<p>
The fact that the Calif. statute also applies to some persons with lawful status is relevant to the main issue addressed in the case, which is whether the statute is preempted by 8 USC § 1623.
As I read the Ca. Education Code, the normal rule requires one year of residence, so a legal immigrant in CA for more than one year can qualify for resident tuition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a fallacy. At best, we are cost-shifting. At worst, we are depressing wages and putting legal residents out of work.</p>
<p>it’s clear from the number of posts that this issue is very contentious. i don’t know how to solve the problem, but i know one statement that is simply untrue:</p>
<p>“The undocumented parents who bring their kids here are obviously making a very good choice for everyone; the family can work, the kids can learn, our food, yard care, etc., stay cheap, the economy is stimulated, taxes are collected. Win, win.”</p>
<p>win, win hardly. we have paid and will continue to pay even more dearly a massive social cost just to keep the price of a bic mac under 2 dollars, or get our lawns mowed for 10. just to add some perspective to the importance of our uninvited guest workers, fewer than 3% of all illegals who come here from mexico are EVER employed in agriculture. and those that are move as quickly as possible into the cities, such that more are needed. would be a lot simpler just to pay 2 bucks for a head of lettuce, if that’s what it takes.</p>
<p>finally, today at the uc regents meeting, a fairly large group of students demonstrated against the announced increase in in-state tuition, to about 10 grand. out of state will likely pay another 10 grand on top of that. now if there are 25,000 illegals in the system, and each paid that 10 grand additional, it would amount to…let’s see…250 mil. how do you like them cauliflowers?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THANK YOU! I find it particularly offensive, intellectually and morally, when people argue from “facts” that are patently untrue, for anyone who has studied the big picture economically and politically.</p>
<p>And FWIW, I purchase my produce from a local market run by Mexican immigrants, who may or may not be illegal, partly or in sum. The proceeds go directly back to the farms, without the middle-man mark-up one normally pays for. And some of those farms are now owned by immigrants. I am not interested in a persecution of a particular group residing in any state, including those here illegally. This is a matter of equity in education and the rules that do or do not create equity. Versus rules that may support political correctness, as well as regulations which support business at the expense both of the immigrant (legal and illegal) and the consumer. Looking the other way is not a solution and is not a moral argument.</p>
<p>This case was about whether state or federal law preempts, not about the optimal number of immigrants. </p>
<p>That said, the reason we cannot reduce the total number of immigrants radically, is not due to the price of lettuce, but due to the need to keep growing the younger part of the population, to keep social security in balance. Even if many illegals do not pay in (a matter of some disagreement on the facts, IIUC) their legal children, etc are key to the actuarial future. Ideally we would stop the flow of new illegals, increase significantly the number of legals (which would address the demographic situation even better, because it would put them all on the tax rolls, esp the SS tax rolls), and resolve the situation of the large number of people who entered illegally in the past (again with a view to putting them all on the tax rolls, esp the SS tax rolls) but who have established stable, productive lives here. </p>
<p>unfortunately our political system seems too inflamed to get that result. It will of course be that much harder to get a pragmatic compromise while unemployment is so high.</p>
<p>“Even if many illegals do not pay in …”</p>
<p>Somewhat balanced by many who do pay in but can’t collect (because of using fake SSNs or tax ID numbers).</p>
<p>What is “many?” ;)</p>
<p>Moderator note: The subject of this thread is In-state tuition for illegal immigrants. It is not intended to be a thread for airing your views on overall immigration policy. Please return to the education-related topic, or the thread will be closed as having run its course.</p>
<p>Without discussing it more than we have, I’m going to suggest that the issue of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants anywhere in the great 50 cannot ultimately be severed from federal immigration reform, precisely on the terms that some of you are arguing. (Good for the students, good for the country, etc.) One of the most serious problems we have in our approaches to problems in this country is not to understand the mutuality of many major issues (Education + Immigration; Education + Jobs; Education + Crime, etc.), but rather to focus on problems in isolation.</p>
<p>Sometimes our idealism is our worst enemy, or at least a blind spot. Some of us are “hopeless idealists” in that we would like to give everyone money, but pertinent to this discussion at this timely moment, CA has some serious budget crises, plural. As you see by yesterday’s UCSF demonstrations, just the threat of tuition hikes is striking serious terror into the hearts of many students. So, despite the fact that in-state tuition is primarily enjoyed by legal residents, the “small” quotient diverted to undocumented students is a disproportionate burden at this time, affecting not only other items in higher education funding, but other State services which indirectly affect the same undocumented students being discussed. </p>
<p>Decisions have consequences, and eventually bills come due. </p>
<p>A DREAM act tied to national service, as an aspect of immigration reform, is one possibility. I think that the country would be less divided about such a reform (really an amnesty) if it were tied to national service at inception. I think the symbolism of that is very important, and I think it is a win/win. </p>
<p>With regard to the legal residents, I also think that it’s time for businesses large & small to start putting their money where their mouths are, and to offer low-paid internships to new graduates in much greater numbers than has historically been true. Businesses do in fact get cheap labor that way, and the new graduate immediately starts gaining a pathway to employment. That is also win/win, especially if internship & job are at the same site or company, which allows the business to recoup its investment much more efficiently.</p>
<p>Whether Georgia, TX, or CA, it’s difficult to talk about this subject without bringing up the economic factors, which in turn often overlaps into politics because economics is tied to policy and to political parties & fiscal philosophy, so perhaps if politics needs to be avoided entirely, it may be difficult to discuss tuition costs meaningfully on CC. Just a thought. (Outside of immigration of any kind, tuition policies have political implications and effects.)</p>
<p>Nice post, ephiphany.</p>
<p>You’re correct, it’s a very “‘small’ quotient diverted to undocumented students.”</p>
<p>Only 1 percent or fewer of California college students (.0018% of UC students) are beneficiaries of the law’s extension to illegal immigrants.
See [Editorial:</a> DREAM Act should be the law of the land - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee](<a href=“http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/17/3190948/dream-act-should-be-the-law-of.html]Editorial:”>http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/17/3190948/dream-act-should-be-the-law-of.html)</p>
<p>Economically speaking, every additional student, no matter how few, who pays full freight and is ineligible to receive financial aid is a good thing for California colleges’ struggling finances. </p>
<p>In the UC system alone, 63% of students received some form of financial aid two years ago, before expansion of the Blue and Gold and other aid programs. This fall, a record-setting 39% of students received Pell Grants set aside for low-income families. </p>
<p>
See [University</a> of California - UC Newsroom | 2009-10 and 2010-11 undergraduate fees and financial aid](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/22416]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/22416) and [University</a> of California - UC Newsroom | Record-setting enrollment of low-income students](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/24211]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/24211) </p>
<p>Arguing these students should pay out of state or international rates is politically expedient and nothing more, as the practical import of such a move would be to bar most of them from attending.</p>
<p>I agree, the critical point of economic impact is not at the college level, but at the societal level, where these young college graduates are unable to put their degrees to work and become productive citizens. Passage of a DREAM act is essential to get return on the investment, which for many began when they received a K-12 education.</p>
<p>Artemis is correct in that there aren’t many undocumenteds that can afford to attend UC, but there are thousands who are in the community college systems, so the cost is not insignificant.</p>
<p>But the other factor involved is that the State’s policy enables ‘rich, rich’ internationals to also pay instate rates to attend UC. There are plenty of parents in California who are on work visas whose kids attend UC at instate rates. There are plenty of parents who live overseas but send their kids to live in a California boarding school/house (or with a relative) to obtain ‘residency’ so they can attend an American college, particularly UC, at instate rates. If such parents had to pay the OOS fees…</p>
<p>As a UC grad and former Californian (who’d love to return some day) I am very proud of this decision. There is something fundamentally AMERICAN in its humanity and promise, and it represents the very best of the American spirit. And I think this policy will ultimately help create a stronger, better California.</p>
<p>
What kind of visa would allow a student to do this? An F-1 student visa is only for college study.</p>
<p>It is time to change the name form “illegal immigrant” to “immigrant with superior rights”. Illigal means that person broke the law. If one gets superiority status in comparison to other citizens (like OOS students) they cannot possibly continue to be called illegals. It is terminology that puts people to prisons not to colleges.</p>
<p>I don’t think illegal immigrants that have been in, say, Texas will be eligible for in-state rates in California, so I’m not really sure how they’re given more benefits than OOS students.</p>
<p>Miami – they didn’t break the law – their PARENTS did. I’m not willing to punish these kids, and think that giving them equal (not superior!) access to education is a win-win for all of us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’d find it barely recognizable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d love to hear your thinking on this. (other than the general and debatable premise that everyone in America should be college-educated).</p>
<p>"A DREAM act tied to national service, as an aspect of immigration reform, is one possibility. I think that the country would be less divided about such a reform (really an amnesty) if it were tied to national service at inception. I think the symbolism of that is very important, and I think it is a win/win.'</p>
<p>Yes, I think you’d find that many people would be more than willing to support that if it is military service. Not something that is deemed as “national service” meaning a government paid low risk civilian job, with guaranteed pay. I think alot of people from all over the spectrum would be willing to jump at that, right now. That is a privilege that many are fighting for now, hundreds of applications for every open government job. But military service, I’d go for that.</p>
<p>Specifically, the fact that they have stuck into the DREAM act, that one can qualify for citizenship merely on the basis of going to college, is insanity. It would be one thing if we desperately needed more people to go to college, and we’d do anything to encourage it. The truth is, our colleges are packed, applications are at a record high, many kids can’t even get into their state schools, if they do the classes are overcrowded, there are huge cutbacks and the states are stretched to the limit. So many kids are graduating with first rate degrees, and they can’t even get jobs…why do we want more state supported college students bad enough to bribe with citizenship, when our schools are already overstressed? I don’t understand why that option was stuck in the bill.</p>
<p>Katliamom, couldn’t have said it any better. </p>
<p>“There is something fundamentally AMERICAN in its humanity and promise, and it represents the very best of the American spirit. And I think this policy will ultimately help create a stronger, better California”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just need a tourist visa to come visit. Then stay for three + years. Attend and graduate from a California HS, and voila, instate tuition at UC. OTOH, what typically happens is that the ‘parents’ move over with the kids on a work visa, the parent gets ‘recalled’ by the home office, but the kids stay. Parents come visit every so often.</p>
<p>Quite common in several communities, with top high schools.</p>
<p>Katliamom: if the DREAM act passes, and college grads obtain citizenship, won’t their law-breaking parents then go to the front-of-the-line (since the kid-now-citizen will be able to sponsor the parent)?</p>