In denying these young people an affordable higher education option, the opponents of this bill have helped to continue the cycle of poverty that often grips immigrant communities. These children are, in many ways, the future of their communities, the future of our Commonwealth. Many of the students who visited the State House during the debate over this bill had already been accepted at public universities throughout the state. They had done the work and were simply looking to pay $9,000 a year to attend college in Massachusetts. The initial group of approximately 400-students would have generated well over $1 million in tuition payments had they been given the chance to pay an affordable tuition rate.
Unfortunately, many of those students will now be unable to afford the $18,000 out-of-state tuition rate and will not attend college. It is ironic that one of the main complaints of opponents of this bill was that they felt it was wrong to subsidize undocumented immigrants. Sadly, few opponents spent the time to realize that by denying these students an affordable higher education, they were, in fact, virtually guaranteeing that they would remain marginally employable and heavily dependent on the state’s resources. If you opposed this bill and felt strongly that the state should not provide affordable tuition rates for undocumented immigrants, think about this question: Would you be better served by a generation of employable, tax-paying, highly skilled college graduates, even if they were undocumented immigrants, or would you be better served by a generation of undocumented immigrants, unable to attend college, unable to find a job paying a living-wage, forced to depend on the state for housing, human services and health care?
Instead of taking into account the long-term economic and social benefits for the Commonwealth, many opponents of this bill were swayed by alarming claims that the undocumented students were “stealing” spots from Massachusetts citizens and that this bill would encourage more illegal immigration.
The 400-students initially affected by this bill would not have meant any reduction in the number of citizen students accepted into the state’s public education system. The Massachusetts Board of Higher Education, the Massachusetts State College Presidents’ Council and the Massachusetts Community College Presidents’ Council all supported this bill and stated repeatedly that the in-state tuition bill would have no effect on the admissions prospects of qualified citizen applicants. Plus, these students would not be the first non-Massachusetts’ citizens to get a financial break at our state colleges and universities. Students from the five other New England states pay only $857 more than Massachusetts’ residents, so in essence your tax dollars are already being used to subsidize non-citizen students.
The claim that this bill would increase illegal immigration to the Commonwealth is simply not realistic. Nine other states have already passed similar bills and none has seen a significant jump in illegal immigration as a result. Massachusetts’ proposed 3-year residency requirement makes the prospect of undocumented immigrants streaming to the state even more remote. We are a small state with a struggling economy far removed from the Central and South American borders. Why would undocumented immigrants bypass states such as California and Texas, both of which have in-state tuition laws (the University of Texas system actively recruits undocumented immigrant students), and flock to Massachusetts’ cities and towns? The assertion that this bill would increase illegal immigration is without any real merit.
However, the most alarming aspect of this debate for me was the lack of empathy displayed by the opponents of this bill. I received many emails, letters and phone calls from opponents with a common theme- “my ancestors came to this country legally and worked hard, if it was good enough for them, it’s good enough for these people today.”
First, I think that it would be wise to point out that the American
government had no formal national immigration policy until 1882. Prior to that year, anyone, from anywhere, could move to America. There was only one requirement for nationalization: live here for two years. Any immigrant who lived in this country for two years was automatically awarded citizenship. Certainly, life was not easy for new immigrants but the claim by many opponents that their ancestors came to this country “legally” is misleading. It was impossible to be an “illegal” immigrant in America prior to 1882.
Further, should we allow ourselves as a society in 2006 to be defined by the prejudice and ignorance of American society a century ago? Does the suffering of your ancestors justify the suffering of immigrants today? If opponents of this bill were so troubled by the treatment their ancestors received decades and centuries ago, one would reasonably expect them to empathize with the ordeal of immigrants today. Sadly, it seems that the opposite is true.
When I was growing up in East Cambridge, my entire neighborhood consisted of immigrants and the children of immigrants. All of my neighbors came from different parts of the world but they were our playmates and our friends and we all worked together to make each other’s lives better. I hope that my district hasn’t changed so much in 40 years that we now strive to make life tougher on our immigrants, that we now revel at their struggles and fail to see our heritage in their hardships.
I am proud to have voted for the In-State Tuition Bill. It was the right thing to do and the best thing for all my constituents, regardless of when they or their ancestors came to this country.
Thanks for posting this — I will send Rep. Toomey a supportive email as well. He is right on the merits of the issue and, as Cos said, is showing admirable courage.
<
p>
I’m the undergrad program director in computer science at UMass Amherst. Like most computer science undergrad programs nationwide, we are facing declining enrollments and a large fraction of the qualified students we do attract are from recent immigrant families. These are people fufilling the American dream of using their brains and hard work to get ahead, and UMass should be helping as many as possible to do so. Once someone has finished high school and earned admission here, we don’t need any more barriers placed in their way. (They should be required to do everything possible to regularize their status as soon as possible, but as I understand it the bill in question required them to do this while charging them in-state tuition in the meantime.)
…to create a path to citizenship for the undocumented students receiving this tuition, including all the fundamental tests and requirements of regular citizenship. The policy would simultaneously offer this citizenship path to all undocumented students who otherwise qualified for the college admission and the aid; and, by instituting periodic milestones, make the path towards and ultimate achievement of citizenship a requirement for continution of aid throughout all four years of education. The result: Mass gets more college-educated residents; Mass gets more legal citizens (all of whom are college-educated); and the those of us with often-quite-legitimate concerns about encouraging only legal immigration can rest assured that a legitimate process is being used to couple aid with citizenship. (This policy would be amnesty, since it was not the students themselves, but their parents, who chose to violate America’s immigration laws.)
<
p>
I know this policy is light-years away, for many reasons, most particularly in terms of requiring federal partnership on the citizenship aspect. But since this is a blog, I thought I’d just spout off about it đŸ™‚
<
p>
Oh, and it’s not my idea – I heard it on conservative talk radio, where a guest called in with it and the host (might have been Scott Alan Miller, not sure, one of the 650-AM morning regulars) said “See, that’s actual thinking – which means it probably wouldn’t be accepted.” Which I mention just to show that plenty of people from all sides are fed up with the rhetoric and ready for a real solution on this.
<
p>
Bottom line – instead of framing it as yes/no, let’s get all parties together and start negotiating. Maybe 20 years from now, we’ll have a progressive policy đŸ™‚
I don’t disagree, but I think the way this frames the issue is knocking down a strawman.
<
p>
The in state tuition bill would’ve done absolutely nothing to encourage any sort of immigration, legal or not. It was also separate from any legislation creating new paths to citizenship, because it was a state level bill, and citizenship is an entirely federal jurisdiction. This bill went as far as it could in that direction by requiring that students use whatever federal process is available to them to seek legal status in the US.
<
p>
That exchange on the radio talk show, if it was as you characterize it, seems to be saying “if only they did this, then I’d support this idea, but not as is.” I find that an offensive perspective for anyone who is informed of the facts to take, though they get a pass if they just didn’t understand or think too deeply about it.
<
p>
This was a good bill. Its effect would’ve been entirely positive. Whatever “often-quite-legitimate concerns” anyone might have about encouraging illegal immigration are completely irrevelent to this bill. Any reform of federal immigration policy or paths to citizenship are also a separate issue, worth bringing up, but not a reason to oppose this bill. And you’re completely glossing over Toomey’s central thesis, which is that this bill is not only not “aid” but would actually net the Commonwealth a little more money in the short term, and save a lot more in the long term.
<
p>
While we wait 20 years for the “negotiating” after sending a good law like this down in flames, good people suffer.
<
p>
Why?
<
p>
<
p>
Why? Noting your comment below – why would it only encourage a small number of people in the small picture? Why would it be insignificant in the large picture?
<
p>
Please note that I am not criticizing a “yes” vote on this bill, or advocating a 20-yr process as preferable; I would have voted yes for it too, period. However, I don’t agree with your view of the complete or near-complete insulation of the effects of this bill from Mass’s larger immigration policy and issues, and I’d like to hear why you have that view.
Think about the reasons most undocumented immigrants decided to come here, the circumstances of their travel, and how they chose where to live. Think about how tiny a consideration the prospect that after many years, their child who does well in high school might be more likely to afford UMass, would be – if they even know about it. When you can’t get a job that pays enough to prevent your family from starving, and you’re wondering how to get across the border while avoiding death in the desert; when you’re trying to escape from a dictatorship and wondering how to get across the ocean even though you have little money; When your brother went to the US a decade ago and you haven’t seen him since because he can’t afford to travel and can’t get time off from work, but has a place for you and you miss him; you don’t think about something like that. It really doesn’t enter into the picture.
…once someone is in America as an illegal immigrant, and they say, “Ok, I’ve been in Texas / California / Florida / wherever for 18 months, I’ve got the hang of America, I’ve got some English, I know how to find work, now where do I want to live for real?” Then factors like Massachusetts in-state tuition come into their decision process.
<
p>
Or do they? I don’t know; but it seems reasonable to think that they would. If you want to make a different case, you have to address the entire immigration picture, not just the first moment of “I’m in a different country and want to get to America.”
So you’re saying if someone is already in the US, living here and working here, and cares enough about education for their children that this law would sway them to possibly move from California to Massachusetts, you see that as a problem? I’ve entirely lost track of what problem you’re trying to solve.
Whether you like the Federal laws or not, there is an elaborate statutory framework for VISA into the US: student, performing athlete, visitor, etc….and, without knowing how to check, I’m sure that there are a number of students at UMASS on student visas, paying out-of-state tuition rates.
<
p>
But, if you or your parents entered the US without a VISA and are resident in Massachusetts, you, and this Bill say they should pay less.
<
p>
Keep in mind, with adequate knowledge and resources, the Federal government would probably deport these students.
<
p>
So, if by paying more in tuition, they suffer, then yes. They suffer the same as a New Hampshire student attending UMass, or one from CT or California.
<
p>
The Bill caused the taxpayer to give the kid a break who resides in Massachusetts but didn’t have Federal permission to be there (i.e. VISA), but the kid who did have permission to be there should pay full boat? Why does this make no sense?
<
p>
I’ve no objection to anyone attending college. Get accepted; pay; attend. But that Bill is a case where bad facts make bad law–400 kids who can afford $9,000 and not $18,000. It was appropriately voted down.
<
p>
Actually, I’ll modify one thing. I said this law would’ve provided absolutely no encouragement for immigration, legal or illegal. In the larger scheme of things, I think that’s true – there’s no way a law like this would’ve led to any discernible difference in the number of immigrants who come here. But on the individual level, there is a chance that a tiny handful of immigrants would’ve found it a significant enough motivation to affect their plans: “If I can get to Massachusetts, and my child attends high school faithfully and works hard and gets good grades, he or she will have the opportunity to go to UMass for reduced tuition and I might be able to afford to send them there.”
<
p>
I want those people to come here!
<
p>
There would be very very few of them, but even if it’s just one or two a year, let’s give them all the encouragement we can!