<p>Well, this article was listed in the "Politics" section and that's surely where it belongs. The article notes that about 200 students would be affected by this change out of a public university population of more than 50,000. Whoa, really changing the world there aren't they?</p>
<p>What's interesting here is that suddenly we're seeing Republicans in state government arguing AGAINST state rights. They are deferring to a federal standard of immigration to define who counts as being an in-state resident.</p>
<p>Put aside for the moment the passion and outrage over the immigration debate and who lost their job and who's stealing it, etc. I understand full well that the opposition is based on a desire to protect our borders. But the law that the state legislators refer to is a federal law that defines who can enter the national borders. If Congress were to create open borders, this wouldn't be an issue. I say that NOT to suggest that's what Congress ought to do -- NO WAY DO I THINK THAT! -- but I wonder why the position isn't to simply define who is a Connecticut resident by a standard that the Connecticut legislature wants to define it -- one that's presumably different from the definition proposed by the Democrats in the Connecticut legislature.</p>
<p>The argument that this kowtows to lawbreakers seems weak to me -- as these are federal quotas and not crimes of violence or moral turpitude we're talking about. These people aren't illegal. Nobody is illegal. They are here (or in Connecticut) because they don't comply with federal quotas and rules for crossing the border. These are rules (unlike treason, espionage, mail fraud and other federal criminal offenses) that are arbitrary and can change one minute to the next by Congress, without any initial consultation with the Connecticut legislature.</p>
<p>Republicans -- even those in federal government -- tend to hate federal mandates and they are often quickest to point out that the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."</p>
<p>So, here, when the conversation is about in-state tuition that is funded entirely by the state government, I find it curious that the Republicans (at least those in the article) are most offended that a federal standard of national citizenship isn't controlling.</p>
<p>Again, I'm not saying that the law that's been passed is wiser. I would think, for starters, that I'd want to ensure that these state residents who qualify for in-state tuition are complying with state tax laws. My point is only that the chosen argument opposing this law seems odd -- and almost bizarre -- coming out of the mouths of Republicans.</p>