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.
136 Replies
24246 Views