Comments on: How in-state tutition hurts illegal immigrants

By: david

david — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

we sacrifice the kids that are here now, in Massachusetts, that have worked hard and done well enough to get into college, while waiting for the feds to get their act together, which is not happening any time soon?

p> What sense does that make? Let's debate this policy on the merits, not sit on our hands waiting for the feds to solve the problem for us.

By: jimcaralis

jimcaralis — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

So you can get in-state tutition but not a well paid job or a drivers license etc... That is penny wise and pound foolish policy.

p> The right thing to do is change the law regarding citizenship, not make a mockery of it but giving illegal immigrants partial rights. That plays right into the hands of Republicans.

By: gary

gary — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Not sure how many read it, but I did and the demographic study underlying their assumptions too.

ul>

It says there's between 200,000 and 250,000 undocumented aliens in Massachusetts. Why 200-250? Well, that's because Mass is a lot like Georgia. ... ???

Then, because the Mass population is a lot like the homogenous US population, there's about 17% under age 18.

Then, because the Mass population is a lot like the Texas population, 70-80 will enroll in higher education. (Mass is a lot like Texas? Anyone need a geography book to figure out you can throw a rock from Texas to Mexico?)

Of the 70 - 80, 50 will enroll in State schools. This is because....I got nothing. Just 50. No explanation.

No assumption or estimates of elasticity (i.e. who will attend at out-of-state rate v. who won't)

Then the coup-de-gras. Extra students attending a school won't cost the school anything! "Educators agree."

p> The proposed policy is totally at odds with Federal law. AND, the candidate du jour, Mr. Patrick endorses it, YET seeks to enforce wage and hour laws to fine employers for hiring the very student he's trying to help.

p> Is it just me that sees this dicotomy as absurd? "Yes son, we'll give you a break on education, but we'll fine the greedy corporate bastard who tries to hire you."

By: david

david — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The distinction is perfectly simple: in-state tuition is about children who weren't responsible for the decision to come here, and the other stuff (drivers license, etc.) is not. Now, when they graduate, can they still not get a drivers license? Maybe - but at least they're educated, and they're on their way to attaining citizenship (through whatever means are available to them) and becoming productive citizens.

p> The "penny wise and pound foolish" thing to do is to deny them an education. That pretty much guarantees that they won't have a shot at a decent job, and increases the likelihood of their going on the public dole.

p> Remember, they're here, and they're not going anywhere (only the silliest of Republicans think we're actually going to deport all these folks). That's reality.

By: jimcaralis

jimcaralis — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The pennywise pound foolish thing to do is to try to fight for in-state tutition when that:

p> 1. Doesn't accomplish what you really need. 2. Probably isn't going to happen (hasn't already been rejected by the legislature). 3. Gives the opposition ammunition to use against you. 4. Probably delays the accomplishment of the real goal that would help millions. 5. Makes a mockery of federal law.

p> Any one of those reasons in isolation is probably not enough to give you pause, but on the whole it just sounds crazy to me.

p> I guess we just disagree.