Non-Resident Students Sue California

College Search & Selection
81

<p>kluge: I don't think that occasionally throwing away a battery is analogous, especially as the benefits are minimal versus full-time work that derives the innumerable benefits that living in the US does. </p>

<p>But that is not the point. I think this lawsuit is symptomatic of a larger movement by the middle class that is just going to get more intense if there are not some compromises made at some fairly high levels. I think that President Bush, et al, are exacerbating the situation right now by not listening enough to the public, and that this is not going to go away. The lawsuits will show up elsewhere, probably limited only by the number of attorneys willing to file them!</p>

82

<p>Clearly the litigation involves a despute over economic rights, but the plaintiffs' essential argument is based on what they say is a violation of federal law. That is, California public colleges and universities ignore the federal mandate regarding tuition for illegal immigrants, but the schools nevertheless accept federal aid. Yes, the students on both sides of the argument are caught in the Lewis Carroll world of U.S. immigration law (or lack thereof). </p>

<p>Again, California has the right to set tuition, but should the schools be forced to "pay" for sticking to their principles or for sticking to their politics with a loss of federal money? A careful look at this issue starkly reveals it as another grand-stand play by congress.</p>

<p>As I said earlier, I believe that supporters of Title IX (and NCLB, for that matter) would agree with the plaintiffs; i.e. that federal mandates should be enforced if you're going to accept federal money. Two cliches apply here; 1. the government's carot is in fact a bludgeon; 2. hard cases make bad law.</p>

83

<p>collegialmom: I wasn't making an analogy, I was responding to:
[quote]
And by the way, oddly enough, many people do go through their entire lives not breaking the law!

[/quote]
Just because you feel that the law you break is less important than the law someone else breaks doesn't necessarily make it so, or make it OK, either way.
But I agree with the essence of what you're saying, though - the middle class is getting squeezed, as I've noted before. My concern is that the source of the squeeze - the skewing of the American economy so that more and more of the nation's wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a smaller and smaller group of extremely wealthy families - is obscured by setting the majority of the population to fighting over the crumbs. The fees potentially saved by undocumented aliens paying in-state tuition are less than a drop in the bucket.</p>

84

<p>Eiffelguy,</p>

<p>The taxpayers of CA are not the only ones funding the schools in CA (and all other states for that matter). This is done through financial aid, direct grants for research and other means. The UC system receives significant federal monies.</p>

<p>It appears that we are in general agreement on the other points.</p>

85

<p>
[quote]
That is, California public colleges and universities ignore the federal mandate regarding tuition for illegal immigrants, but the schools nevertheless accept federal aid.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But these students should not have sued the UC/CSU/CCC because UC/CSU/CCC were caught in a Catch-22. Follow federal law (passed in 1998), and get hammered by Lockyer's office for violating AB 540. Follow AB 540, get slapped by a lawsuit from disgruntled students. UC/CSU/CCC were advised by the Office of Attorney General Bill Lockyer to comply with AB 540.</p>

86

<p>A question here - isn't the lawsuit relating to OUT-OF-STATE students and the fact that they are not afforded the same consideration tuition wise as illegal aliens who reside in Calif?? That is my understanding of their basis of this suit. At least CA is following their own interpurtation of the law - that the in-state residents be afforded in-state tuition - per the guidelines of being an in-state resident - wether legal or illegal resident - whereas out-of-state students are not allowed consideration for the same tuition - as they are from out-of-state and legal residents of another state.</p>

<p>That is my understanding of what this law suit represents - and the fact that it could actually effect in-state - out-of-state status for the entire country. Resident status for tuition purposes - being the key here.</p>

87

<p>JeepMOM - I believe that you are right. While it might make sense to try force the University to try to collect out-of-state tuition retroactively from the undocumented resident students (although other issues would arise) I really don't see the logic in claiming that out-of-state students should be entitled to a refund because in-state but undocumented students were charged in-state tuition in the past.</p>

88

<p>Thus I still feel that the out-of-staters bringing this suit have NO chance of prevailing - as the out-of-state for tuition purposes regs/laws will prevail - every state university/college system has them in place for a reason - and it is very difficult to claim in-state for tuition purposes for that reason - otherwise the tuition for ALL would go up - in every state - to the point that in-state for tuition purposes would be nul and void. In my opinion - they have NO basis for this suit - they were out-of-state when they attended - and did/do not meet the requirements for in-state tuition - period. </p>

<p>The in-state residents/illegal aliens will continue to pay in-state tuition and out-of-staters will pay their level of tuition - for tuition purposes. Out-of-staters have NOT resided in CA for the 3 previous years - have NOT graduated from a CA schools, etc......... so thus - not entitled to in-state tuition - as they for some reason feel they are entitled to.</p>

<p>Any word at all in the progress of this suit???</p>

89

<p>Folks, with the exception of eiffelguy, you're ignoring the plaintiffs' claims; that UC/CSU/CCC is violating federal law by; 1) assessing higher tuition rates to U.S. citizens who are not California residents than those assessed to illegal immigrants that happen to be domiciled in California, and 2) accepting federal grants, aid, etc. nevertheless.</p>

<p>It's not the moral rightiousness of the plaintiffs' claims that is under consideration, it's whether or not the State of California (and other states) can be compelled to comply with this federal regulation without exception. Eiffelguy's point is on the mark; California schools are caught in a vice between the feds and California law. The novelty here is that the federal regulation has heretofore not been enforced. The non-resident students are asking the court to order California to comply with the federal mandate. Of course, California schools could acceed in two ways; charge the same tuition for non-residents and illegal immigrants (non-U.S. citizens?) OR refuse all federal aid. But of course they should fight it out in court, if only to get judicial direction and closure to the issue. I have read several good points in this thread from several perspectives on this matter. I haven't made up my mind yet.</p>

90

<p>A friend of mine just tossed this point my way; many suburban K-12 Public School districts spend lots of time and money to find and eject non-resident pupils. In fact, some districts are notorious for scrutinizing students' proof of residence and then suing the non-resident's parents for back tuition. Do taxpayers who favor giving a college tuition discount to illegal aliens, likewise permit or agree to allow non-resident children (U.S. citizens) to attend K-12 school in outside of their home school district for free?</p>

91

<p>That question has been answered by Californian votes with Prop 187, which would deny services, including secondary education, to illegal aliens (so slight different in terms of whethere the person has residency). But, as Californians may know, that initiative was prevented from being carried out due to court orders and former Gov. Davis did not pursue the matter (he opposed Prop 187).</p>

<p>Should UC/CSU/CCC be held responsible is another question. Given that two laws exist and the Attorney General's Office advised UC to follow the state law, are the state schools' responsible for refund? And if not, who is? The State of California?</p>

92

<p>Eiffelguy87, you're overlooking a key issue: if you assume that the federal law prevails, and the University loses, is a refund of out of state tuition to past out of state students the correct remedy for the "misdead" of undercharging undocumented resident students in the past? Probably not. The choice posited by LakeWashington in post 89 is likely to be prospective, not retroactive, and we know how that one comes out. "Refunds" of any kind are not a likely outcome. Like I said before, this is probably little more than a PR stunt.</p>

93

<p>The following is from a newsletter published on 1/5/06 by the National Conference on State Legislatures that restates the issue discussed in this thread. The link to the newletter follows after the quote:</p>

<p>"Introduction
A 1996 federal law addressing illegal immigration included a provision affecting state residency requirements for in-state tuition rates, traditionally a matter of state law. Now, states are prohibited from offering in-state tuition rates to unauthorized immigrant students unless other U.S. citizens are eligible for the same rate. Since 2001, more than 20 states have introduced bills addressing in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. Seven states have established new residency standards allowing unauthorized immigrant students to receive in-state tuition under certain conditions. Students without legal immigrant status continue to be ineligible for federal financial aid, although states are required to provide K-12 public education as a result of a 1982 Supreme Court decision.</p>

<p>State Action
In 2001, California and Texas were the first states to enact legislation allowing in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. New York and Utah followed suit in 2002. In 2003 and 2004, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois and Kansas enacted similar legislation. Legislators in 18 states (Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, & Wisconsin) have debated bills with comparable criteria for eligibility. The enacted state legislation generally requires that students have resided in the state for three years, graduated from a state high school, received notification of acceptance to a public college or university and signed an affidavit stating they will file for legal immigration status.</p>

<p>The Arizona and Virginia legislatures introduced bills to provide in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants and to restrict illegal foreign nationals from attending a public university or college. Both bills are still pending in the Arizona legislature. Virginia's Governor Warner vetoed House Bill 2239 this past April, which would have prohibited any post-secondary education benefit including in-state tuition for any undocumented immigrant. Similar legislation is also pending in the Alaska legislature."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/undocimmigrant.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/undocimmigrant.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

94

<p>Kluge: I agree completely its a PR move. Refer to my previous posts on "opportunists."</p>

<p>And I don't agree with a refund. This case should be decided on which law prevails, but UC/CSU/CCC should not have to pay up for conflicting laws.</p>

95

<p>The out-of-state students will still have to pay OUT-OF-STATE tution. It is just a matter of whether illegals SHOULD pay in-state or not. </p>

<p>Regardless, the plantiffs will not win the case. They have absolutely nothing to gain except their 15 minutes.</p>

96

<p>More on this from Massachusetts. A similar bill went down last night. Here is the link to the article:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/01/12/immigrant_tuition_bill_defeated/?page=2%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/01/12/immigrant_tuition_bill_defeated/?page=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

97

<p>Hey Everyone,</p>

<p>I actually just completed a phenomenal documentary film making course @ Tufts and my group covered this exact issue in Massachusetts. Our documentary was just put online, so if possible I highly encourage you all to see it at: <a href="http://uccps.tufts.edu/mps/f05docs.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://uccps.tufts.edu/mps/f05docs.html&lt;/a> (The film is titled: Waitlisted...) The experience of making this film and hearing about the various sides of the issue was extremely informative and changed my views a great deal. </p>

<p>I would love to hear your comments/reactions! The film is just over 15 minutes long so if you're reading this now please take some time to check it out.</p>

<p>I'm glad this issue is creating such a discussion- it's great to get people thinking about it and to increase awareness!</p>

98

<p>I know this is a crazy time for posting on CC with college acceptances and all, but if any of you get the chance to see the documentary comments would be greatly appreciated!</p>

99

<p>Saw the film - very nice job!
How do you plan to distribute it, or do you? Maybe some of the local stations would show it. I don't think most people understand the complexities of the situations facing undocumented immigrants. People want to put everyone in the same bucket and don't realize that many immigrants have been living and paying taxes in their states for years.
I really don't understand why some people think our society is better off with uneducated immigrants instead of educated ones. It makes no sense.</p>

100

<p>Hi ASAP,</p>

<p>Thanks so much for your comments. As of now we are planning on distributing the documentary to local TV stations and focusing on gaining awarenes throughout MA, but hopefully eventually we will be able to spread our initiatives to other states since so many are currently in debate over In-State tuition rights. </p>

<p>The issue is definitely complex and I certainly agree that if a bright and motivated student has the potential to become a doctor or lawyer or anything that interests them above the minimum wage trap that they are currently in they deserve to get the education, and the US should allow them to give back. I came across so many amazing students with such strong aspirations and to see how motivated they are and realize that they are waiting for this one bill to gain the education they need...it's absolutely horrible. It makes me realize how fortunate I am to be able to get the education I am receiving and I hope that others will be able to gain awareness of this issue and apply it to the current policies in their communinites. Whether you are an immigrant or not, this is a big issue...</p>