Below is my op-ed that ran in the Springfield Republican this weekend.
Massachusetts has been America’s laboratory for experimentation and innovation for nearly four centuries.
Yet in 2014, our Commonwealth’s commitment to progressive public policy designed to aid our most vulnerable children has fallen behind.
Seventeen states, including Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Utah – not exactly hotbeds of progressive politics, have passed legislation or implemented policies allowing undocumented immigrants who graduate from a local high school to receive in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities.
Even New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, widely considered one of the GOP’s top presidential prospects in 2016, recently signed in-state tuition into law.
So why does Massachusetts lag when others lead?
Immigrants searching for a land filled with opportunities and a better life settled on Massachusetts as the birthplace of freedom in the New World.
But currently, only immigrants with a federal work permit are eligible for in-state tuition. In 2012, President Obama announced Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a federal program allowing immigrants who came to the United States as children under the age of 16, along with other requirements, to gain work authorization. Yet many students in Massachusetts remain ineligible for the in-state tuition rate, having not yet obtained a federal work permit.
Pending legislation on Beacon Hill can change that. This year, legislators can continue our proud history of leading America by passing “An act regarding tuition equity for high school graduates in the Commonwealth,” a bill sponsored by Representative Denise Provost and Senator Linda Dorcena Forry. The bill grants undocumented immigrants access to in-state tuition, with its key provision requiring they attend high school for three years in Massachusetts and graduate.
This bill is a win for our schools, our students, our families, and our economy. I urge my colleagues in the legislature to bring it to a vote and pass it without delay.
Few undocumented immigrants can afford to pay out-of-state tuition rates. Offering them in-state tuition would provide our 29 public colleges and universities with about $2 million in new revenues during the first year alone, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. By the fourth year that revenue would increase to between $6 and $7 million.
Because the number of students likely to enroll remains fewer than 1,000, schools would not incur high costs and instead would actually profit from this policy.
We need our talented, innovative, and imaginative young people to stay here in Massachusetts. We can’t afford to lose a single motivated young person and miss out on the contribution he or she will make to our rapidly-changing innovation economy.
Yet passing this legislation is not only a question of economics or politics.
Fundamentally, it’s a question about what type of society we want to live in.
Will we be a Commonwealth that provides all its children who work hard and play by the rules, regardless of where they come from and what they look like, with the resources they need to create a brighter future?
It’s time to make fairness and common sense central ingredients of our state’s immigration policy when our national policy, paralyzed for years by Washington’s partisan gridlock, is both inequitable and illogical.
It’s time to level the playing field for hard-working immigrants who grew up with an unwavering belief in the American Dream – the idea that educational achievement translates to economic mobility – yet suddenly see that dream collapse after 12th grade with the daunting price tag of a college education.
It’s time we honor the centuries-old principle of opportunity that built this country – the principle that says if you work hard to raise a family and educate your children, they can build a better life because of your sacrifices.
Immigrant children who grew up with an unshakeable devotion to this Commonwealth and this country are not asking for much. They simply want a chance to go to school and build a career.
Who are we, as elected officials, to get in their way?
Washington may be broken, but that has never stopped Massachusetts from leading the way.
So let’s not play politics with our children and their future. Let’s allow hard-working high school students who come from another country the opportunity to go to college.
a number of states have used lottery proceeds to help reduce the price of in-state tuition, for all in-state students or for the high achieving ones.
MA in-state tuition is enormously high by national standards.
As much as I dislike the lottery, I’d dislike it less if it helped keep tuition low for in state students. How ’bout it?
And while we’re at it why aren’t you fighting to protect the lottery from inevitable loss with casino gambling? Are we creating more money with casinos ?
Answer = no
Is the expanded predatory gambling law a Grossman and government sponsored public policy tactic to create more gamblers (aka “revenues” for the PC crowd,) or is it aimed at displacing the regressive lottery with uber-regressive casinos that benefit special interest groups?
Answers = yes
How are you planning to protect local aid/education funding with the advent of on-line gambling?
Our kids (12th generation Americans) and their cousins can’t afford in-state tuition rates. I don’t disagree with in-state tuition for immigrants and would like to see “exchange” programs offering reduced rates to US students to attend colleges in other countries as part of the efforts to make education affordable and accessible.
HINT: bad timing to be on the Chris Christie band wagon with your OP-Ed.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/14/II/1623
This is a federal law and only applies to federal financial aid. Tuition at a state institution is strictly a state matter.
So why should in state tuition not be offered to a NH resident who works in Massachusetts. They pay taxes to the commonwealth – shouldn’t they have the benefit?
Frankly college shouldn’t be so expensive – and state colleges just hide the cost by taking funds from the general revenue stream.
The whole reason they moved up to NH or stayed there is that it’s sales taxes and CoL are significantly cheaper. Those benefits come at the expense of lower quality and more expensive public higher education. Why should someone who has lived and worked in MA most of their lives, paid our higher taxes and benefitted from our social compact be denied due to their legal status in a federal matter? Moreover why should a Granite Stater be rewarded with a compact he is not a part of and didn’t pay for?
A NH (or Rhode Island) resident who works in Massachusetts pays taxes on income earned in the state to the state. So again why would not this person be just as entitled to attend college in Massachusetts at in-state rates if he/she paid taxes to support the institution. So I would say he/she did pay for it ?
I don’t believe at the college level – that we should be subsiding individuals who are not US citizens or on the path to being a US citizen. Frankly the same arguments applies to other states. Other countries don’t offer reduced tuition for US citizens, why should we offer reduce tuition to their citizens ?
That being said as a matter of public policy and morality – the children of immigrants whatever their immigration status need to be educated through high school.
How magnanimous.
Goggling a little bit on this, politically motivated proposal – if a student has a federal work permit (which seems easy to get) – he /she can get in state tuition. Why even propose it.
The state college system always loses money – it depends on general revenue for a good portion of their costs – adding more students will just cost the state more money.
Plowing more roads will just cost the state more money too. Doesn’t mean that it isn’t an important, relevant government service which benefits society at large.
Not allowing someone in that situation to work is a very common method of immigration enforcement I thought.
Again, if a citizen of another country is not on a path to be a US citizen why would we invest in them.
I know Canada would love it if we plowed their roads – but don’t think it really makes sense.
…I think we should assume that they are on a path to citizenship, and do what we can to fast-track that process. Why not? Many of them came very young and really don’t know the country that is officially their “home”.
But when you are 18 or close to 18 – its your choice if you want to become a US citizen or not, it seems like the federal work permit is a path – why would we invest in someone who is a citizen of another country who refuses to apply for a permit.
Is there something wrong with the Federal Work permit process ? If so then it’s time to fix it.
I did not work while school was in session when I was an undergrad, though I suppose you could change it to “work or matriculation” permit. I prefer just treating them like residents since that’s what they are for all practical purposes.
The best way to build a life today is to get an education.
The idea that any significant number of people we’re talking about “refuse[] to apply for a permit” is your own invention/speculation.
If there are improvements to be made about the federal work permit process, than by all means those should be pursued. That has nothing to do with end the current practice of erecting obstacles that only make life more difficult for this population.
We are talking about RESIDENTS of Massachusetts. PEOPLE, in many cases CHILDREN. People — and children — who live, work, pay taxes, and attend school here. Your implied dehumanization of these people exemplifies the callousness of today’s GOP.
Regarding your perhaps rhetorical question about NH residents — they live in NH, they and their children can therefore pay in-state tuition at NH colleges and universities. If they want to benefit from in-state tuition rates for the superb Massachusetts public colleges and universities, they are welcome to move Massachusetts whenever they choose.
…and I see nothing in his comment that dehumanizes anybody.
I refer to the typical right-wing Rush Limbaugh-style immigrant-bashing.
Sometimes meaning lies in what is NOT said.
He didn’t say anything about immigrants. He asked if NH residents who work here might also get consideration.
He doesn’t understand why he has to subsidize illegal immigrants who are not citizens or on a oath to citizenship and would rather subsidize people that don’t even live here since they are already American and therefore more deserving. It’s no longer even implied.
So yes, I disagree with his further reply, though I still think his argument regarding people who pay some taxes here is worthy of consideration. With finite resources (and when are resources not finite?), whom we prioritize is always going to be a discussion that needs to be had.
That’s what the regional compact is for . Otherwise, if you are living somewhere else you are a resident somewhere else. Don’t see why non-residents who are American born or naturalized already should get priority over actual long residents. He hasn’t made that argument. But the regional compact is there partly because in a region as small as ours you are more likely to have these cross overs.
Some of us didn’t have to read his further reply to know precisely where his comment was coming from. The topic of the thread is “in-state tuition for immigrants”, so we’re all discussing immigrants. The title of his initial comment (“What about a Legal NH resident”) — note the word “Legal” — makes his attitude clear.
Immigrants — legal or not — pay the same taxes as everybody else. I stand by my comment characterizing his attitude as “dehumanizing” — the only thing that this crowd notices is “immigrant”. All the other red herrings — including taxes — are just that.
In the right-wing Rush Limbaugh world, immigrants join “gays”, “minorities”, “socialists”, and a long list of other groups as second-class people. THAT is the essence of dehumanizing.
Seems like you, not me, are dehumanizing and stereotyping anyone who disagrees with you.
After reading a little bit – I support the law as it now stands which means anyone who gets a “federal work permit” can get in state tuition.
I strongly support immigration to the US – frankly, it’s the only way we will survive as a county. I venture to say 97% of the members of this board are from immigrant families – mine from Germany and the UK.
You want to be the victim, have at it.
…you can’t tell the difference between a thoughtful conservative like roarkarchitect and a wingnut like Limbaugh? I likewise stand by my interpretation of how legal was used while you seem intent on shutting down debate on an important policy item.
I’ve tried to be fairly clear that THIS COMMENT was indistinguishable from those of wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh.
Who said anything about “shutting down debate”? The question on the table is about immigrants who are Massachusetts residents. I’m not willing to be dragged into yet another ridiculous Gish-Gallop — especially regarding NH residents.
I, too, stand by my characterization of his use of “legal” as a dog-whistle for the Limbaugh wing-nut crowd. Maybe that’s an applause line on some right-wing talk radio show — I have no use for it here.
I welcome debate about providing in-state tuition for immigrants who live in Massachusetts. I’ve said absolutely nothing to dilute that.
…like you jumped down roark’s throat for daring to suggest a different demographic take priority and you invoked Limbaugh in no time at all. That feels like an attempt to shut down debate.
Since they are not citizens he doesn’t think they deserve any kind of in state benefits, any non-citizens, even though that are legally documented let alone the undocumented whom I think you and I agree should get these benefits. He even said their ‘home countries’ should pay for them. And that Americans living in NH and RI are more entitled to those benefits than those that have lived and worked most of their lives right here in MA-purely on the arbitrary basis of citizenship.
He injected an actual Howie Carr talking point into this debate and he even owned up to it and spelled it out for you that this was his purpose. He is entitled to that opinion and to expressing it here, but to argue it’s not something spouted by a Carr or Limbaugh is to deny reality. It’s such a well worn right wing trope at this point I’m surprised you didn’t recognize it.
I’m pretty sure that when my brother attended U-Maine he got something of a break for living in MA because the New England states have entered an agreement regarding each other’s state universities. It was not as much of a break as he would have received for being a ME resident, however.
But why would you give preference to a NH resident over a Massachusetts resident? Purely on the arbitrary fact that the NH resident was born in the US and is not an immigrant or child of an immigrant. A person cannot be illegal. It’s dehumanizing to call them illegal immigrants in the first place, and more so to suggest they are less deserving of a MA education than a non-MA resident.
But yes the regional compact is a real thing and it’s good. Until we opened up a law campus at Dartmouth, Maine Law would treat MA students as in-state since we didn’t have a law school. I think the rate is reduced now, but not as generous. A friend from U of C who is a native of New York even got a discount there for being from the wider region-but that might have more to day with retaining talent inside Maine after they are done.
He did not say give NH residents preference over MA residents. I’m sensing some knee-jerkishness against a differently-winged commenter just because he is differently-winged. While I take the point that person’s existences cannot by definition be illegal I think we should also recognize shorthand when we see it. In his sentence “legal” modifies “resident”; the word “person” is nowhere to be found. If you reside here in accordance with the law you are a legal “resident”, if not you are an illegal “resident”, but of course not an illegal person.
He’s rather a NH resident working in MA have access to the in-state benefit than an actual MA resident who happened to be undocumented. That is the clear implication of asking that hypothetical. “Why not give a real American a shot while we are at it”-that’s the gist.
Maybe you don’t have extended family like mine that really gets riled up about “illegal aliens” but I hear questions like that all the time-or about affirmative action that tap into the same old politics of white working class resentment. Rather than blame the CEOs who outsourced the jobs, they yell at the Indian or Filipino on the other end of the phone. Rather than bemoan NAFTA and the politicians and corporations that bought that law-they blame the people picking their lettuce. Rather than end income inequality they resent mythical welfare queens .
This is the narrative we are trying to change. When the dog whistles it does make a sound and it’s up to is to call it out for what it is rather than hope it was something more benign.
Poor old Johnnie Ray
Sounded sad upon the radio
Moved a million hearts in mono
Our mothers cried, sang along
Come On Eileen, Come On Eileen, Come On Eileen, Come On Eileen, Come On Eileen, Come On Eileen, Come On Eileen, Come On Eileen
…that the suggestion he made is completely unworthy of consideration. I don’t think he is doing the things you describe in the second paragraph and I certainly am not. To me a liberal value IS in fact to assume the benign and innocent motives unless or until I have really hard evidence otherwise. I favor in state rates for the children of undocumented immigrants, largely on the premise that they are probably here because their parents brought them when they were young, but I can see where he’s coming from. Being opposed to affirmative action doesn’t make someone a bad person either.
Let us define our terms. “Dog whistle” is a reference to an actual physical thing – a whistle that produces a sound within dogs’ audible range, but too high-pitched for humans to hear. It’s not something the dog does. I used one to train my dog, and it really works.
When used in reference to political speech, it means a phrase or word that evokes a different meaning to some people. The meaning is not explicitly contained in the expression; the people who receive the hidden message have learned it from exposure to it in association with the term, in venues the general public doesn’t visit.
It is sometimes difficult to explain just why something is a dog whistle, which of course the very thing that makes it so useful to politicians signaling the special group. Remember when popular music wasn’t supposed to have references to sex, but many of them had oblique sexual content? It’s like that.
insisting on the supremacy of federal law to keep blue states from offering in-state tuition to their state universities on their own terms.
Right-wing federalism, a one-way street.