As the parent of a kid about to enter college in the fall, I’m curious about what others here think. Every kid should have the opportunity to go to college, and every kid deserves a fair shot based on their grades, performance and their contributions to their community - and those who need assistance due to circumstances should get that help, without question.
Having said that, this feels different to me - it clearly has to impact admission rates & financial aid for kids who are legal citizens of the US somewhere along the line. I’m just interested in different perspectives from the CC community.
I live in one of these states. Most of the affected students come from poor families and end up going to local community colleges with no admission requirements, so the impact on admission rates hasn’t been noticeable.
I suppose the undocumented students may impact financial aid… but I’d rather my state pay for education than for welfare/support programs, so it’s an expense I personally don’t mind.
Then again, I live in a small state - total population under 6 million - without the competitiveness for the flagship campuses that you see in Texas or California. The state also underfunds its higher education, meaning tuition is high here compared to incomes.
All very good points, and understandable based on where you live. I think kids from poor families should get help to attend college - and not just community college; if they are strong academically and are good kids, they should have the opportunity to go to higher end schools as well.
I’m delighted with any initiative that increases social/class mobility for kids whose families lack citizenship/documents. Limiting options for smart ambitious young people hurts everyone.
@Lynnski
“Limiting options for smart ambitious young people hurts everyone.”
True, and it’s not the children’s fault that their parents (or someone else) brought them to this country without going through the proper channels. What I’m trying to decide is if initiatives to provide free or partial tuition to kids “whose families lack citizenship/documents” - i.e. are in the country illegally - are in turn limiting options for smart ambitious young people who are US citizens.
Some clarification on the types of provisions that states have with respect to undocumented or DACA status students:
Some states have provisions to allow students who graduate high school in the state after a sufficient number of years of school attendance or residency in the state to be treated as in-state residents for the purpose of college tuition and financial aid.
Some of these states (e.g. California, Utah, Texas) allow undocumented or DACA status students to use these provisions.
But note that many of the users of these provisions are students whose parents moved out of state in a way that would otherwise cause them to lose in-state residency (in states where undocumented or DACA status students are not allowed to use these provisions, those whose parents moved out of state would be the primary users).
This is a difficult topic and I am conflicted as to how I feel about this and what is the right thing to do. The reason a state offers a discounted tuition to its own residents is because they contribute to the state and pay taxes, if owed, in the state. Many “free” or state subsidized college aid throws in the money AFTER a student has gotten Federal “entitlements” A kid with a zero EFC will get maximum PELL, access to Direct loans, and whatever other federal monies that the college might have to distribute before it starts into the state goodies.
I agree with @katiasmom that money going for education for anyone living in the state is a good cause, far better than welfare programs as well as for problems caused by lack of education. I can also see why some Americans get upset about those who are in this country illegally getting rewarded for breaking the rules in coming here. The federal government is clear about what illegal residents get and do not get with regard to federal benefits. I think it comes down to what the residents in a state want to do with the tax money. That’s why we have elections.
@MaineLonghorn - Is there a list of discussion guidelines or “do’s & don’ts” I can reference? I want to make sure this remains within acceptable boundaries. Thanks!
“The reason a state offers a discounted tuition to its own residents is because they contribute to the state and pay taxes, if owed, in the state.”
I don’t think that’s the only reason. To illustrate, when kids are invited/accepted/subsidized to attend a state school’s honors college, the offer is made because they want to provide an incentive for a bright and talented kid to stay in (or even move to) that state. The family didn’t pay higher taxes! But the school thinks the child is worth recruiting and investing in.
Why not start a program where they can get free education, legal status and jobs. After graduation they can work for government at a lower pay for few years to pay back their loans. Just like doctors do three year residency or military gives college money. They get help and pay back to the system and country. It’s better then making everyone a charity case and ask high earning tax payers to keep paying to support the program while their own children don’t get any help to minimize their college cost.
“Politics, Religion, etc. Politics, religion, and similar controversial topics should be discussed only as directly applicable to college matters. College Confidential is not a debating society. Hence, “Would a Catholic be comfortable at BYU?” or “What is the political environment at Grinnell?” are fine. “Democrats (or Republicans) are evil!” and other opinions unrelated to the college process are not allowed.”
“We expect discussion to be courteous even when disagreement may be vigorous. When writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone. Flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. It’s fine to disagree with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person.”
For those schools that have competitive admissions for their state schools or limited seats for all those qualified to have one, it certainly does mean that every seat taken by someone means one less seat for the rest of those waiting for a spot. It is then insult upon injury that the seat is taken by someone who is here illegally, and whose costs to have that seat are coming from tax dollars paid for legal state residents.
Most colleges do not ask about legality of status in the state or in the country in terms of admissions. However, anyone who is not a US citizen or green card holder cannot get federal aid, and in most cases, state aid. Other monetary awards might also have exclusions for those who do not have citizen/permanent resident status. Why should a non American student who is here illegally get special privileges over those who are here legally, that have to apply as international students with all of the restrictions that go with it? As it stands, any instate resident of schools like UTAustin, have the additional burden of paying for that school once they get accepted. That there exists that gap, is why some kids can’t afford to go to such a school Any funds that the state can throw at the situation will make it possible for some of such kids to attend, Money going to illegal immigrants, means less going to those who are here legally… So, yeah, it does have an effect, but how much, and is it worth it?
@MaineLonghorn Thank you - the spirit of this discussion is directly applicable to college matters, and I will do my part to make sure it stays that way.
For UT Austin, residency for tuition purposes through high school graduation after living in Texas for 36 months, including the most recent 12 months, “is available to citizens or permanent residents of the U.S. and to international students.”
As a California resident, I support our version of this. Agriculture is a huge part of our economy, and we disproportionately rely on low cost undocumented labor. Your average California resident does see a direct financial benefit from that, through grocery store prices that are quite a bit lower than they’d otherwise be. Not to mention undocumented immigrants paying sales taxes. The money spent on tuition waivers in grants is far outweighed by these benefits, and I don’t begrudge migrants coming here looking for a better life and then harvesting cheap food for us. If anything, we’re exploiting them, not the other way around. Spending state money funding education for their kids is both the least we can do, and still a financial net gain.
The reason that state universities exist, with subsidized tuition and financial aid for state residents, is that a better educated population will generate more economic activity, leading to a larger economy with greater tax contributions to the state government and improved economic opportunities for everyone. I.e. the expectation is that helping state residents who otherwise could not afford education up front will result in the better educated people giving back to the community (through increased economic growth and tax contributions) in the future. Note that a similar argument exists for public K-12 education.