So the argument goes something like this:

Mrs. Kansas Says: My daughter, who happens to be a United States citizen, is being discriminated against by California public colleges. She was accepted to CSU, however she must pay out of state tuition because, get this, she has never lived in California, never paid taxes in California and has literally put nothing into the system which she now wants to reap the benefits of. Unfair, Right!?

In reality, what AB-540 does is provide in-state tuition to ANY student (regardless of immigration status) who graduates from a California high-school. It has already been established that anyone living in a specific state DOES pay taxes. Everyone pays a sales tax. Everyone pays property taxes (by being a homeowner or by paying rent to a homeowner). It is a fact that students who live most of their lives in a particular state, go to high-school / college in a particular state are then more likely to stay and work in that particular state. And so it makes sense for a state to offer incentives to people who will, in the long-run, be a BIG contribution to that state.

This leads us to our question for Mrs. Kansas, what incentive does the State of California have to pay for your daughter to attend school within California when, at the end of the day, your daughter is not going to be a productive member of California?

This debate is actually quite simple, no discrimination involved. Attend a California high-school and get in-state tuition in California. Attend a Kansas high-school and get in-state tuition in Kansas. Where in that equation did you hear immigration status come up? No where because it is NOT the issue nor the driving factor behind states offering in-state tuition.

Link to article

Popularity: 4% [?]