<p>I think one of concepts behind what MiamDAP is saying is that a consistent philosophy behind some of these state-by-state policies is not there. Which is why I said earlier that coherence is important. And the place that starts is with federal immigration law (and any “reform,” corrections, etc.) I’m aware, and so is MiamiDAP, that the two are separate. But I think it’s way overdue to integrate, in intention, the two, so that the citizens can be confident that state (in this case, educational) policies will reflect the intent of the federal policies. To segregate residence policies, tuition policies, admissions policies, and recruiitment and AA policies from immigration policy as if “we can’t say the bad word” is to maintain the overall state of denial that we see now in the country, regarding immigration and its effects. See this recent excellent, soon-to-be-prizewinning series of articles. Its focus is not educational but economic, and the impetus for the story was local, but one of the points of the article for this discussion is that the impact of denial is considerable.</p>
<p>[fresnobee.com</a> - In Denial](<a href=“http://www.fresnobee.com/indenial/index.html]fresnobee.com”>http://www.fresnobee.com/indenial/index.html)</p>
<p>Because of the different jurisdictions, to date that consistency can’t be forced or required, but it affects economics on both a micro (state, local) and macro (national) level. I find it ironic that so many CC’ers who demand “transparency” in admissions (including for U.C.) have no problem with the opaqueness of this picture, and the distrust, dismay, and anxiety it causes applicants and families. Because let’s face it (oh, whoops, no, we don’t want to talk about the ‘bad word’), in-state tuition levels affects admissions. And CC parents complain about it for their Anglo and Asian children all the time – for example, the increasing OOS level of admissions due to revenue need. I think many generous hearted people would be way happier with a frank ‘immigration exception’ policy that allows a small percentage of undocumented students who are exceptionally well-qualified (i.e., Regents level) to be admitted under open policies. Those would be granted in-state residency and financial aid for having met that exceptional bar. That is something that the “humanity” (earlier referred to on this thread) of Americans can get behind, at least IMHO.</p>
<p>But merely not to have a separate policy, or to idealize, romaniticize, and otherwise rationalize immigration status is to make a mockery of law, which does not instill faith in the system. One of its effects is to further burden admissions by increasing the numbers of applications, which affects all students, legal and not. Idealism (American values) is not the same thing as romanticism. Idealism takes into account the economic impact on many, not just the opportunity for a few.</p>