California AB-540 Ruling From Appeals Court
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.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Anyone who comes from out of state can also adjust status within a year to residency so why are people complaining about one year of tuition only? Do they think they will get that benefit if the instate-tuition for immigrant students is struck down? Hardly. The colleges will just devise another sneaky way to account for residency.
The way I see it, there isn’t going to be any ‘loss’ to undocumented students in the California system. Lets face it – how many educators in the higher education system here would want to make college inaccessible for some of their best students? The UC Regents and CSU system are adamantly in favor of AB-540 and the DREAM Act. So even with AB-540 struck down because institutions cannot deny ‘out of state’ students the same residency benefits that, the colleges will find a way to accommodate these students. Guess how? Ridiculously increase the costs for international students in all likelihood. But by the time this case is heard again, the DREAM Act should be stamped and approved, which would render the whole point moot.
You need to copy/paste this to the Chronicle, LOL.
[...] I believe Quaker sums the issue up best here. [...]