Non-Resident Students Sue California

College Search & Lists
41

<p>JeepMom, these students cannot start any process to become citizens. No matter how long they have been in the country, how and at what age they arrived…it doesn’t even matter if they were educated K-12. They cannot become U.S. citizens. The only chance that undocumented students have to become citizens is if the Dream Act is passed by congress. It’s been stalled out for years. The Dream Act (google it for more info) is the only hope form so many of these kids.</p>

<p>When you think about it, some states offer in state tuition for these undocumented kids, but in reality they can’t get financial aid so most can’t afford college.</p>

42

<p>Pilebay:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, you claimed “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.” And then it followed, “I personally feel that CA is being very unreasonable by charging the out of state tuition rates that it does.” And then, “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.” You didn’t quite say California had the right in that sentence. You stated the arguments proponents made.
Your post explicitly stated that California was “unreasonable” and you cited the 14th Amendment to suggest perhaps a matter of unconstitutionality.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Did you know that the use of capital letters is equivalent to shouting on the internet? It’s impolite. So therefore, I suggest you re-read your own arguments, read my contentions, realize that I did read your entire your post, and learn some etiquette.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Refer to bluebayou’s presentation on tuition.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Virtually no diversity? UC Berkeley, for example, has numerous international students, representing Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, the United Kingdom, India, Russia, to name just a few. The lack of diversity claim falls short. And almost, if not every state is represented. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, I don’t have the statistics on out of state students and international students vs. in-state students. I agree that the University of California has an overwhelming number of students in-state.</p>

<p>Additionally, the University of California has 9 undergraduate campuses, not to mention UCSF, the medical school, and UC College of Hastings, the law school. Obviously institutions like UCR would have less international students than UC Berkeley. A significant difference exists between diversity at 1 institutions versus 9 institutions.</p>

<p>Finally, care to name the university you’re attending? It would allow other posters to assess the diversity you mention.</p>

<p>GS:</p>

<p>The University of California, Berkeley is an impressive institution. Its undergraduate education provides quality to its students, at least from personal experience. However, there are many ways it can improve, which sakky has pointed out numerous times.</p>

43

<p>Jeepmom:</p>

<p>to reiterate my earlier post, undocumented college graduates cannot legally obtain a job in the US.</p>

44

<p>I think that it is fairly clear-cut that in-state tuition is for legal residents of a state, and if someone is not a legal resident, then they pay out-of-state tuition. Generally, boarding students are supposed to go with their parents’ place of domicile for residency status, and if they commit fraud, then that doesn’t make it any more legal.</p>

<p>As to illegal immigrants paying taxes, at least where I am from on the East Coast, that is one of the main draws to hiring illegals, that one doesn’t pay taxes. The employer saves on the payroll taxes such as FICA and other taxes that those of us who do things above board for our employees pay. That includes health insurance benefits that are not mandatory but often make employees more apt to take and keep a job. The illegals do a lot of difficult jobs, but largely work for cash in industries that then avoid OSHA regs and taxes. If these industries were more well-regulated, sure we may have to pay fair wages for picking strawberries and the produce would cost a bit more. But then there is the satisfaction of knowing that the employer is honest and our strawberry picker is legal, everyone pays taxes, and the worker gets a fair wage and benefits! And his/her kids get in-state tuition, without question.</p>

<p>I also have seen no reference in President Bush’s guest worker program that mandates the paying of taxes by either employers or employees. Employer mandates have softened during the past 10 years, thanks to pressure from big business. But back to legal residency, there are ways to achieve it, and it seems to me that either you have it, or you pay out-of-state tuition.</p>

45

<p>They have no right to be in the US. </p>

<p>Deport.</p>

46

<p>BLUE your point has been well made - and yes I am well aware of it</p>

47

<p>Bluebayou: What is the basis of this statement: “But, yes, anyone here is paying taxes, federal, state and local.”</p>

<p>I am not sure where “here” is, but in most of the US, illegal immigrants are very often hired for cash under the table (ie the “cash economy”) and pay no taxes. The employers also pay no payroll taxes. That is why businesses who hire illegals get such an (unfair) advantage. The payroll taxes, ie FICA, state unemployment, social security taxes, etc, are extremely high for employers, and taxes are high for workers who pay. I’m sure you know this if you pay taxes on your family’s wages.</p>

<p>The untaxed “cash economy” with illegals undermines the tax system, because the businesses that employ legal workers who file taxes get killed with taxes, as do workers. We taxpayers support the social services, hospitals, schools, etc that the untaxed “cash economy” avoids paying into.Some of the money goes into the local US economies, but vast amounts (many billions) of untaxed dollars from illegals go directly back to other countries. That’s what all of those money shopfronts you see in the stripmalls in the poorer areas of cities (and rural areas) are for: sending untaxed money overseas, as well as the taxed money from those who do pay (legal immigrants do support foreign economies also with billions of dollars a year from the US). </p>

<p>That is why the California lawsuit is so powerful, because it questions how illegals, many of whom do not pay into the tax system, and are just not supposed to be here, can claim legality and in-state tuition. It also makes a mockery of the many legal immigrants who are here, who often waited years (decades) to even be able to come here by legal means. No one questions the right of legal immigrants to pay in-state tuition for themselves or their children.</p>

48

<p>Hey college confidential crowd! Merry Christmas, Ho Ho Ho and peace on EArth…or kick the bastards out of the country?<br>
Educate yourselves: <a href=“http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/DREAM/Dream001.htm[/url]”>http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/DREAM/Dream001.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It’s a scary thought, isn’t it :)</p>

49

<p>Biker: That bill was from 2003, did it pass? Also, I didn’t see a provision in it that the parents would be required to pay federal, state and local taxes, that would be a nice touch!</p>

50

<p>No, it has not passed…it’s still being tossed around though.</p>

<p>It’s not about the parents. It’s about the students that for the most part were brought here as youngsters. They grew up in our schools and this country IS their home.</p>

51

<p>The lawsuit is about whether the students qualify as instate residents any more than out-of-state students, since generally being charged instate tuition goes by place of residence of parents, and where they file their tax returns. Maybe the illegal residents’ children will lead the path for no tuition distinctions between instate and out-of-state. Sort of like the end of the artificial boundaries we call states and countries. I think the EU is trying that now in Europe, so why not bust the barriers here?</p>

52

<p>the very definition of illegal means its against the law</p>

<p>so what more is there to say?</p>

<p>deport them immediately!!~~</p>

53

<p>Yes, illegal means agianst the law. But that doesn’t mean the law is correct or the best thing for the economy.</p>

<p>California’s largest industry is agriculture. The largest group of workers in this industry is comprised of undocumented workers. Deporting them, without a doubt, would ruin california’s economy and seriously reduce the amount of food coming in to the US market. Thus [simplistically] everyone except the extremely rich would starve. </p>

<p>I’ve heard arguments that if all the immigrant farm workers left, American citizens would come to replace their jobs. Not likely to happen without dramatic pay increases which in turns leads to much increased food prices, both at supermarkets as well as restaurants. Rapid inflation etc etc etc becomes the norm, and in the end, only the well to do would be able to afford food.</p>

<p>Not sure that’s the outcome you’re looking for ;).</p>

<p>Think about it this way: yes, they are using government resources. But they’re also contributing a whole lot more to the economy and the general well being of the nation. What government would hesitate to make a [relatively] small investment in ‘illegal’ labor (through providing social services as well as access to schools and universities) considering the high return?</p>

<p>:)</p>

54

<p>that is why we need to utilise prisoners, homeless, and the mentally unsound. that is a big workforce, and we cannot just squander it like what we’re doing right now!!</p>

<p>too radical though… </p>

<p>besides, id rather pay more for produce etc than pay taxes for public services just for parasites to leech off of.</p>

55

<p>Why should i be charged out of my ass with a 20 percent hope of refunding when some illegal immigrant comes in and gets it practically for free!? this type of stuff makes me distrust the admins of the colleges. this needs to stop NOW.</p>

56

<p>HOLLA BACK homie</p>

57

<p>

</p>

<p>Like in the Soviet Union?</p>

58

<p>yup, get our own 5 year plans etc</p>

59

<p>Since those turned out oh so well.</p>

60

<p>I don’t think that it is correct to say that there would be starvation in the US if there weren’t a cheaper illegal work force. Exploiting the illegals with low wages is not the solution to fair agricultural prices. If the agricultural work force were all made up of legal workers, there would be a period of price adjustments, but because of fair market competition, but it should equalize quickly and fairly. The US currently imports a lot of produce, anyhow.</p>

<p>The illegals are exploited in this country, with low wages and poor working conditions in many instances. I don’t think that supporting their working and living conditions is a humane way to approach supply and demand in this country. Many jobs have gone to other countries, but the leaders of those countries such as Mexico make no effort to provide fair wages, safe working conditions, or decent social services. They rely on this country to employ their citizens cheaply, allow them to work here as cheap labor, and then send hundreds of billions of US dollars back to their home countries, thus enriching places like Mexico, and draining our economy.</p>

<p>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. We, as US citizens, provide billions of dollars of free medical care, education and other services such as police and fire departments to the illegals through our hard-earned taxes. Health care costs are much higher due to subsidizing illegals without health insurance. I would think that financially we are way behind on that deal vis a vis any small savings we get at the grocery check-out counter.</p>

<p>The argument that exploiting foreign nationals so that your grocery bill is a little bit less really doesn’t seem to be the humanistic or financially sound approach. However, President Bush and the business leaders who contribute to him have sold the approach of using illegals so as to enrich profits. What is intrinsically wrong with having a legal work force?</p>