Immigrant tuition reopened for debate / LJWorld.com

Kansas Legislature

Since law was approved two years ago, 221 students have benefited from measure

February 2, 2006

Topeka — Opponents and supporters of providing a tuition break for certain illegal immigrants renewed their arguments Wednesday before a Kansas House committee.

Supporters of the lower tuition said many of the students benefiting from the law came into the country illegally as children with their parents.

"I'm not willing to punish the child for the sins of the parents," said Rep. Tom Burroughs, D-Kansas City.

Burroughs was backed by church, Hispanic, education and civic advocacy groups.

But opponents who want to repeal the measure say it rewards people who are in the country illegally.

"We are a country of laws," said Rep. Judy Morrison, R-Shawnee. She added that those who testified in favor of resident tuition for illegal immigrants made her feel uncomfortable.

"They seem to be here to make us feel guilty," she said.

Since the law was approved two years ago, 221 students have benefited from the measure. At Kansas University, two students were enrolled under the law in 2004 and four in 2005.

Many of the same arguments for and against the statute made in 2004 were repeated Wednesday before the House Federal and State Affairs Committee.

After the nearly two-hour meeting, committee chairman John Edmonds, R-Great Bend, said he didn't know what he would do with the repeal measure.

"We'll have to wait and see where the votes are," Edmonds said.

Rep. Becky Hutchins, R-Holton, filed the repeal bill, saying: "This is not a racial issue. But there is something wrong when a U.S. citizen is denied an opportunity of getting something an illegal alien can get."

Currently, only residents of Kansas are eligible for the resident tuition rate. Resident tuition at KU for a full-time undergraduate is $2,412 per semester; it's $6,638 for nonresident students.

The 2004 law allows some illegal immigrants to qualify for resident tuition if they attended a Kansas high school for at least three years and graduated or earned a general educational development certificate in Kansas. Also, they must be seeking legal immigration status.

Supporters of the law said it would help children of illegal immigrants advance to college and become more productive members of society.

Cindy Perez, 18, a student at Pittsburg State University, said she would not have been able to attend college if she had to pay the higher nonresident tuition.

"My future is in your hands," Perez said. She said she has lived in Kansas for more than 12 years. "I consider Kansas to be my home."

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

2 February 2006
at 7:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

She may consider Kansas to be here home but she's still here illegally. Now that I live on the Missouri side why should my child have to pay non-resident tuition just because some illegal that snuck across the border wants to go for free. We even know she's here illegally now so let's send her back.
2 February 2006
at 10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“There is something wrong when a U.S. citizen is denied an opportunity of getting something an illegal alien can get.”

No KANSAN is deprived of anything that these aliens “can get.” Does Rep. Hutchins favor eliminating “out of state” tuition? Of course not, just depriving these residents of Kansas of state benefit. Kansas has ZERO obligations to citizens of other states as Kris Kobach found out in federal court when trying to peddle this same theory (and to think that he gets paid to be a law professor).

Kansas has ZERO obligation to execute the federal government's responsibilities (other than not to impede federal authorities). Indeed, conservative Kansas would the first to sue if some lazy feds tried to force it on Kansas by dumping some unfunded mandate into our backyard. Any time the INS wants to take on the herculean task of deporting every immigrant without adequate cover of law, let them go ahead!

Of course the matter not racial. It is merely a coincidence that 100% of the people in question are from a specific racial/national-origin. I'm positive that if illegal Swedes were swarming across Kansas, cleaning our toilets, cutting our meat, flipping our burgers, and such, we'd be just as up in arms about their treachery.
2 February 2006
at 12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ejh0486 (Anonymous) says…

“No KANSAN is deprived of anything that these aliens “can get.” Does Rep. Hutchins favor eliminating “out of state” tuition? Of course not, just depriving these residents of Kansas of state benefit.”

If you note, she actually says “US Citizen,” not Kansan. If you are a Kansan, and are living here legally, you get in-state tuition. However, if you are from Missouri (thus, a US Citizen) and are living in the US legally, you have to pay out-of-state tuition. BUT, if you are an illegal alien, you get in-state tuition. How does that work? If I lived in Missouri I would be very angry that I had to pay $4,000 more a semester than someone who never took the time or legal steps to become a citizen.

“Of course the matter not racial. It is merely a coincidence that 100% of the people in question are from a specific racial/national-origin.”

Actually you could consider it a coincidence since this bill actually refers to ALL illegal immigrants, not just hispanics. It just so happens that in Kansas, most illegal immigrants are from hispanic countries. However, I don't even know if that is true. They may just be the ethnic group that is taking advantage of this benefit.

You should read the article (and previous articles) more closely and clearly before just typing something.
2 February 2006
at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ejh0486 (Anonymous) says…

Why not, you have to jump through that many hoops just to get a driver's license. It seems only fair.
2 February 2006
at 1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Todd (Anonymous) says…

If anything Kansas should be trying to attract immigrants. (illegal or otherwise)
2 February 2006
at 1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ljreader (Anonymous) says…

Proponents of in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants always want to argue that these kids have spent most of their lives in Kansas, and have been attending Kansas schools for most of their lives.
What I don't understand is, why were the illegals allowed to enroll their children in our schools to begin with?
If an American citizen (who is also a fugitive of the law )came forward to enroll his kids, fill out a job ap, etc., that person would be promptly arrested.
Sending them back to their homes right then and there (when they attempt to enroll their kids in schools) would kill the argument of how these kids are entitled to Kansas residency status later on down the line.
I also think this is a slap in the face of immigrants who follow the law and do all that is expected of them to be here legally. Why should they bother? Their illegal counterparts are enjoying priviledges they do not have.
We have immigration laws. They need to be enforced. Criminal activity should not be rewarded.
2 February 2006
at 2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

I'd be willing to grant them the right to in-state tuition after the naturalization process was completed, but not before, I think.

It's not enough for me that they be seeking citizenship and engaged in the process. A lot of Americans wait a few years to go to college for financial reasons, because they get married and have children, because they want some work experience, whatever. It won't hurt these kids to wait until the naturalization process is completed. At that point, I'm not opposed to considering them Kansas residents for tuition purposes.

In-state tuition is, in essence, having the taxpayers pick up part of the cost of your education, because you get a lower rate and the University receives state funding in exchange for not charging you more.

I don't think it's at all fair that an illegal immigrant get a subsidized education right out of high school that's not available to someone graduating from high school in, say, New Jersey.

So, Cindy Perez of Pittsburg State University, who feels that her life depends on being able to get a college education, and feels that unless the state subsidizes that education as it would for a legal citizen, her future is ruined, I'll pick the path of compassion and say I don't think you should be deported, as you didn't choose to break that law yourself. I just don't think the taxpayers of Kansas should be subsidizing your education while you rectify your parents' crime. Put off college and work a couple of years, get your citizenship, and then complete your degree. You'll be no less the worse for the extra life experience, and if the education means that much to you, why, then it can just be a motivating factor in fulfilling the criteria of your citizenship.

2 February 2006
at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

The idea of delaying a college education is fine, except that non-traditional students frequently have trouble adjusting to college with 18 year olds. Not all, of course, but many. They have greater expenses than many traditional-age students and less family help to fall back on. The social networks that help a student straight out of high school are weakened over time. Every year a person waits to go to college, it becomes less likely that they will go to college. Additionally, first-generation college students are always less likely to succeed, and I think we could all agree that the children of illegal immigrants will overwhelmingly fall into that category. So, we can make those children wait to go to college and endanger the chance they they ever will go, or if they do go, that they will graduate, or we can give them an opportunity to succeed and better their own lives. Or we can just deport them. I mean that would solve all of our problems, right?

In-state tuition, by the way, is reflective of the costs borne by all residents of a state through sales and income tax. Obviously the families of most illegal immigrants are not paying income tax, but they're also likely paid too little to owe any in the first place. They are, however, contributing through sales taxes, which the residents of the state of Missouri are not.
2 February 2006
at 3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ljreader (Anonymous) says…

Questions:
1) Why are illegals allowed to enroll their children in public schools to begin with? Are they not required to prove citizenship?
2) We keep hearing how illegals are underpaid. Presumably, they are not able, then, to afford college educations for their children, in-state, or not. So, are these people not only getting in-state tuition that law abiding American citizens are denied- but in addition to this, are they getting student loans and/ or Pell grants from our government?
Just wondering.
2 February 2006
at 5:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ljreader (Anonymous) says…

Ok- some simple research answered my own second question. Illegals are not allowed to get federal or state aid. Seems right, but in light of all the other social services, etc that are extended to them, I had to wonder-
If the illegal immigrant families are paying their kids college tuition by working at low paying jobs nobody else wants(?), they're doing alot better than alot of Americans with good paying jobs. They must be good at stretching a buck.
2 February 2006
at 6:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

What really bugs me is the thought of what all the haters on this story and in the Legislature would do if we decided illegals shouldn't pay any taxes.

I mean, if they shouldn't be allowed in our schools, shouldn't be allowed in-state tuition in the state they live in, shouldn't be allowed services, then why should they be forced to pay taxes?

Why should their hard earned money go to support my kids and my infrastructure?

As for ejh's hating - referencing kansans instead of US Citizens is proving a point about state rights and the amount of control states have over their own finances and their own institutions. He was chastizing Rep. Hutchins for not recognizing that control.

You are the one who should read before you start typing, pal.

As for Badger's hating - Regents Universities operate on block grants. The deliniation between “in-state” and “out of state” has no effect on the level of state funding they receive. Sorry, pal.
2 February 2006
at 7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ljreader (Anonymous) says…

Dirkleisure,
They are not forced to pay taxes- They are not forced to be here at all. They snuck in.
Much of the money they earn is not being put back into our economy- It is sent back home to Mexico. This is why the Mexican government has actually published comic books, etc. with directions on how to cross the border- The Mexican economy gains billions of dollars per year from money sent there by illegal workers in the states.
If illegal immigrants are good for our economy, then why are California, New Mexico, and Arizona going broke because of it?
I am not seeing the “hate” you refer to- I see people frustrated that we have immigration laws that our leaders are either unwilling or unable to enforce- yet we, as taxpayers, are forced to subsidize the consequences.
2 February 2006
at 7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Why is there a different rate for “in state” and “out of state?”
2 February 2006
at 7:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

ljreader, the FAIR Tax would solve the illegal immigration problem. If everyone paid the same tax on their own consumption, rather than tax on their income, the US would not be such an attractive destination for people from other countries who are looking for under-the-table paychecks and unearned entitlements.

FAIR tax. Read about it. Love it. www.fairtax.org
2 February 2006
at 8:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

New Mexico's next balanced budget will likely include $385M in new spending, with tax breaks that are halfway phased-in. Broke? Nope. http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/200…

Arizona added almost 100,000 jobs last year, both retail spending and personal income increased by 8%, and housing starts outperformed expectations. Broke? Nope.
http://www.asu.edu/news/stories/20051…

Only California can be said to be faing real economic trouble, and even there they are incresing spending in a balanced budget. http://www.lao.ca.gov/PubDetails.aspx… (I've only linked the summary, but the full report is also available)

Why are illegal immigrants good for our economy? Because none of us wants to pay $10 for a tomato. Even President Bush recognizes the importance of illegal and migrant workers, particularly to our agribusiness. According to The Urban Institute, Kansas has 50k-75k illegal/undocumented workers in the state. What do you think would happen to our farms without them?

Incidentally, the federal government estimates that we get $6-7B per year from illegal immigrants in payroll taxes, money that the immigrants cannot collect.

2 February 2006
at 8:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

Godot—

Do we need to have a lesson on why/how regressive taxation punishes the underclass and increases the rich/poor gap and makes it increasingly difficult for people to improve their lives? Sales/consumption taxes are the perfect example of regressive taxation.
2 February 2006
at 9:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

That is such an old argument that I used to mouth it myself. Read the book.
2 February 2006
at 10:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

Start with a basic analysis of what “FairTax” would do. The price of every product you buy now goes up 23%. Only it goes up more than that because 23% of the purchase price is tax, whereas the price goes up more than that. A product that is $1 would cost $1.30 (30 cents=23%), so the price has jumped 30%. Even Americans for Fair Taxation grant that “23%” is a myth.

One more group of folks who dispute 23% sit on the President's tax reform panel. To replace current revenue while maintaining tax exemptions on the goods that are typically exempt under state sales taxes (like medicine, food, clothing, etc.), a national sales tax would have to be set between 64 and 87%. That tax would still have to be paid upfront. The rebate would be calculated on a national basis as well, so people in places with higher costs of living would still get shafted.

One of the key arguments in the book is that the price of paying people will drop, so the price of doing business will fall, so pre-tax prices would fall. The only way that happens, however, is if wages fall as well. So, to get this tax to work, you get paid less. Incidentally, the authors of the book have been forced to acknowledge this error and will include a correction in future editions.

Additionally, the cost of business does go up since now everyone selling anything has to register with the federal government to send the appropriate tax receipts. Compliance costs would skyrocket, particularly for small-business owners.

Finally, I'd say the “Fair Tax” stifles innovation. As a consumer, I have no incentive to buy new stuff, which means the incentive to make new stuff goes away as well. Oh yeah, the housing industry eats it too. New houses? Pay at least 30% sales tax. Buy the house from someone else? No sales tax.

Read the book? I did. Then I figured I might want exposure to more than one opinion, particularly when that opinion comes primarily from a radio personality.
3 February 2006
at 9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

EJH -

I thank you for review.

I'm quite aware of what the contents of the article were. I'm sorry that you did not grasp my (un)subtle demonstration that there was neither a (1) legal basis for the statement nor (2) a moral one for kansans.

Perhaps emphasizing the choice Kansas does not have will clarify the issue: it is NOT whether Kansas should either benefit these aliens or the aliens should leave. It should be perfectly clear that Kansas, which probably has NEVER in its history been free of immigrants without adequate cover of law, is not going to be alien-free in our lifetimes. Would you rather have a 19 year old in school or on the streets? (You do not get to chose, btw, that you want them out of the U.S.)

For those Kansans who, under cover of their OTHER citizenship in the United States, are concerned that the United States does not enforce its immigration laws adequately, I suggest writing to your two Senators and your Congressman. But until the United States takes action (or when pigs fly), Kansas has to deal with reality.
3 February 2006
at 12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

dirkleisure -

Hating?

Hardly.

They're in process to become citizens. I'm glad to see that. I'd like everyone who wants to come to this country to be able to, frankly, because I think that if you're willing to pick up your family and take them to an entirely new country to give them a better shot at life, you have the sort of spirit and ambition I want more Americans to have, not less. Don't throw around words like 'hate' unless you really know who you're talking to and about, sweetcheeks. It's a pretty dirty word in my book.

Bubarubu

I admit that nontraditional students have more hurdles than traditional ones. Address that, rather than insisting that non-citizens get resident benefits. Doesn't a farm kid from Independence who has to work a few years to save for college (because loans don't really cover tuition, books, *and* living expenses unless you want to be paying them off for fifteen years) also deserve the same chance to succeed? It's OK for him to be nontrad and nobody's up in arms to defend programs that would make it easier for him to go to college right out of high school, but there's a different standard for someone who needs to wait to resolve immigration status? I don't agree.

You think kids that delay don't get a fair shake, don't make that a cultural or ethnic issue, make it an educational one. Advocate fixing that.

One more for dirkleisure -

So the State of Kansas doesn't fund the University of Kansas at all? Huh, who knew? The amount of money that they get from taxes has nothing to do with the rates they set for tuition? I didn't know that.

So, when they come before the Legislature hat in hand, saying they'll have to raise tuition (sometimes in-state, sometimes out-state, sometimes both) if they don't get more tax money, how's that work again? Is it just a red herring to get more funding for porn?
3 February 2006
at 2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ljreader (Anonymous) says…

Actually, according to a recent (and lengthy) report by Steve Camarota, illegal immigrant workers only reduce consumer prices less than 4/10 of 1%. So, without them, a tomato will not cost $10.
They pay very little in income taxes because of low wages, and combined with large family sizes,they collect tons of money in Earned Income Credit.
After you figure in the fact that most have no health insurance, and many take advantage of social services, the financial benefit gained by illegal immigrants is far outweighed by the costs of having them here.
Although it is true that they take jobs many Americans do not want- they are competing for jobs with the already poorest of American workers. Besides taking the jobs the poorest and least educated Americans would take, the rate of pay for these jobs have declined as a direct result of illegal immigrant workers-
In addition to this, many who come here are not just taking the lower paying farm jobs away from American workers- Many are now taking better paying construction work.

If we are going to allow in-state tuition for people who are not even legal American citizens, then we should just drop charging a differing amount for everyone. It just isn't fair to our own out- of -state American citizens to pay more than people who have come here through illegal means- even if it were through the deeds of their parents.Mexico needs to take care of their own economy somehow, and stop depending on the parasitic relationship it has now with the US.
3 February 2006
at 4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

badger—

I don't think we should ignore the plight of rural students, but no one's targeting rural students right now. They can take out federal loans, unlike illegal immigrants, and the barriers are very different. That said, there are programs to help rural students make the adjustment. KU now has a student group (Kansas Connections) for students from small towns. Both of my previous institutions had similar programs. There is more than a little research into first-generation students, and lots of academic support tailored specifically to them. People aren't getting up in arms about those programs because they're not being threatened.

Incidentally, I don't see where I made this a cultural or ethnic issue. At the point that the majority of illegal immigrants in Kansas, and thus the subjects of the relevant legislation, are Hispanic/Latino, the debate has ethnic implications. None of my comments, however, are unique to immigrants or Latinos. Any solution that would force rural students to wait to go college, or Christian students, of female students, or any other class, I would oppose on the same grounds. Take the race card back, you're playing with the wrong deck.
3 February 2006
at 5:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

I think it is important to point out that Steve Camarota, of the Center for Immigration Studies, favors little or no immigration, regardless of whether immigrants are legal.

CIS (and others) have put out a variety of paperwork claiming that immigrants create burdens that are not matched by contributions. These claims have been attacked both by the right and the left. Indeed, the Cato Institute, a conservative but respected think-tank, estimated that foreign-born workers in the U.S. will contribute as much as $2 trillion to Social Security over the next 70 years, effectively creating what little solvency the program will have. The immigrants who do not have adequate cover of the law do not collect back any of this money.

Ironically, most of those who are the out-spoken refuse to support (even when W proposes it) legal worker programs. After all, there wouldn't be illegal immigration if no jobs could be found because they were filled already with legal workers.