanently under educated with only low paying jobs in the future. 

[1654134681665465]

  Policy for supporting in-state tuition and channel for children of undocumented immigrants to become legit citizens would help create a class of hard working immigrants who are not permanently under educated with only low paying jobs in the future.   

No, that is what the LEGAL immigration route is for.  Legal immigrants are given special consideration by the states that they live in, even if they are only residents of the U.S. 

Using the previous logic one would then argue that illegal immigrants in that state would only have rights to in-state education if they paid property taxes.  Would citizens who don't pay property taxex (i.e. renters?) then have no right to in-state status? This seems fallacious.

We live under a federalist system of government.  We are subject to two governments-the federal and the state.  A state can educate its citizens and provide for them however a state sees fit.  Since illegal immigrants are not citizens, then they have no such right. 

A child of an illegal immigrant who completed high school in a given state should be considered a resident of that state, just as a legal citizen high school graduate would be.   

The state can educate illegal immigrant children in K-12 (which I believe they should, although the resources of legitimate citizens are being stolen), just as the state is obligated to do so for its own citizens.  After high school a state has no such obligation. 

And to address the last point that immigration laws are descriminatory-that is just ridiculous.  We aren't living in the early 1900's any more.  Government immigration laws are fair.  They are the laws of our sovereign nation and they are being ignored and violated. 

There is no legal or moral justification for granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. 

[aerynn]

Baseless assertions are just ADORABLE!  Great job on that!

Also, states can provide for rights and privileges of anyone within their jurisdiction, citizen or not, so long as they meet the Constitutional floor set by the federal constitution and they are preempted by federal statute.  So, if states want to provide an education for undocumented children in their state, they can.  The citizenship blather is only relevant in regard to the law as it applies to citizens. 

[1654134681665465]

   The citizenship blather is only relevant in regard to the law as it applies to citizens. 
 

Oh, so it comes back down to the law?  Do you mean the same law that was broken when these same illegal immigrants came into our country?  When they by passed all the rules and regulations?  I guess to them caring about citizenship and rules is blather. 

  Baseless assertions are just ADORABLE!  Great job on that!

Only as baseless as your argument. 

[philibusters]

I am posting this under this thread b/c I didn't quite know where else to put it.  Currently there are over 20 states that offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.  To me this seems totally unfair that someone who is not even a citizen of this country gets in-state tution, while an American citizen has to pay out of state tuition.  Thoughts, comments, reactions?  Does anyone think that this is a good idea?  Please explain. 

Just skimmed the thread so literally everything I say might be repeat.

As for the argument its seems unfair that a person not a citizen of the country gets in-state tuition, I disagree.  National citizenship entails national rights, are not conservatives supposed to be the ones saying states are seperate from the national government.  It makes no sense for states to exclude somebody from receiving in state tuition on the basis of the national government calls them citizens. 

The policy goals of in state tuition are to form an educated work force that will stay in the state, that applies to citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants if they lived in the state their entire life and have strong roots in the state, also its funded by state taxes which immigrants pay.  I don't understand the policy reason why they should be denied in state tuition, if they have strong connections to the state.  If somebody from California applied to a school in Florida and got in state tuition that would piss me off because they don't have roots to the state, probably aren't likely to stay there so the state gets nothing out of their investment and they haven't been paying taxes, but I don't think thats how the current system works.

Again, who the f*ck cares if an American citizen pays out of state tuition, you are a conservative, why are you trying to bind the states by what the national government.  Plus how does that serve the policy goals of in state tuition?

To reemphasize, I think if its a good idea if it will serve the policy goals of having the the two tiered system in the first, if its a good shot the state will benefit from the person's education then give them a discount, the state benefits by having them stay in the state, while those who are unlikely to stay in the state and give the state later benefits should not get the discount.   

[->Soon]

let em have it

if a kids parents move them to this country, we have nothing to gain by not educating them...

[beeker]

I don't yet understsand all the legal implications surrounding this issue, but hopefully one day I will.  In the meantime, I simply disagree.  I'm all for the rights of legal immigrants to go after their share of the American dream, but I do not think that there should be unfair accommodations made for illegal immigrants.

agreed

[Katie08]

I don't yet understsand all the legal implications surrounding this issue, but hopefully one day I will.  In the meantime, I simply disagree.  I'm all for the rights of legal immigrants to go after their share of the American dream, but I do not think that there should be unfair accommodations made for illegal immigrants.

agreed

At least in most of the states, these are children who were brought to this country by their parents before the age of maturity (usually 15), have attended and graduated from high school, and made good grades (good enough to get accepted).  They are looking to get in-state tuition, but are still ineligible for any financial aid, subsidized loans, etc. It wasn't their choice to come here, and many of them do not have the language skills or family connections to return to their "native" country.  By educating these students, we are able to maintain an educated workforce, provide incentives for everyone to finish high school, and maximizing the tax base on a state level. We aren't making any sort of accomodation for these students that isn't already being made for other students.