NEA to lobby hard for illegals' in-state tuition

Parent Cafe
1

<p>"Some of the almost 10,000 members of the National Education Association (NEA) attending the teachers union's annual conference this week in the nation's capital spoke out on the issues they hope their lobbyists will fight for during next year's legislative session, including the establishment of a peace academy, in-state college tuition and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who graduate from high school."</p>

<p>NEA</a> Seeks Peace Academy, College, Citizenship for Illegal Aliens -- 07/04/2008</p>

<p>Question for all you American-citizen parents struggling to pay out-of-state college tuition for your children: Will these be NEA union dues well spent?</p>

2

<p>It’s an issue that I flipflop on. We risk perpetuating a class of marginally educated, unskilled or semi-skilled individuals by denying a cost effective means of accessing higher education. Yet, we have done that for segments of our own citizens for generations.</p>

<p>I’m not in favor of blanket instate tuition. It rewards an illegal act, reinforces bad behavior patterns. Yet at the same time, I do not feel that the sins of the fathers (or mothers) be placed on the shoulders of the progeny.</p>

<p>Federal, state, and local dollars are already being directed in providing services that illegals use, and can be a drain on already financially strapped programs. Until we establish methodology to secure the borders and formulate a comprehensive strategy to deal with the illegals already here, such a plan may well open the floodgates to only more illegal immigration.</p>

<p>IMO, a more balanced plan might include allowing instate tuition at the community college/second tier state institutions, and must include full illegal status disclosure and a penalty factor/citizenship path combo for both the student, siblings and parents. </p>

<p>I object to instate tuition offered at the flagships, as many are overburdened/overpopulated now and can’t provide enough slots for highly qualified legal instate residents. To add insult to injury by bumping a good to average legal resident by allowing an admit to a higher statistically qualified illegal student only rubs salt into an open festering wound.</p>

<p>If an illegal student wants to try, they should be placed in the out of state category pool, and let the chips fall where they may. Many middle class families suffer the same dilema of footing the bill. Welcome to the realities of higher public education in America.</p>

<p>If they can’t afford it, the safety is the community college/second tier public system at instate rates.</p>

<p>It’s a tough issue, and raises hackles on all sides. But I can’t see blanketing rewarding illicit behaviors. </p>

<p>Just my $.02.</p>

3

<p>Doesn’t the Constitution force reciprocity between sates. I would think it is illegal to give illegal aliens privileges that aren’t offered to citizens of other states.</p>

4

<p>I was under the impression that both CA and TX already permit in-state tuition to any high school grad, regardless of immigration status, so long as they have resided in the state for a certain amount of time.</p>

5

<p>This has been an issue in Massachusetts for quite some time with Governor Romney vetoing the measure in 2004. The current Governor, Deval Patrick, supports the move but he’s been at odds with the Legislature during his rocky time as Governor.</p>

<p>It doesn’t affect our personal situation but it provokes some very heated discussions in the newspapers in MA with most sentiment against it. But that’s just the people that respond to newspaper forums. Perhaps the NEA should work harder to naturalize these students getting them into legal status earlier rather than running into this kind of roadblock when applying for colleges which is already a pretty stressful time.</p>

6

<p>An article that I read has ten states providing in-state tuition to illegals.</p>

<p>The New England Regional Studies Program (in-state tuition reciprocity in New England for majors not provided in-state) has a Proximity Rate program where out-of-state students pay 50% more than in-state tuition if the out-of-state school is closer than the in-state school. Something similar for in-state illegals could provide a middle-point.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>I can also assume they are against clubbing baby seals as well. If I were a dues paying union member, I would be asking “How does this make me a more effective teacher, or my life better without harming my professional performance?” Clearly the NEA is turning into something beyond a union when they go off on a tangent with some of these issues.</p>

<p>I’ll give the NEA a pass on the in-state tuition on undocumented applicants, though as the hope for a higher education does give these children of unfortunate circumstance (it isn’t their fault that they are living this way). Giving these children a path does make their performance meaningful and thus classroom management easier. </p>

<p>You wonder though, if they have enough time to develop policies on treatment of people in Gitmo, you’d think they’s come up with better policies on getting parents to participate in the school - a more critical element to the success of students.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>Turning … as in the present tense? The NEA has been something beyond an union for decades, and something that has everything to do with politics and little with education.</p>

9

<p>Tough issue, but as long as it provides in-state to those students that have met the other residency requirements of that state, I have no problem with it.</p>

10

<p>OK, xiggi. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and ignoring the past…</p>

11

<p>yes, California does provide in-state tuition rates to anyone who graduates from a Calif high school that s/he attended for at least three years. And, I’m guessing that the three year attendance requirement addresses the reciprocity issue, Tom.</p>

<p>But, like all laws, there are unintended consequences. As violadad notes, the targeted population is kids who parents bring them here through no fault of their own. But, Calif is now attractive to rich foreign overseas families – those parents send their kids to live in Calif and attend a local HS (so they can attend a UC at in-state rates) while mom and dad travel back and forth.</p>

12

<p>I have heard of what bluebayou speaks (but I cannot verify it). Apparently, there are group homes of teenagers from Asia, who attend CA high-schools for the requisite residency period in hopes of attending UCLA/UCB etc. at in-state tuition rates.</p>

13

<p>wait isn’t the whole purpose of in-state tuition based on the fact that residents pay state taxes? I’m not sure what illegal immigrants do, but I heard that they don’t pay taxes or something. Maybe I shouldn’t comment because I’m not well informed about this, but could someone just clarify this for me? Thanks.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>However, aren’t illegal aliens also barred from financial aid? The in-state “tuition” without Pell, SEOG, and other grants will still leave college well beyond the means of most young undocumented aliens.</p>

15

<p>NY has the three year rule too. But illegals are barred from state financial aid as well as the federal aid. Only private aid is permissable, but that does not come heavily in play with the state unis, as FAFSA is needed to be eligible for any aid.</p>

<p>The in state college tuition is just one part of the huge problem we have regarding how we treat illegals here. We flip flop all over the place to the point that the message is not at all clear. It comes down to “come on over here and take your chances”, and the chances can be quite good in areas like ours, where it is not allowed to ask about legal status. The only time illegals can get caught is if they break the law in some other way and need to provide valid ID. My feeling is that we need to start cracking down on our laws to see what the ramification of them are, or change them to the point where we can and will enforce them. I don’t care which way we go. Right now we are creating a quasi population with few laws and rules. I can see why there is little respect for the immigration law.</p>

16

<p>

</p>

<p>xiggi, therein lies the rub. Granting instate tuition or a 50% surcharge over instate rate is a paper victory, unless the student and parents have the funds to cover the costs. The exceptional student may benefit from some privately funded scholarship, be it merit or talent. A few will garner small local awards, and a lucky few may even benefit from the largesse of a larger local scholarship if they are competitive and if the programs are available.</p>

<p>The end result is that the sum of the available resources must equal the COA. In most cases it won’t. Those that have the desire and drive will attend a community college, work parttime to pay their way through school. Those that succeed may find themselves in a position to continue education/finish their education at a four year institution. It may well be not be in four years, but it’s a path many legal residents have been forced to do for years.</p>

<p>In the end, it’s not reasonable to expect or demand equitable benefits afforded legal residents if the legally stipulated requirements are not met.</p>

<p>For the constitutional experts here, are not those children born in this country US citizens even though their parents are here illegally?</p>

17

<p>^^ If they’re born here they’re automatically US citizens even if the parents are illegal. Some people are trying to change this rule. But unless the rule is changed, they should be considered full citizens and Americans - that’s the way I think of them anyway.</p>

<p>The more benefits people see to coming into this country, including access to good schools, medicine, and jobs, the more people from other countries will stream into the USA illegaly.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>People born in the United States are citizens. At this time, children of undocumented aliens born in the US cannot be denied their birth right. It is extremely doubtful that this will ever change, although the US government is actively trying to reduce the entry of foreigners who are at a late stage of pregancy. There have been some very difficult cases where Mexican women were in line to enter the US at a checkpoint and started labor. The decision was to between sending her back (to a probable death) or let an ambulance take her to the close US hospital. </p>

<p>As far as cracking down on illegal entry, the numbers of aliens caught at the known smuggling points are down by about one-half since they increased the number of Border Patrol officers and started building the famous fence. Of course, the decrease in the number of apprehended aliens might also indicate that the smugglers are getting more sophisticated (read construction of longer tunnels and bribing of officers at entry points.) </p>

<p>This said, the crackdown on illegal entry has also caused a large surge in deliquency in Mexican border cities. In addition to a bloody war between competing cartels (that parallels the 1980s cocaine war in Miami) a great number of petty delinquents who use to live from the contraband and smuggling of drugs in the US are now turning against one another or against innocent victims. </p>

<p>Inasmuch as turning the United States into a fortress was the most intelligent decision, it is undeniable that crossing people and goods in the United States has become a lot harder for … common people. If the measures are effective against the sophisticated and well-funded organized crime is highly debatable. </p>

<p>Fwiw, we should also remember that the entire illegal alien saga has mostly been the creation of misguided politicians in the United States who confused humans with disposable commodities. North America would probably benefit from a complete integration mimicking the European Union. Facilitating the entry and exit of aliens might very result in fewer illegals staying after earning a bit of money. Contrary to what people think most people prefer to stay closer to home and family and not everyone sees the US as the new Shangri-La. For many, with the exception of earning decent wages, life is much harder than in Mexico.</p>

19

<p>xiggi, in my opinion, the problem with your conclusions lies in the last paragraph (its assumptions). Entry and EXIT would be mutual, if considerable progress were being made in Mexico (& certain other countries). Where there is simultaneous development occurring, this dynamic works both theoretically & practically. However, as a country, Mexico & many other countries are not moving fast enough to encourage re-patriation once immigrants have arrived here. That is the argument I have made on other threads: that one-half of an immigration policy is not a policy, and does <em>not</em> humanize the situation. Merely to accept illegals (i.e., look the other way) without a commitment to an effective US/Latin American partnership which vigorously addresses native economy and the native training required to get there, is to accept a unique U.S. role as the sole provider for a humanitarian way of life for those seeking it.</p>

<p>That is both irresponsible and unreachable.</p>

20

<p>In our state, the difference between in state and out of state can make the difference of getting to go to college and not going. We have a relatively low tuition rate, but even though the OOS rates are not a lot more, for someone low income it can be a problem. Many of the kids who are illegals go to school part time, working the rest of the time to earn the money to go to school. A course at a local school here would be about $500 at a comm college, $600 at a 4 year state school. Alot more for out of state. It can make a difference in the transportation, books and supplies and more. </p>

<p>Again, I think this is just part of the bigger problem that should be resolved. My MIL lives in MD and is screaming out of her skin on what she perceives as O’Malley’s generosity towards the illegals in state. Here, there are so, so many illegals, that it is difficult to even think of them as such. I know most of my yard crew is illegal. My housekeeper is not, but her relatives are. Many of my neighbors household help are illegal, and my guess is that many of the cleaning crews for legit businesses are illegal here. To want to cut their benefits and quality of living while supporting their existence is hypocritical, in my opinion.</p>