<p>Big article this week about a Ga tech student who is an illegal who has been paying instate tuition…new law effective July 1, makes Georgia in compliance with Federal law stating that illegals are considered out of state for tuition purposes…</p>
<p>AJC.com Atlanta newspaper has had a lot of debate about this issue…the one hand we have sympathetic case for this hispanic youth who is a good student at Ga Tech who would be the first to go to college. On the other hand, we have single mother who came from Utah to Georgia and who has had to take out loans to pay out of state tuition…</p>
<p>One side says that this isnt’ students fault, his parents broke the law when they came illegally…the other says student knows he is illegal and continued to break the law.</p>
<p>One side says he can’t be legally employed if he gets degree in Georgia so why should Ga subsidize him. </p>
<p>Many out of state students look at this as giving illegals preferential treatment when they are legal residents of A state…but just wish to attend an institution in another state.</p>
<p>How do you all feel about this issue? If you were an out of state student at Tech paying the extra dollars how would you feel? We already provide free educations for ANYONE in our borders for elementary through high school…does this entitlement extend to colleges and universities?<br>
Do you feel it is ok for states that limit out of state students by law to allow illegals to gain advantages by treating them as instate students?</p>
<p>IMO - An illegal shouldn’t get in-state tuition any more than an OOS should get in-state tuition. I don’t think law-breaking should be rewarded.</p>
Well, was he in-state? Once that is determined I think the question is over. It is my personal opinion that colleges (hospitals, nursing homes, grocery stores, oh…lots of places ;)) should not be in the immigration enforcement business but since Tech is a state school, the state gets to decide (with a nudge from the feds) what is in-state. If they’ve written “legally” in the definitional requirements for “in-state” then I guess he doesn’t legally reside in Georgia, does he? If they haven’t I’ll stick with “I don’t think colleges need to be in the immigration enforcement business” and then the student does meet the in-state definition and pays in-state tuition . It is solely an issue for the Georgia people through their legislature to decide.</p>
<p>^ Its not immigration enforcement - its policy enforcement. The school’s policy says that students who reside out of state pay more in tution than those in state. Somone in this country illegally clearly cannot be a legal resident of any state, and therefore should not receive in state tuition. (they shouldn’t even be attending the school, IMO)</p>
<p>It’s immigration enforcement. Clearly and indubitaly. If “residence” is defined as living within a geographic boundary, and “resident” is someone who does that, the student is clearly a resident and entitled to resident tuition. (You added the word “legal”, if that’s what they meant, the legislature knew how to say that. Now, I don’t know what it actually says. I’m hypothesizing, as in my first post.)</p>
<p>I don’t think illegals should be getting instate tuition OR instate status when applying.</p>
<p>My H is active-duty military and we had to jump through multiple hoops to show why our D was supposed to be considered IS back in 05-06 despite having lived here since 2000.</p>
<p>Just for context, there are at least 9 states (California, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma Texas, Utah, and Washington) where “noncompliant” students (read: illegal aliens) who graduate from state high schools and who have two to three years of residency can receive in-state tuition at public colleges or universities. Many of their parents are long-time residents, who have paid years of taxes and are out of compliance for small technical reasons. The kids are residents by any reasonable measure. When I first heard about this issue, I thought–geez, that’s a no-brainer, of course illegial aliens should not get in-state tuition (or even FA from privates). But there are lots of nuances to the issues. This site has some basic background on the underlying issues:</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter how many years the illegal immigrants supposedly paid taxes. The point is that there are a lot of LEGAL immigrants who are following the rules. The illegals need to follow the rules like everyone else.</p>
<p>Not only that…but in Texas, ‘in-state and illegal’ students can qualify for scholarships and financial aid at state universities. But note my emphasis on the word ‘and’…it is possible to be both. </p>
<p>(A little amnesty would go a long way in solving the problem imho.)</p>
<p>I think they should receive in-state tuition! I have “illegal immigrants” in my class and at my elementary school, and we educate them for free. (Would you rather the kids just hung around all day in their cramped apartments with nothing to do, while mom cleans your house and dad mows your yard and/or paints your house?) There are all too few of them who actually make it through to high school graduation without dropping out - but for those that do; they should receive instate tuition if they have resided in our state for the required number of years. It’s not their fault that their mom or dad came here illegally, and besides, we NEED an educated populace. It is only fair, AND in our best interests to educate them. (And, do you really think they can afford out-of-state tuition? Come on! If they are qualified to attend college, they are our best and brightest, and they will make the world a much better place if they are educated!)</p>
<p>Hmmm. Follow the rules, wait your turn, come into the country legally, pay “income” taxes, and pay out of state tuition. Or, break the law, push to the head of the line, come into the country illegally, pay no “income” taxes and get the legal taxpayers to subsidize your education. </p>
<p>Providing free to low cost education to kids of illegals is one of the carrots drawing the illegals to this country in the first place along with free medical care, much larger income than if they were in their own countries, and other freebies. </p>
<p>Would I rather have them just hang around while their parents are working here illegaly? No, I’d rather that their parents move back to their own country and come to this one when they follow the legal process. And, I think you can rightly assume that any illegal paid in cash (yard-mower, house-painter, etc.) isn’t paying any income tax at all. Granted, those who can manage to make it into the mainstream do pay income taxes - frequently by stealing someone else’s SS number. </p>
<p>To me, it’s a pretty clear answer when the kid is illegal. What’s less clear is when the kid is legal but the parents are illegal - i.e. the kid was born here. There are many kids here in that position. For these kids I’d probably side with in-state tuition according to the residency requirements for the state. The problem sometimes is in determining residency when the parents are living under the radar by not paying taxes and not directly renting/owning a residence (i.e. living with extended family or with multiple families in a single residence) and therefore not being able to prove they’ve lived in a particular location. </p>
<p>All of these problems could have been avoided if the parents had followed the law in the first place as many thousands of legal immigrants do.</p>
<p>Apparently the Republican National Committee fired its entire phonebank staff this week. The grassroots base is so angry over illegal immigration that donations had dried up:</p>
<p>Kind of ironice. Karl Rove had decided to incite anger over illegal Mexicans as the party’s next big wedge issue, spreading the talking points to the usual media pundits. Now, the blowback has bit them. I don’t think it is helping that Pres. Bush said it was unAmerikan to oppose the amnesty bill.</p>
<p>The blogosphere is wondering if the Republicans will try outsourcing their campaign solicitations to Bangalore?</p>
<p>“My gosh, and we are 3 Texans in a row on this thread. LOL. You’d think if anybody was screaming it would be us.”</p>
<hr>
<p>lol…we Texans aren’t screaming because we realize what an integral part of our state economy the illegal Hispanic workforce actually is…</p>
<p>And it is very difficult to get into this country from Mexico legally. It takes YEARS with no guarantees of ever getting approved. It’s not just a simple matter of filling out some paperwork and waiting a few months… </p>
<p>Maybe we should address that issue and what motivates some to take a shortcut.</p>
<p>We send gazillion of proof-of-residency papers to UWash , but only S’s green card allowed him be considered in-state. So even in the state of Washington not every school will bend the rules. A classmate of S’s , whose parents were in the “waiting for green card” ( adjustment of status) stage with an H-1 visa was allowed to pay in-state tuition at WSU( and very grateful for that) .</p>
If “residence” is defined as living within a geographic boundary, and “resident” is someone who does that, the student is clearly a resident and entitled to resident tuition. (You added the word “legal”, if that’s what they meant, the legislature knew how to say that. Now, I don’t know what it actually says. I’m hypothesizing, as in my first post.)</p>