Here’s what the report says under the short-term administrative action agenda (2008-11):
Support legislation to allow children of undocumented immigrants to attend a public college or university in the Commonwealth at the in-state tuition rate if they have attended Massachusetts’ schools, passed the MCAS, received a high school diploma and are on a path toward citizenship.
– The Patrick Administration Education Agenda (25 June 2008)
The key phrase here, of course, is a “path toward citizenship”. If undocumented students had a “path towards citizenship”, they wouldn’t need legislation passed to get in-state tuition in Massachusetts.
Now I’m hoping this is just misphrased, or it is some sick joke, because Patrick is talking to the press as if this is the real thing. Some states have asked undocumented students to sign an affadavit saying they will become a citizen the first chance they get. But if this is the phrasing their using, then signing an affadavit is not the same thing as being on a “path towards citizenship”.
I wish I could be praising the Governor for finally taking a stand on a promise he made two years ago, but using the language above this is not something to be praised. I’m hoping the phrasing of this is just a mistake. Even if it is, hundreds of undocumented students, who scoure through language and regulations like this everyday trying to find a way to exist in the only country they know as their home, have probably read this and felt like the Governor is trying to pull a fast one on them. I’m hoping in my heart that’s not true.
what’s your objection to asking these students to become citizens as soon as they can, and in signing something that says so? Or am I misreading your post?
David – as you know, every time this comes up, MTA claims that it will mean a ‘bump’ in revenue for the state schools. What they DON’T say is that FEDERAL law does not allow charging different rates to illegal immigrants and out-of-state students, so the state system nets out at a loss as we do quite well with out of state tuition now.
<
p>Does signing a letter of intent, or requireing that a citizenship application be produced satisfy the Federal statute? That may be why it’s included.
<
p>And David – you know perfectly well that many feel that requiring citizenship for a reduced tuition rate is jingoistic, in the eyes of many. Heck, many think these non-citizens should be able to vote as well! KyleDeb has never been shy about his/her point of view, but believes citizenship to be an obsolete requirement for the benefits of being an American.
The act prohibits public colleges from favoring undocumented students by offering them in-state tuition rates, unless those same rates are extended to all U.S. citizens regardless of their state of residency.
<
p>I’m putting in the Wikipedia article, as I get 62,000 hits on Thomas.
<
p>Didn’t we DO this once before?
The wikipedia article says nothing about tuition, and I’m not going to wade through a zillion-page federal statute to find a single paragraph about tuition.
<
p>As to whether we did this before, I don’t remember, and it doesn’t matter. You’re raising the federal law point; it’s your job to back it up.
THIS I can find in Thomas. http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdq…
<
p>Would Durbin need to introduce legislation to REPEAL the in-state tuition provision if it didn’t exist?
<
p>I have news articles, but I am not posting them because you’ll claim ‘bias’ or ‘half truth’.
I just want something about what the law actually says. But no, instead you have to cast aspersions while still failing to come up with the most basic information.
<
p>This is why if illegal aliens are granted in-state tuition, we cannot charge out-of-state tuition to anyone else at a state college.
<
p>YOU are the one with Lexis/Nexis – I had to read the whole thing. There are MANY articles on this, as many states – most recently CA – are contesting this, but so far it has not been overturned or stricken.
Hey Peter,
<
p>So I’ve had time to provide you with the links. The truth is arguments along these lines have been struck down in both California, and Kansas. Legal precident and all legitimate sources suggest the federal statute you’ve brought up does not constitute privileged undocumented students over out-of-state residents.
<
p>Logically this also makes sense. Because an undocumented student, under every in-state tuition proposal, would not be afforded any right that an out-of-state resident wouldn’t have. That is to say, because an undocumented student has to be present for a certain amount of years in Massachusetts, any out-of-state resident present for those same amount of years in Massachusetts would automatically be eligible for in-state tuition.
<
p>What’s more, undocumented students usually have to meet requirements that are much stricter than out-of-state residents would, so to even suggest that out-of-state residents are being privileged over undocumented students by in-state tuition is just as much of a lie as the fact that this is going to cost Massachusetts taxpayers any money.
both for assuming that I have free access to Lexis/Nexis (I don’t), and for getting the law wildly wrong, as Kyle has demonstrated.
I can see a federal law banning racial discrimination or something like that, but it seems that states should be able to set their own tuition rates. A student who was smuggled into MA at age 5 by his parents is in my mind a more legitimate MA resident than a legal Californian who has never lived in MA.
Because the requirements for undocumented students would not be any different than the requirements for out-of-state students. I don’t have time now to provide you the link, but I will tonight.
Out of state and in state students would have to pay the same thing. This isn’t about educational requirements, it’s about tuition charges.
This would not effect tuition charges for out-of-state residents.
is there any problem waiting for these kids if they do try to go for citizenship? Is there a hazard that they’d be deported if they identify themselves as not-citizens?
Who need in-state tuition, by definition, cannot be on a path towards citizenship. Being on a path towards citizenship means you have some sort of legal status. Undocumented students don’t have that. The wording in the Readiness Project document effectively excludes undocumented students.
I was not aware that there is formal definition of “path towards citizenship”. Where is this formal definition given? It seems to me a somwhat vague phrase that could be interpreted in many ways. What if it meant the resident has submitted an application for legal status? That would seem reasonable to me.
And I too am hoping that the wording in the readiness project is just a mistake, but there is no vagueness about “being on a path towards citizenship”. You either have a path, or you don’t. Undocumented migrants in the U.S. do not have a path unless the federal government changes the law and fixes this broken immigration system.
I never said I thought it was a “mistake”. I just have never been seen any formal or informal definition given anywhere. Nor have I been provided any evidence that there exists some kind of well-understood definition. If you want to jump down the administration’s throat on this, let’s see some evidence of what precisely they meant by “path towards citizenship”.
<
p>Also, I don’t see this as a good strategy for an activist. Maybe the administration is including undocumented residents who have applied for legal status, for example. In that case, I would think you should be applauding this aspect of the proposal. Or at least get more information before taking such a strong position.
I don´t know if my post was clear enough. What I´m saying is, that in the wording of the readiness project, as it is now, it would not give in-state tuition to undocumented students.
<
p>I want undocumented students to have a path to citizenship. But right now, there is no path. Which is why making it a requirement excludes undocumented students from getting in-state tuition.
<
p>Does that make sense? No undocumented student that needs in-state tuition can possibly meet the requirement of being on “a path towards citizenship”. There is not path.
<
p>I don´t know if the wording was just wrong, or what, but basically the wording as it is with the requirement of being on a “path towards citizenship” would exclude all undocumented students.
<
p>I know I’m repeating myself, but I feel like I was misunderstood.
Wouldn’t it be so AMERICAN to have all legal MA residents (no prisoners please) vote on this matter yes or no. I mean, since the money to pay for these illegals is coming from OUR pockets, shouldn’t we have a say in how it gets spent? Doesn’t that sound fair and open?
<
p>No illegal should ever get a single penny more than a legitimate American citizen, from any state. That is insane!
This would not cost Massachusetts taxpayers any money, it would only pump money into the system, because students that otherwise would not have been able to pay would be paying into the system.
<
p>I also have qualms with your grammar here. Illegal is not a noun. No human being is illegal. Most of the undocumented students were talking about here have known no other home but the United States. They are just as “American” as the person that sits next to them in class.
Illegal was my way, a common way, of shortening the correct and legal phrase ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. You can slice it up anyway you want but this is a country of laws and people from another country who are here illegally are illegal immigrants and not UNDOCUMENTED (workers, people, visitors…).
<
p>They are not American and deserve nothing from America or Americans. They certainly do not deserve the hard earned tax dollars from the working people of this country. Tell them to get in line behind all the people who have followed the laws and procedures we have in place to enter the UNITED STATES LEGALLY!!!
<
p>Even if you think I am a moron (whatever) you have to concede out of basic fairness that people waiting in line deserve to be treated a little better then fence jumpers. Imagine Fenway Park with families buying tickets and waiting in line while fence jumpers pay NOTHING and then take the ticket holder’s seats. And you (and others) defending them.
<
p>PS Where is the lies?
They grew up here and went to HS here at least, probably most of the school system. We’re gonna make it harder for them to go to college, do our best to create an underclass? “No college for you, back to mowing lawns”
They can – they just can’t have the in-state tuition rate. And believe me, tuition is the LEAST of the cost – the FEES at state schools are the REAL expense.
<
p>This makes me think of METCO – where poor white kids get to stay behind in the city, but middle class black kids get to go to the suburbs.
<
p>AND THERE IS NO AGE LIMIT ON THIS. A 35 year old illegal immigrant who gets a Mass. GED can go at in-state rates, NEVER having set foot in a Massachusetts high school!
<
p>Every year, the Insurance Committee would get a bill for health insurance to cover ‘hair prosthesis’, and talk about kids having chemo, etc. But when you read the bill, you realized that it also covered the Hair Club for Men on the health insurance, which is why it got shot down, as the sponsors were never willing to add language stipulating diseases.
<
p>Talk to me about this AFTER a condition is added that said undocumented child has spent ten years in the Mass. school system….
“This makes me think of METCO – where poor white kids get to stay behind in the city, but middle class black kids get to go to the suburbs.” God forbid something is special is done for Black people, because we all know White people have never had special advantages in America. And you make it sound like all the METCO kids are living comfortably, as if METCO doesn’t benefit poor Black kids.
<
p>And where is your source for this:
<
p>
<
p>?
<
p>I ask because I have not seen the specifics of the proposed law, just a blurb from the Gov’s flyer. What you say may be somewhat true, but the legislation that was being floated before required:
<
p>
<
p>To the last line: I support a minimum time requirement spent in MA school systems, too, but I think 10 years is excessive.
<
p>
And reading the Gov.’s Cliff Notes on what he intends to file, he makes no mention of those clauses. I agree, we need to see some actual LEGISLATION from his office, instead of press releases dressed up as reports, but it’s a ball worth keeping the eye on.
Difference is – usually, the person next to them doesn’t need to put quotation marks around American.
for all your good work on this issue, I’ve met some of these wonderful kids. I wish the Readiness Project could have found a way to clear a path for success for them by recommending a simple change in admissions policy.
I think you’re overreading the wording of the proposal. As far as I know, the idea is to reintroduce the same proposal that has been kicking around for a while, which is that they sign an affidavit promising to apply for residency or citizenship as soon as they’re eligible. I don’t see any big problem with that, do you?
Forget the ‘need’ to apply, how does one go about applying. I’ve been here a few years, but don’t recall applying. Do tell.
for supporters of this issue to pay additional taxes which could be used to help pay for the out-of-state tuition rates?