<p>Newyorktimes.com (fee), and HoustonChronicle.com as well as sfgate.com (both free) report today on the class-action lawsuit filed against the U of C and CSU systems. The plaintiffs are seeking about $600 million in damages [i.e. refunds] for non-resident students whom were charged higher tuition rates than illegal immigrants. California (and Texas, among other states) provide in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants.</p>
<p>I acknowledge that California is simply seeking to provide opportunity to people who lacked it in their native country. But might it be better if the immigrant student was required to demonstrate that he or she worked in the U.S. for a specified period prior to enrollment at a state university [at resident tuition rates]? Yes, I know, the situation further exposes the inconsistent nonsense of U.S. immigration policy.</p>
<p>It is my understanding that illegal alien students are allowed to attend US schools in many states - IF they graduated high school in that state - not coming into the US just to go to school - they are here because their parents brought them here - therefore - they are considered living in the state and are being given in-state tuition for that reason only.</p>
<p>I have a feeling the out-of-state plaintiffs are not gonna win this one because of the laws in place at this time. They may think it is not fair to them - but it is included in the laws of California. This is a national interest situation as well - not just in California.</p>
<p>It is the belief in the US - in most places - that this is the compassionate thing to do - and not to deny education to children of illegal aliens as it is not their fault that they are here. I would also think that if they are in good standing law abiding folks that they will be protected by laws in this country and maybe even be required to maintain a certain level of community relationship and maybe even military service to remain in the US - that would be my guess.</p>
<p>There are also laws that protect illegal aliens from deportation - if they have begun the registration process - they are eligable for certain percs.</p>
<p>Illegal immigrants in California do have to demonstrate residency. </p>
<p>From sfgate.com:</p>
<p>"Undocumented students are considered residents for tuition purposes if they have attended a California high school for three years, graduated from high school and are in the process of obtaining legal immigration status"</p>
<p>Remember folks, tutition at state-supported colleges is set by state legislatures or their respective Boards of Higher Education, if not the college itself. The point of the story in California is that California and other states that charge non-residents more tuition, while giving resident status to illegal aliens, are in violation of FEDERAL LAW. All lawyers in the room speak up: isn't it an 'equal protection' matter? Yes, it's a conflict of laws, a classic issue of Federalism. Can the local law trump the federal law? Should it, in this case?</p>
<p>I think you have to rely on substantive considerations and not just sympathy. And keep in mind that all college students at least 18-years old are legally adults, not minors who may have traveled to the U.S. at the whim of their parents, whether they liked it or not.</p>
<p>I dont know much about the legalities behind this issue. It would be interesting to see what federal laws the law suits are referring to. Is there specific federal legislation that prohibits state universities from setting their own residency guidelines? or it is wholly a constitutional issue stemming from equal protection? </p>
<p>If it is merely the latter, does equal protection prohibit a state's right to charge out of the state residents more? Surely not. The question that follows however is more complicated. Does the state's power to control its fee program allow the state to delineate between undocumented students (though the law affects illegal immigrants, it is actually more broadly crafted and applies more to US citizens in unique circumstances) and out of state students?</p>
<p>The case is filed against the UC system/California - not federally - and states have the right to set the regs/laws governing illegal aliens and educational benefit. </p>
<p>There has been federal law submitted and under consideration regarding this and it does not deny illegal aliens the right to education.</p>
<p>Those who read carefully understand that the controversy is not a matter feds establishing tuition rates at local colleges. Clearly, the federal government cannot do that. The plaintiffs are seeking to enforce the federal prohibition against the two-tiered tution charges for apparently [somewhat?]similarly situation persons; illegal aliens (who in fact may be state residents, but paradoxically are not "legal residents" of the United States), and U.S. citizens who are not domiciled in the individual state where they seek a public college education.</p>
<p>The hook is, as usual, the fact that state colleges apply and received federal aid, research grants, etc. The federal government therefore expects the schools to comply with federal mandates. Perhaps not always fair but I know of no institution, with the exception of Brigham Young University, that refuses federal funding. Virtually no school opts out. A positive example of a federal mandate for higher education is Title IX; athletic opportunities for women. Remember, the colleges ignored that mandate for years until the lawsuits began to appear.</p>
<p>The Tuition litigation may offer a similar outcome.</p>
<p>Hillsdale college has famously opted out. Has Grove City College? </p>
<p>Does anyone remember that Wired article we talked about last year? Where those poor kids in Arizona (I think it was in Arizona) entered a robotics competition and beat out college teams, including some from elite campuses? These kids were fascinating, not just smart problem solvers but also kids who had to balance a lot of complicated home responsibilities. The end of their story mentioned that some of these kids have graduated and are doing minimum-wage work because their parents were undocumented and they can't get aid at college. It was a very compelling look at another side of the issue with illegal immigrants and college (even though that wasn't the purpose of the article).</p>
<p>It was hard not thing "What a waste" when you read the article, whatever your feelings about the issue in general.</p>
<p>whaaaaaaaa......... how do you graduate from a high school if you are an illegal immigrant... do high schools have to educate those people? there should be a law that they have to NOTIFY THE AUTHORITIES to deport these people</p>
<p>Reeze, they just go in and enroll. Easy as that. Better that the children go to school, continue on to college, become legal residents with jobs, and pay taxes than not enroll (for fear of being deported), and possibly join gangs, and sap police resources. If there was a law requiring notification, where would the incentive be to go on and become educated? It becomes lost tax revenue for the state for the 40+ years the person would be in the workforce.</p>
<p>Plus, a college-educated person [with a few exceptions, of course] likely makes more than one without a HS diploma, and thus, tax revenue from that person over a lifetime is greater than the subsidized amount given by the state for their tuition. </p>
<p>Whatever moral arguments there may be for and against it, it really boils down to added long term income for the state.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the state has no guarantee that an out of state student will remain in the state after graduation and thus pay taxes to the state. This is why to establish residency in CA for tuition purposes, one has to show that they intend to make it their "permanent" home. Why should the state subsidize someone they might not make money off of?</p>
<p>
[quote]
interesting article, are the parents forced to pay taxes once their children are in college?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The parents are the ones mowing our lawns, picking our strawberries and cleaning our houses. Without them, we'd being paying a lot more for strawberries and cleaning our own toilets. While I appreciate cheap strawberries and low-cost lawn mowing as much as the next person, I wish for more for their children, who will be my neighbors for many years to come.</p>
<p>1DOWN2TOGO - I like your attitude - that is very true.</p>
<p>Every state has a 2 tier tuition system - and the state determines who pays in-state and out-of-state tuition by their own standards. Educating illegal aliens is by far a better thing to do than to allow them to become uneducated/illiterate non-productive members of a society that requires its members to be productive and expect them to be intelligent and to contribute - and pay taxes.</p>
<p>We recently had a family who was returned to their native country - after their kiddo graduated high school - he was not here on his own accord - but brought here by his parents - and should be educated the same as any other child in this state.</p>
<p>Hoedown--
I'm not aware how Grove City College chose to handle the ruling that the Supreme Court issued against it.</p>
<p>Reeze--
Many years ago the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the minor children of illegal immigrants (particularly migrants) were entitled to a free public education in the districts in which they reside.</p>
<p>Karth--
The immigration laws are a mess. Is there another fair or reasonable solution that would require some commitment from undocumented persons in exchange for legal status? I agree with you that jail is not the answer for non-criminal illegal aliens.</p>
<p>The amusing part is that if a student from Illinois used phony ID to pass himself off as a legitimate California resident to qualify for in-state tuition, whichever UC he attended would no doubt attempt to recover the difference if they found out, or even exact some more severe penalty for lying.</p>
<p>Well I learned in my American Government class that according to the Privileges and Immunities Clause, no state can draw unreasonable distinctions between its own residents and those persons who happen to live in other states. I personally feel that CA is being very unreasonable by charging the out of state tuition rates that it does. I know that the people of CA have paid taxes to support their colleges and thus should be charged less than out of state students. But it does not make sense when it is cheaper for me to go to a prestigious private university than it is for me to pay out of state fees at any of the university of CA schools. Of course the state of CA is pretty much overburdened in its entire education system and I am surprised that its schools are as good as they are.</p>
<p>I don't know any more about this than what I read in the article, but it's been my understanding that the reason in-state residents pay lower tuition is that the bulk of the cost of running the University comes from the taxes paid by state residents. Since out of state students haven't paid those taxes, they don't get the "home discount."<br>
From that perspective, it makes sense that the in state tuition rate should be based on residency, not citizenship (or legality of residency.) Undocumented aliens pay taxes just like everyone else. So, Roger, I don't get the humor. "I've lived here for three years. My parents and I have paid California taxes throughout that time." - End of story. I don't see how it't the job of a University to deal with the tangled mess that is current immigration policy and law. And I really don't see how that translates into a big cash payday for any non-resident students who paid out-of-state tuition. My guess is that this is just another "lawsuit as press release" publicity stunt.</p>
<p>OOS tuition has been declared legal in numerous courts. Higher education is often seen as an extra that states may offer but need not unlike K-12 education.</p>