CA Supreme Court Rules Illegal Immigrants can Have In-State Tuition

Wait wait wait. I misunderstood you - you're saying you can be a legal resident of CA while being in the country illegally? /skeptical

 

This happened in Texas in 2003 when Rick Perry decided to solve the deficit by deregulating state tuition. And within 1 year tuition went up 300% yet no one gave a damn (or even cares now for that matter).

Higher tuition is sadly a reality, at least California is getting some media attention for their tuition problems. People in Texas dont even realize that it happened here already.

 

Of course, the response is -- and I think it's a legitimate one -- that if we need to make sacrifices to accomodate illegal aliens for our own enlightened self-interest, then we need to take border security more seriously and cut-off the flow of illegal immigrants into the country in the first place. If illegals couldn't get in in the first place, this question wouldn't exist. (Easier said than done, I know.)

 

To go further on this, remember there was also a thread a few weeks back about illegal aliens being able to vote in local elections in some places. Immigration status is entirely a federal thing - both enforcement and using it as a required qualification for various things. Some states use that as well, but it's not required and many don't.

 

I am with you. The illegal immigration issue is a wider a problem related to social-economics, but obviously border is the place to start. Once they are in the border, it becomes another issue such that how to incorporate them into our economy. Extradicating every single illegal immigrant isn't possible and we are not prepared to go that far. We could have very harsh laws to deny them every opportunity, but as a nation of immigrants this is not within our traditions. I think the CA ruling does strike a good balance.

 

CA residency is largely for tax and tuition purposes.

 

That's crazy. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.

 

But on the other hand if these kids are good enough to get into Cal state or UC and completed 3 year high school in the US, we should give them an opportunity. They are as every bit of this country's future as other bright US kids.

 

Yup I think I read some thing about that in the Union Tribune once. Did a quick google search and here is more about "sanctuary cities"

-------------

Just curious which UC did you attend?

 

He is a bear.
And I was a bruin.

 

Right, I never argued that.

Those two aspects are linked.

 

If they complete 3 year high school in CA, yes. The CA law is not written to award CA residents. If a kid finishes high school in CA and goes on to UC or Cal State, it is very likely the kid is making CA his home. It benefits CA to make sure we allocate education resources to those likely contribute to CA economy in the future and we want them to stay.
Now, your argument that giving tuition breaks to those kids hurt UC and Cal state system is not all that convincing. First, UC and Cal state do not go all out of their way to recruit those kids b/c of this program. This is not an affirmative action thing. If the kid is good enough to get into UC or Cal state, he/she gets a little bit tuition break from the State regardless of citizenship as long as he has been in the state long enough to indicate he is going to stay. So I don't think UC or Cal state is hurt if education is the ultimate objective. Second, I still have a substantial tie w/ UCLA. Particularly I am very much involved in its effort to commercialize some of its IP assets. UC is nowhere near where it should be as a world class institute, compared whit Standford or some schools on the east coast. The 900 million taken away could somewhat be made up if UC gears up in those efforts.

 

What's difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition. I know it's around 10k/year for UC. Cal state is probably in the same neighborhood.
So you are saying the displacement of out-of-state students who are willing to pay for higher out-of-state tuition by the in-state kids w/o status is hurting UC and Cal state?
Again, I don't think UC or Cal state is hurting. They can increase tuition and other expenses to make ends meet. Now there might be an argument the in-state residents are hurt, but the significance of that effect, balancing against long term benefits, is the question. I trust legislators up in Sac on this one b/c they are equipped to do this kind of analysis, unless you are cynical that this is another Democrat's agenda.
I think there is a reasonable basis for the CA law. Are out-of-state kids still attracted to UC or Cal state given the 50k some tuition/year? I doubt it. So your displacement theory is flawed. In my view, the law essentially give scholarships to good quality in-state kids w/o status to displace lower quality out-of-state/ in-state kids.