While some of the recommendations will garner all of the headlines, we welcome members of the Blue Mass Group community to delve deeper into a report that represents the best recommendations of policy experts and the immigrant and refugee communities of the Commonwealth. Immigrant integration is in the best interests of everyone in Massachusetts, since having an immigrant population that is fully engaged and supported benefits our economy and the strength of our democracy.
Some highlights include:
Improve access to re-licensing for immigrants and refugees with professional degrees from their home country
A recommendation to allow all students residing in MA access to in-state tuition rates who have completed 3 years of high school in MA, graduated, and sign an affidavit promising to pursue citizenship when a pathway becomes available, regardless of immigration status
Provide parents enrolling LEP (Limited English Proficient) students in schools with a multilingual guide to navigating particular aspects of the state education system
Funding for English for speakers of other languages classes to increase the available slots for the thousands of immigrants (17,000) currently on waiting lists
These recommendations are about benefiting the Commonwealth as much as immigrants: stronger schools, improved public safety, more qualified specialists, stronger families, and successful small businesses benefit all residents. We also hope this will help move the debate on immigration in Massachusetts from one based on rhetoric to one based on fact.
I applaud MIRA and its great work. I especially agree with the in-state tuition piece. It seems like a no brainer to me that any child should be given an opportunity to learn the critical reasoning skills which are so important in today’s society. I feel like the main argument against the act is simply “no help for people who broke the law” but the reality is that these kids had no choice in where their parents relocated them, and it is ridiculous to punish a child for the sins of a parent. Let these kids go to school rather than to the street. Everyone benefits from an educated population.
Anyone’s kid can go to school. It’s a free country. What’s ridiculous is having taxpayers subsidize the education for someone in the country illegally.
Take a look.
The study you link to projects that roughly 600 undocumented students would be enrolled after the policy has been in place for 4 years. It assumes, because that number is so small, that these students could be absorbed into the system with no marginal costs (therefore creating marginal revenue for the state).
<
p>It’s not clear to me why this is marginal revenue. Are these schools not fully enrolled currently?
<
p>Either way, since presumably the same economic result could be achieved by admitting more students that are here legally, the issue still comes down to selling the idea of admitting undocumented immigrants to the exclusion of people here legally, does it not?
Yes, there is still capacity within the community and state college system, although the amount differs depending on the school. The number of students who would benefit from this legislation represent less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire public college system, so it is really a drop in the bucket. Most will attend community colleges first (we know this from experiences in the 10 other states who have passed similar legislation, which include Texas and Utah), so the number of students who will attend state colleges or the UMASS system is much smaller than the 400-600 who would take advantage after four years (it is estimated that only up to 90 students would take advantage in year 1).
<
p>The revenue issue is based on the ways in which the public colleges receive funding, which is primarily through line items in the budget and tuition and fees. Funding isn’t done by a capitated rate; that is, the schools don’t get funding on a per-student basis (except tuition and fees). The students who would benefit from this legislation are already applying to and being accepted to public colleges (they are allowed to by federal law), they just can’t afford to attend because they are paying rates that are two to three times those of their out-of-state counterparts. That is why it generates revenue, which we have seen in other states.
<
p>That is one of the major misconceptions about the bill, that it will somehow increase competition for seats with citizens and other lawfully residing immigrants. This bill does NOT change who applies to and is accepted to the public college system, only who can afford to attend once they are accepted. Undocumented students are not eligible for public financial aid or public scholarships, so they are not increasing competition there. They will be paying full in-state tuition costs to attend college, all out of pocket.
You contend that reducing the tuition would not result in more applications from undocumented students. To reach this conclusion requires one to believe that no one refrains from applying currently because they know they can’t afford the tuition. That’s kind of hard to believe.
<
p>If changing the law would increase the number of applications from undocumented students, then there very likely will be people that are here legally denied admittance in favor undocumented applicants. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong but it’s definitely a tough sell politically.
Will the number of students applying increase? Most likely, but by how much? Based on the experiences of the other ten states that have passed similar bills, the answer is very few (How many families, let alone undocumented families, can afford the average of $4,305 out-of-pocket for community colleges let alone the $9,704 for state colleges). And when you look at that volume and assume that the vast majority will begin at community colleges, which have open enrollment, and then divide the remaining volume by the 14 state colleges and universities there are across the state, you are likely looking at less than a handful of students at each college.
<
p>Moreover, the admissions process is actuarial, since all colleges accept more students than they plan on having attend, knowing that only a certain percentage will eventually accept and enroll. When you talk about the limited volume of students we’re talking about that would benefit from this bill, it is not reasonable to think that this would impact the number of overall students each college accepts, since they accept thousands.
<
p>Not to go into too much detail, but when you consider that many public colleges are experiencing record volumes of applications and admissions as a result of the economic crisis and that this increase coincides with the fewest number of expected students to attend (up to 90 in the first year) and that applications and admissions by year four at the colleges are likely to decrease, than this argument of “stealing a seat” seems even more remote and implausible.
<
p>We feel it is important to remember that a diverse group of states has already passed similar legislation because of its myriad benefits. Red states like Texas, Utah, Nebraska and Kansas. States with the largest undocumented populations like California, Texas and New York. These states have all taken a look at this bill and debated the same arguments and found that it was in the best interest of their state, the best interest of the talented students that this legislation helps, and the best interest of their economy to pass bipartisan legislation allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates.
You made three arguments on why this is good policy:
<
p>1) It will generate revenue for the state. As noted above, I don’t see how.
<
p>2) There will not be increased competition for seats so people here legally will not get bumped in favor of undocumented applicants. I don’t see how that can be, as explained above (and I admit I don’t understand your point in the 3rd paragraph of your last reply).
<
p>3) The numbers are so small that no one should care. I guess, but I still think #2 is a problem for you.
If you want to say this is the right thing to do because we want to lift all boats and everyone deserves access to affordable education, then you might tug at my cynical heart strings and make me sympathetic to your cause. But if you’re going to argue this on a fiscal level then you have lost all credibility imho.
i live in a town that has an approximate 40% immigrant population. the majority of these folks do not have voting rights due to their lack of full US citizenship. as a result, they are shut out of the most fundamental vehicle for self-determination in a democracy; a vote.
<
p>while many of the issues confronted on a municipal level are shared by all and are not necessarily particular to one or another ethnic group, this disenfranchisement does have an effect in myriad small ways. the most obvious is that a community where 30% of residents cannot fully participate runs less efficiently than a three-legged dog.
<
p>what can be done to offer an ad hoc voice to our neighbors that do not have one through our basic democratic process?
<
p>
Children who are here illegally do not come on their own. They are brought to this country by their parents. After they grow up in this state and attend and successfully graduate from public school it is appropriate to let them attend college as a Massachusetts resident.