Non-Resident Students Sue California

College Search & Selection
61

<p>It certainly isn't right to say we should exploit undocumented farm workers, however. My argument was in response to the idea that we should deport them all. Giving them legal status would, I agree, cause only a slight uptick in prices after a period of price adjustment, as many workers would likely stay on the farms, but use their new legal status to make sure they were given proper compensation, benefits, etc. Could be better in the long run...</p>

<p>The 'starvation' scenario might be a possibility if suddenly all undocumented workers were picked up, driven over the border, and left there. The supply itself would be so scarce (in CA) that unless food was trucked over from other states, no one would be able to afford it. Of course it's an extreme (/highly unlikely, maybe even impossible) scenario, and while it was being carried out stores could likely arrange for food to be imported. However, a large permanent increase in prices would be seen in CA. tomatoes at the local store near UCSD cost around 70 cents a pound...they're closer to 1.50 a pound at my local Safeway in Maryland. The question then (which I don't really have an answer for) is, how much additional capacity do the countries where many East Coast states import their food from have?</p>

<p>I agree though that the best way to deal with this - both humanistically and economically - is to give the undocumented workers a path to legal status.</p>

<p>:)</p>

62

<p>there was a story about this on the O'Reilly Factor last night... it was dead on</p>

63

<p>
[QUOTE]
I really think it is not humane to say that exploiting illegal workers for the sake of the US is right. I think what the illegals do is increase profits for agribusiness and the housing industry, etc. I doubt that much of the savings is passed to the consumer.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Collegialmom, the exploitationof international workers on a whole for low wages is part of the basis of capitalist market and the global village today. IT really isn't a question of right or wrong to be asked as much as it is how the world works today, and a question of do the ends justify the means.</p>

<p>Is it fair that your suit is made in eight countries? That your London Fog has been through Australia, India, Korea, China, Russia, Germany, France, and the United States before it gets to you? And that those paid workers in Russia have monthly wages that are not even sufficient enough to buy a bottle of American tooth paste? That is starting to get across the global village, and though there is outrage and disbelief, would they have the jobs in the first place were it not for globalization of the industry? And who is to regulate the global economy? Just things to ponder over...</p>

64

<p>I am pretty sure that if these illegal aliens got accepted to a UC school, they have the capabilities to become a legalize citizen? It shouldn't even be a problem for them since meeting UC requirements(SAT's, GPA) demostrates that they have the tools not just for education but also for citizenship. Correct me if I am wrong.</p>

65

<p>mrx;</p>

<p>unfortunately, it's not a matter of having the "capabilities" to become a US citizen, but, under federal law they cannot become one, nor can they take a job upon graduation. The law is clear: any person here must return to their home country to apply for a visa. Any person without proper documentation cannot be hired.</p>

66

<p>I am still stuck on the "law abiding folks" and "they all pay taxes, local, state and federal." How can you be law abiding and illegal at the same time? Also, don't you have to have a SSN to pay taxes? And if they have false SSNs isn't that also breaking the law? I, too, thought that the major benefit of having undocumented workers was to avoid paying for the associated expenses of legality. </p>

<p>I worked for a while in Italy as an undocumented alien, and it was benign neglect on my part. My employer needed me to work, and I needed the job. It was really easy. I didn't expect any benefits from the Italian government, but I did, of course, use the same facilities others used. I had no reason to seek citizenship, since I was already working and getting along fine and I really didn't want to be a citizen of Italy. I was aware of my status, but not freaked out. I was not really worried about being caught. I suppose it is the same with the population we are talking about. There is no impetus for them to change the status quo. Not sufficient enforcement to strike fear and plenty of employers, like mine, to give jobs to illegals. </p>

<p>I believe that the enforcement should hit the employers of the illegals. When they are no longer willing/able to hire an undocumented workforce, perhaps the illegals will be sufficiently motivated to change their status.</p>

<p>Good thing I am now back where I am a citizen and mostly law abiding. It is really hard to drive 55, though!</p>

<p>As a teacher, I do believe that students should be taught regardless of their legal status. I do believe, though, that in-state tuition should be charged to those who have contributed, legally, through taxes, to the in-state school system. We shall see how it all comes out, but c'mon. Seems there should be some reward for doing things above board, and some penalty for not.</p>

67

<p>Sorry for coming late to the discussion but some of this discussion seems a bit bizarre to me. Students who are illegal aliens getting tuition breaks instead of legal aliens or other citizens of the US?</p>

<p>Most of the discussion centers around why we should allow this because there are other illegal activities going on, i.e. farmers paying cash to illegal aliens to avoid taxes and reduce their cost. </p>

<p>None of this seems right to me. Sorry, but let the farmers pay the tuition, have us pay higher prices for food and less in taxes because everyone is paying them. We should encourage and enable the people who abide by the law and discourage those who do not. </p>

<p>There is a lot of compassion for the students who were brought here by their illegal immigrant parents who would need to be deported. Personally I would prefer to give the breaks to the student of parents who are following the laws to become legal aliens. Though, those are not the ones we hear about.</p>

68

<p>All this self-righteous discussion about the law abiding individuals who have to meet high costs of education versus horrible illegal immigrants who are getting away with murder by paying in-state tuition detracts from the lawsuit and the issue at hand. </p>

<p>California residency, for those applying to the UC/CSU system, states that a resident is one who has attended a California high school for at least three years (one of many other conditions) It does not define alien status. Students, legal or not, who satisfy this condition are considered California residents. Note, it does not state anything regarding the citizenship of the person. As of now, the federal courts have prevented the enactment of Proposition 187, an initiative which would prohibit services to illegal immigrants. UC/CSU is abiding by federal court orders. Non-residents fail to meet the criteria of a California resident and thus pay out-of-state tuition, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court.</p>

<p>The Federal government has failed to secure our country's borders, forcing states and private citizens to cope with the consequences. Again, these students are merely opportunists, seeking fame and fortune at the expense of (legal) Californian students. Don't attend UC/CSU/CCC if you're upset about the tuition costs.</p>

69

<p>I don't see why illegal aliens should be awarded for breaking our laws and coming here illegally. And who says americans won't take those jobs illegal aliens have? I think the employment rate in most states is low 90s so there are americans who are unemployed and would be willing to do those jobs to keep food on the table for their families. I'm not sure if this is true, but I heard San Fran is full to the top with bums. Why not make them do those jobs in order to get their handouts from the government?</p>

70

<p>Since oh so many Americans want to go out into the fields and pick produce. That's really likely.</p>

71

<p>Here is what is on the UC website per student resident status copied below and the link. Immigrant status is actually mentioned:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.registrar.ucsb.edu/residenc.htm#overview%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.registrar.ucsb.edu/residenc.htm#overview&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Establishing Residency </p>

<p>Adult students (at least 18 years of age) may establish* residency for fee purposes in California if they are a U.S. citizen, permanent resident or other immigrant, or a nonimmigrant who is not precluded from establishing a domicile in the U.S. This includes nonimmigrants who hold valid visas of the following types: A, E, G, H1, H4, I, K, L, N, NATO, O1, O3, R, or V. Adult students cannot derive residence from a spouse or parents. </p>

<p>In order to be classified as a resident for tuition purposes, a student must demonstrate the following immediately prior to the residence determination date (the day that instruction begins at the last of the University of California campuses to open for the term. For Berekely, it is the day instruction begins at the Berkeley campus):
Physical Presence: Establish a physical presence in California more than one year (366 days) immediately prior to the residence determination date of the term for which classification as a resident is requested. Continuous physical presence is not mandatory, but a student who leaves California after establishing residence has the burden of demonstrating that he/she intended to remain a California resident, and that his/her principal place of residence has been in California. It is the burden of the student to clearly demonstrate retention of California residence during periods of absence from the state. </p>

<p>Intent: Demonstrate through objective documentation that your physical presence was coupled with the intent to make California your permanent home. Intent is evaluated as an independent element of residence, separate from physical presence, and is demonstrated by establishing residential ties in California, and relinquishing ties to the former place of residence. Physical presence within California solely for educational purposes does not constitute the establishment of California residence regardless of the length of stay. The physical presence requirement (above) will be extended until the student can demonstrate a concurrence of both physical presence and intent for one full year. </p>

<p>Financial Independence: Students under the age of 24 who did not attend the University prior to fall 1993 and do not have a California resident parent upon whom they are dependent will be required to meet the University's financial independence requirement in addition to the 366 day physical presence and intent requirements. It should be noted that this requirement makes it extremely difficult for most undergraduates who do not have a parent living in California, including transfer students from community colleges and other post-secondary institutions within California, to qualify for classification as a resident at a University of California campus."</p>

72

<p>If fair wages were paid with health benefits, social security and OSHA regs were followed, the jobs would be more attractive than being picked up in a van at 7-11 store in the morning, then being paid below minimum-wage for 10-12 hours per day, with no benefits and poor working conditions. In New Orleans recently, illegals were lured there, then slept 30-40 in small,dirty hovels, and paid menial wages, or not even paid for thier work (stiffed I believe the term is). The fact that illegals accept substandard wages and working conditions does not justify their making profits for the people who hire them. </p>

<p>Our taxes and health insurance premiums pay 100s of billions of dollars a year to their health care and to their education. I think this lawsuit seeks a level playing field per tuition benefits. </p>

<p>As to the global market, I do not think that the exploitation of workers in other countries justifies their ability to enter the US illegally to work for the substandard wages and live off our work as middle-class citizens who pay upwards of 30-50% of our wages to various taxes. In other countries, there are jobs with little safety regulations, poor wages, and often slave-like work conditions. Are these jobs better than none? For the owners of the factories, yes, and for multinational corporate owners they are a great deal. But the workers there are suffering, as well. I don't think justifying these horrible conditions benefits anyone, except the corporations, domestic or international, who profit greatly off of them.</p>

73

<p>Eiffelguy,</p>

<p>I guess I did not realize it was self righteous to have a preference for legal aliens over illegal aliens. Lack of proper enforcement of our laws does not mean the laws do not exist or should not be enforced. Based upon what Collegialmom posted I think that the key section is:</p>

<p>
[quote]
or a nonimmigrant who is not precluded from establishing a domicile in the U.S.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>An illegal immigrant is precluded from establishing a domicile in the US and should be excluded from in-state tuition. Further, your proposed solution of not going to a UC school is insufficient if federal tax dollars go to fund these students.</p>

<p>If we want to fund these students we should stipulate that they can get a college education at the expense of the US Taxpayer in their country at any school that will accept them.</p>

74

<p>sorry, eifelguy:</p>

<p>you are incorrect. A UC/Cal State/Cal JC student must be: 1) a US citizen, or 2) must have a student visa, or 3) be in process of applying for same. It is that last category, "in process of applying for a visa" is impossible to achieve for anyone not in category 2. With the exception of asylum (or rare amesty), one cannot apply for a visa while here illegally, they must return to thier home country under current federal immigration law. Moreover, the college systems do not request any documentation, nor can they -- to comply with #3, a potential student only has to self-report, i.e. check the box. Note, again, that any graduate of a Calif public college without a visa, cannot legally obtain a job in the U.S.....</p>

75

<p>
[QUOTE]
I don't see why illegal aliens should be awarded for breaking our laws and coming here illegally. And who says americans won't take those jobs illegal aliens have? I think the employment rate in most states is low 90s so there are americans who are unemployed and would be willing to do those jobs to keep food on the table for their families. I'm not sure if this is true, but I heard San Fran is full to the top with bums. Why not make them do those jobs in order to get their handouts from the government?

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Pacific fleet, that's when minimum wage and supply and demand of U.S. citizens willing and available to take the work comes in, driving up the cost of your produce.</p>

<p>Also, you're not trucking homeless from Golden Gate Park down to Pasadena to pick tomatoes and oranges, it's just not happening. You're talking about opposite sides of the states, most of the crops are in Southern California or on the otherside of the mountain. Down near PAsadena, you pick up a truck of workers from East L.A. and drive them out, Americans can hop on too, but from personal accounts from friends picking tomatoes is long work for extremely small pay, well below minimum wage.</p>

76

<p>I believe that there are many legal immigrants and US citizens who are willing to do hard work/ long hours for decent wages, good work conditions and benefits. However, the owners of manual labor sites would rather exploit illegals and make more profits than do things legally. The driving up of prices if they used legal workers would be minimal compared to relieving us of our tax burdens. </p>

<p>In addition, the health care premiums that we pay now that are astronomical are in part due to subsidizing non-insured residents. In the Western states, a large proportion of free/unreimbursed care goes to illegals. A large portion of the education budget in AZ, NM, and CA goes to educating people who are out of the tax system. Those who are not paying taxes are both the illegals themselves and their employers who evade billions of dollars in taxes by hiring illegal workers. Our tax burden and health care burden would be substantially reduced if both workers and employers paid into the tax system. Bush, et al, are controlled by big business who benefit from this. It has only been from the groundswell of ordinary people fed up in these Western states that the government at all is paying lip service to trying to have less illegal immigration. The guest worker program does not address the tax evasion, because Vicente Fox and his ilk need the billions sent back to Mexico to fuel Mexico's failing economy. </p>

<p>Lawsuits such as the tuition one mentioned in CA are simply to bring attention to the issue. Yes, the students are unfortunately caught up in all of this, but there are only so many ways to get these issues on the table. If the government would enforce immigration and tax evasion, it would not be an issue.</p>

77

<p>I was incorrect in stating the Californian residency requirements, which collegialmom posted. I confused it with the AB 540, mentioned below.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I guess I did not realize it was self righteous to have a preference for legal aliens over illegal aliens. Lack of proper enforcement of our laws does not mean the laws do not exist or should not be enforced.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And how does sueing the University of Californai solve this? </p>

<p>(The self-righteous comment referred to the lengthy discussion on whether illegal immigrants are exploited, etc. mentioned prior to your post, which detracted from the law suit).</p>

<p>UC/CSU/CCC are following California law. In 2002, the California Legislature passed AB 540, allowing in-state tuition to be granted for those students in the process of obtaining citizenship in-state tuition. These students have the burden of proof in demonstrating they are obtaining US citizenship. This is not a free for all. Moreover, according to UC spokeswoman, UC was adviced to conform to this law by the office California Attorney General Bill Lockyer (which, as of now, as not contradicted Spokeswoman Poorsina's statement). </p>

<p>Congress has also acted in that direction. Called the "Dream Act" it has moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee numerous times, but as of now, as yet to be passed.</p>

<p>The federal government is in charge of securing our boders, not the state of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. When the Minutemen in Arizona have to do the job of the federal government, it shows how poorly Congress, past and present, have done to stop illegal immigration in terms of money allocation for protecting our boders.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Further, your proposed solution of not going to a UC school is insufficient if federal tax dollars go to fund these students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you're illegal, you can't access financial aid from the Federal government. FAFSA requires you to prove U.S. citizenship or permanent residency by running your SSN. Federal tax dollars aren't going to fund these students in terms of financial aid.</p>

<p>Now if you're referring to Los Alamos, Lawrence Labratory, etc., that's another issue at hand. That allocation is for research and running the labs, not for running a university.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If we want to fund these students we should stipulate that they can get a college education at the expense of the US Taxpayer in their country at any school that will accept them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That would be, more specifically, the Californian taxpayer who funds the University of California, CSU, CCC. Surely UC/CSU/CCC does get financial aid (not for illegal immigrants) which does come from the US taxpayer as a whole, but for the most part, UC's are funded by Californians.</p>

78

<p>Momof1, in fact "they" do pay taxes. In addition to all of the point of sale taxes like gas and sales tax, and the indirect taxes (like property taxes paid via rent) undocumented workers generally pay FICA and income taxes to a SS number that they won't ever collect benefits from. One major advantage for unscrupulous employers hiring undocumented workers is the ability to get away with illegal employment practices without concern for getting caught - starting with paying them less than what was promised, ignoring safety regulations, etc.</p>

<p>Eagle79 seems to think that undocumented aliens are getting something documented aliens don't get. What? California doesn't have citizens, it only has residents. That's the difference between a state and a nation. All California residents, including citizens and "legal alien" residents of the state, are eligible for in-state tuition. Anyone, of whatever status, who is not a resident of the state isn't. For California's in-state vs. out of state tuition to be based on whether a person is a resident, instead of whether they are a legal U.S. citizen, seems to make sense to me. Remember, this is about a lawsuit filed by out-of-state student attending California taxpayer funded universities who are demanding a refund because in the past California charged in-state tuition to in-state residents, regardless of their federal citizenship status.</p>

<p>And to those sneering about the undocumented's being "illegal", think about glass houses. Can all of you claim that the worst violation of law you've ever committed was less of an offense than working without legal permission? The children of our home-grown murderers, con artists, tax cheats and swindlers are entitled to in-state tuition. I'm not clear on why doing an honest day's work without a permit should be different.</p>

<p>At this point in my life I've become sensitized to glib answers to complicated questions. Most of the easy answers I hear on this topic - starting with "What part of illegal isn't clear?" strike me as a way to justify a conclusion without really looking at the dimensions of the problem.</p>

79

<p>kluge: Do you have a reference you could post that verifies that the taxes paid in by illegals are equal or more than what is paid out in benefits, such as free education through 12th grade, generally free health care, police and fire, etc. In my region of the country, generally illegal workers are hired without any Social Security numbers, it is mostly construction, not agriculture, and they are truly day workers without any monies being paid in directly to any tax system. They generally live in very crowded living situations, so the property tax input is minimal per person. I thought the studies showed that financially in the west as well as the east the net result is a drain on the tax system and a lot of subsidizing by the middle class tax base. Perhaps in California you have a more uniform system for their paying into Social Security. We also are not taxed for groceries in my state, which would be the major source of their spending cash in the US. Most of the cash they earn goes directly back to their home country, and the net result is a huge loss for public services, at least that was the impression given in my particular region.</p>

<p>Only time will tell about this lawsuit, but it appears that UC and the rest of your state college system are going to have to use a lot of resources to fight it. There is going to have to be some kind of compromise with this general situation because the middle class is getting pushed enough financially that they are going to demand more of their dollars go to them.</p>

<p>And by the way, oddly enough, many people do go through their entire lives not breaking the law!</p>

80

<p>Collegialmom, I have seen studies which point both directions - one which concluded that undocumented aliens contributed more than they recieve, the other with the opposite concludion. I honestly don't know the ultimate truth of the matter. I do know that there is cash-based day work both manual laborers lining up to be picked up by contractors, and more regular work - typically domestic jobs - which are not "in the system". But obvious as those are, they really aren't a big factor in terms of the overall economy. It's a stereoptype, and easy to generalize from that. My wife works for the unemployment department, and the number of duplicate and fictitious SS numbers which turn up is huge. We have undocumented families here in California who have lived in our communities for many, many years. (This is, in fact, what it took for a kid to be a candidate for UC.) They generally do not subsist on day laborer's or cash-paid domestic's income. </p>

<p>I'm sorry, but if you honestly think there are any - let alone "many" adults who have lived their entire lives without ever breaking the law you are simply uninfomed about the law, or people, or both. Did you ever throw a battery away in the trash? A can of paint? If you did, you broke the law. And a good law at that. Don't even get me started...</p>