<p>i don’t have a problem with this.</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>-“Immigrants with superior rights” who have been in California, are eligible for in-state rates in California, while “American citizens with inferior rigths” who have benn in Texas are NOT eligible for in-state rates in California. So, immigrants (with whatever label) have more rights than American citizens. However, anybody who has done ANYTHING illegal should have rights to enter prison (by definition of illegal - against the law), not the rights that surpass the ones of American citizens who have never broke any law. I also wonder about filling the application where it is asked about breaking the law. I assume that when you are “immigrant with superior rights” it is OK to lie there, but if you are “American citizen with inferior rights” it is not OK. Then this specific question should be removed from application to correct this discrepancy, since it lost any meanning.</p>
<p>^ The text of the CA Supreme Court decision explains the relationsips between the applicable US and CA laws, and how they pertain to in-state and OOS students, how OOS students are not disadvantaged.</p>
<p>^They can feed any text to us, it does not make me (and many others) agree with it. However, whatever people who agree with whole situation are saying, it is their right as well to hold different opinion. I do not argue with anybody, I am stating what I think about it, which is affected only by facts and not any kind of opinion or court decision. And you are free to express your view just as well. Apparently your view has prevailed in courts.</p>
<p>“I am stating what I think about it, which is affected only by facts and not any kind of opinion or court decision”</p>
<p>except that your facts are wrong because you don’t know the court’s decision and the opinion on which it was based</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess I should have noted on my college application that one time I went 40 in a 35 MPH zone, even though I wasn’t caught.</p>
<p>That explains your screen name, RacinReaver!</p>
<p>Yeah, you should have filled in that law breaking streak, for sure. It might have gained you in state tuition privileges.</p>
<p>I am happy to learn that we equate exceeding speed limit by 5 miles with being in a country illegally. This is really equal, I have no doubts about it now, you have convinced me. Thank you for education. I am still not arguing with anybody. We are all entitled to our opinions.</p>
<p>
That student is overstaying on a tourist visa and not a legal resident, but could qualify for resident tuition under § 68130.5, the statute at issue in the Calif Supreme Court case.</p>
<p>Whoops, my bad Miami, I thought you had said earlier in the thread that it’s not up to us to choose which laws to follow and which to ignore.</p>
<p>I am surprised you’re willing to offer illegal immigrants a place to stay in our prisons on the taxpayer’s dime, though. ;)</p>
<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>
<p>It amazes me that when something directly hits someones pocketbook this issue of right and wrong becomes huge. Recently I read an NPR article discussing the Arizona immigration law that was recently passed.
The bill was written by Private prison companies and their lobbyists and adopted by Senator Pearce. The purpose is to make money from illegal aliens. It is based purely on a business model of building prisons to house men, women and children illegal immigrants. It is very simple; these people are just commodities in which to make money.
I too doubt very much there are a large number of illegal immigrants that can afford to send their children to college in CA. I also know that CA farmers depend on the cheap labor which legal Americans have never been interested to do. California contributes to the feeding of a huge amount of America. The point is there is money being made by corporate America because we have illegal aliens.
This topic is far more complex than first glance. The illegal alien is doing what they can to feed their family. The prison companies are preying on them which I personally find immoral. The farm industry is helped because it keeps labor costs down which is reflected in what you pay at the supermarket. And there are many industries that do the same thing such as the garment industry.
I dont hear anyone complaining about paying less money for products
</p>
<p>And on a personal note : Pet peeve - (sorry can’t resist) “Just Saying” sounds incredibly sophomoric</p>
<p>Point of correction:
Illegal immigration accounts for only about 3% of CA agricultural employment. (i.e., field workers).</p>
<p>But in any case I think these last posts are not addressing the issue of in-state residency for UC tuition.</p>
<p>Years ago, it should not have been a burning issue that a small percentage of students were getting formal permission (and reduced rates) for their illegal status. Now, when every penny of a state budget counts, and affects what is available to others in the State and to other services for different poor, legally residing residents in that state, you bet it makes a difference. It doesn’t make a difference for people on CC who can afford, or afford with some discomfort, full tuition, and do not rely on the state for other services; but there are thousands not on this board who are here legally and for whom darn right that a liberally (not meant in the political sense) irresponsible definition of “residency” does make a difference.</p>
<p>For an institution, let alone such a vast one like the UC system, to make decisions based on past assumptions of super-funding, has consequences for other as- or more-deserving families, because the revenue is “made up” on the backs of others. And/or the revenue to fund intra-University programs and departments disappears. (A near possibility already being discussed) Not in the past, in the present. Wake up, people; it’s not 1970 anymore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know you weren’t addressing me, but I think I should answer also, since I just brought up $. I do not argue primarily from a fiscal position, myself. I argue from a philosophical position – with respect to the mission of UC and to the issue of the unenforced immigration situation, in which the federal gov’t, and large portions of the US population, seem to be in sustained denial. However, others on this thread have brought it up as a rationalization for an exceptional definition of residency. So I’m challenging the “harmlessness” argument, which doesn’t apply in 2010 meltdown economy, statewide and nationally.</p>
<p>Out of excuses already.</p>
<p>epiphany, you are focusing on the UC system, and the figures quoted for 2007-08 were 406 undocumented students (.0018 percent of the UC population) benefiting from this law. That number may be somewhat higher now, but if UC’s numbers are anything like Texas’ numbers (where state aid is actually available to undocumented students–no federal aid is available to anyone, no matter what state), the number is still 1% or less. </p>
<p>So, bottom line, all of this handwringing is over 400+ kids = 1% of the UC student population, and they are paying full freight, with NO aid.</p>
<p>Economically speaking, it hardly seems that the UC system’s fiscal woes turn on this issue.</p>
<p>And on a lighter note, I just read that the UC Press is going to make a surprise killing on its publication of Mark Twain’s autobiography.</p>
<p><a href=“Mark Twain’s Autobiography Is Flying Off the Shelves - The New York Times”>Mark Twain’s Autobiography Is Flying Off the Shelves - The New York Times;
<p>Post 156. That’s right, UC is not TX, and Californians, unless they’re seeking admission both to CA and TX public colleges, generally don’t care what TX does. You keep bringing up your state, and I don’t care. What you want to justify, or rationalize, about your own state is your business. I merely suggested earlier that all states might want to look at the integration of federal policies with more local ones if they see a value in encouraging confidence about admissions and the pricing of college.</p>
<p>I’m sure that for a good 406 documented students who have attended CA schools only 2 years instead of 3, the “percentage” means something. Just like when you’re out of work, the Unemployment Rate is for you 100%, not whatever the “national figure” is.</p>
<p>Please stop comparing TX to CA. It is not germane to the University of California. I don’t know how Texans respond to policies in their state – and not just Texans who are benefitting but Texans who are not benefitting, or who have documents and are paying OOS from a neighoring state. I also don’t know how the extremities – and they are extremities – of California’s overall series of budget crises and ongoing budget precariousnes even today, compares with TX and the funding for that State, its needs, and the funding sources and prognosis for UT. I have read about high enrollment concerns there and various other decisions and controversies.</p>
<p>I know it’s hard, but try to follow and stay On Topic.</p>
<p>Footnote regarding earlier discussion of economy in CA: one in 11 employees is an illegal immigrant. Reference: Fresno Bee.</p>
<p>epiphany writes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe this number is very far off. The state of California says that in 2008 52.1% of agricultural workers were “foreign-born noncitizens.” </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/agric/ca-ag-profile.pdf[/url]”>www.calmis.ca.gov/file/agric/ca-ag-profile.pdf</a></p>
<p>i see TX’s point: we are talking about a small number of so-called illegal UC-eligible students here. i’m not seeing how numbers this small are something to get really upset about. as a black person, i’m more riled up about inadequate K-12 preparation. yes, my son was UC-eligible upon graduation last year (and is happily attending a UC campus now), but i’m still angered that it seems that all CA tax payers have been, in effect, subsidizing kids from ‘high performing’ schools who eventually end up at UCs, while–for the most part–black and brown kids are disproportionately in CCCs/CSUs. in other words, black and brown parents have been paying taxes for years for schools that many of our kids aren’t even attending (at least, not in large numbers).</p>