Archive for Sunday, November 21, 2010

Kobach challenging in-state tuition rates for undocumented students

Former Kansas Republican Party chairman Kris Kobach on Tuesday filed to run for his party's nomination for Kansas secretary of state.

Former Kansas Republican Party chairman Kris Kobach on Tuesday filed to run for his party's nomination for Kansas secretary of state.

November 21, 2010

Advertisement

Students enrolled in fall 2010 under provisions of a Kansas law extending in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria.

Public universities

Emporia State University — 2

Fort Hays State University — 25

Kansas University (including KU Medical Center) — 14

Kansas State University — 15

Pittsburg State University — 1

Washburn University — 1

Wichita State University — 4

Public university subtotal: 62

Community colleges

Allen County — 0

Barton County — 8

Butler County — 63

Cloud County — 0

Coffeyville — 0

Colby — 0

Cowley County — 0

Dodge City — 17

Fort Scott — 2

Garden City — 15

Highland — 0

Hutchinson — 8

Independence — 2

Johnson County — 84

Kansas City, Kan. — 55

Labette — 0

Neosho County — 0

Pratt — 1

Seward County — 68

Community College subtotal: 323

Technical institutions

Flint Hills Technical College — 10

Manhattan Area Technical College — 0

North Central Kansas Technical College — 0

Northwest Kansas Technical College — 0

Salina Area Technical College — 4

Wichita Area Technical College — 14

Technical Institution subtotal: 28

Grand Total: 413

Kansas Secretary of State-elect Kris Kobach is challenging a California law that provides in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants who qualify under a certain set of rules and regulations.

Though the California Supreme Court upheld the law this week, Kobach told the San Francisco Chronicle he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and said California loses millions of dollars each year because the state doesn’t require undocumented students to pay the out-of-state rate. He called the ruling “very weak.”

Kansas is one of 10 states with such laws that could be affected by the outcome of the case. In all, 413 such students are enrolled this fall at the state’s public universities, community colleges and technical institutions. Kansas University and KU Medical Center have 14 students who receive in-state tuition under the law.

The law, which passed in 2004, allows undocumented immigrants to receive in-state tuition if they:

• Have attended a Kansas high school for three or more years.

• Have graduated from a Kansas high school or obtained a GED certificate in Kansas.

• Have filed an affidavit stating the student — or the student’s parents — has filed an application to legalize the student’s immigration status or for citizenship or will do so as soon as the person is eligible to do so.

The number of students benefiting from the law has risen since 2005, when 221 students were enrolled under the law’s provisions.

Gary Sherrer, chairman of the Kansas Board of Regents, said that it was in the best interest of the state for young people — who came to the state when they were very young — to have access to a good education.

He said it would be “nonsense” to penalize these students for a decision they had no control over.

“I personally find it repugnant that these young men and women who have proven themselves are being batted around for purely political motives,” Sherrer said.

More than three-fourths of the students who benefit from the law are enrolled in community colleges. Only 62 are at the state’s public universities.

Many of those students are caught in the middle and can’t apply for citizenship yet when they apply for college, Sherrer said. When these students do become citizens, Sherrer said, he wants them to have as much education as possible so they can contribute to the state.

Kobach, who is involved in other out-of-state lawsuits involving illegal immigration, also helped draft an Arizona anti-immigration law that gained national attention earlier this year.

He did not respond to calls or e-mail seeking comment for this story.

Jack Martin, a KU spokesman, deferred questions to the regents, who set legislative proposals for the state’s higher education system.

“It’s a state law, so we’re following state law,” Martin said. “It’s not something that’s on our radar as far as changing it.”

At KU, Kansas residents pay $7,875 in tuition for an average yearly course load, while nonresidents pay $20,680.50.

Comments

atavism 5 years, 6 months ago

Given I no longer live in Kansas, normally I wouldn't care what agendas and laws a KS state official decides to pursue. However, since it now looks like Kobach may have some national reach, it pains me to think that you idiots elected this nimrod. Well done for proving, once again, that Kansas is a cultural, intellectual and increasingly an economic back water whose only contribution to the rest of the world is wheat and a bunch mean-spirited, greedy white men who fancy themselves as political activists.

somebodynew 5 years, 6 months ago

atavism - while I understand your statements about "you idiots elected this nimrod", I for one want to stand up and say that while (some) people might classify me as a idiot, I certainly did NOT vote for this nimrod.

willie_wildcat 5 years, 6 months ago

somebodynew- Unfortunately the majority in this state are idiots....Just look at who will be ascending to Topeka in January gag

somebodynew 5 years, 6 months ago

Unfortuately, I am aware of that all too well, willie. All too well...

BlackVelvet 5 years, 6 months ago

so, because they have a viewpoint that differs from yours, they are idiots???? how closed minded of you.

willie_wildcat 5 years, 6 months ago

atavism - You assumption that everyone in the state voted for this blundering idiot is purely misconcieved! While there are those (and there were many) who voted for this attention whore, I was one of the few who possessed the common sense NOT to cast my vote for him!

Liberty275 5 years, 6 months ago

"Given I no longer live in Kansas"

Nobody cares where you live.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 6 months ago

"Nobody cares where you live." Until he/she makes a statement about this state that ticks you off. Then it's "You have no right to say anything. You don't live here and it doesn't affect you."

Liberty275 5 years, 6 months ago

I don't think anyone could say anything about kansas that would tick me off. OTOH, anyone saying positive things about this little backwater cornfield is lying and that's pretty annoying.

begin60 5 years, 6 months ago

People in KS certainly don't seem to care in any real way about others.

verity 5 years, 6 months ago

I call voter fraud. I think he needs to investigate himself first.

PortTabacco 5 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

kcaj 5 years, 6 months ago

So, let me get this straight. Kobach thinks that illegals shouldn't be here. The media thinks they should & because most of the people buy in to the media then zippy here thinks we should all be for illegals. Nah, not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent. This guy has more guts than anyone in Lawrence- thank God. He's going down a different path- one that the forefathers blazed. Godspeed Kobach, you gotta lotta people that are "enlightened" to deal with. They watched Matt Lauer & Katie Couric!

tjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Why is it that Lawrence liberals think that anyone who thinks differently then they do is an "idiot"? It appears to me that your ignorance is showing when the best you can do to make your argument is stoop to name calling.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Well I guess you maggot infested liberals can just spew your hate and think we don't hear you. Kobach represents the views of not just a majority of Kansans but also a majority of people across the U.S. who believe that you should, in fact, be a citizen of this State and the country before you get all the benefits! I think the liberal mind is so twisted that it just can't see the facts anymore.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Liberalism is a mental disorder if you can't understand why we don't want illegals to get benefits reserved for taxpayers and citizens!

Richard Heckler 5 years, 6 months ago

Perhaps the U.S. Attorney General needs to keep an eye on this man and his personal agendas.

PortTabacco 5 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Perhaps you should think about suggesting threats before you do so...

christy kennedy 5 years, 6 months ago

So we're taking about kids who want access to a slightly less prohibitively expensive education who, with that education (though it's no guarantee for any of us), will likely be more self-sufficient and productive, tax-paying members of society? Yes let's try to ream a certain percentage of them who didn't have the foresight to be born on the right side of an imaginary line. Good lord. There are much better ways to save money.

overthemoon 5 years, 6 months ago

agree. Just like his voter fraud paranoia, Kobach is intent on fighting battles that don't matter. What is his real agenda? And Brownback's?

WHY 5 years, 6 months ago

So why do we charge Nebraskans more than Mexicans. If what you say is true we should do away with out of state for all classes of people.

pittstatebb 5 years, 6 months ago

Because, for better or worse, they are not "Mexicans". They are Kansans. That is why we charge them less than Nebraskans. The question should be, If these students graduate and gain meaningful unemployment in the state is the state making its money back?

PS. I really hope you don't go through life calling every Hispanic "Mexican".

WHY 5 years, 6 months ago

I do not call all Hispanics Mexican. Mexico is a country and I used it as an example. I think it is funny that you immediately assume that because I refer to people from that country that I am an ignorant racist. The point I make is simple, why do we treat people who are not citizens of this country--Mexicans-- differently than we treat our own citizens--Nebraskans. If the are "for better or worse" Kansans then we should give them automatic citizenship for being here if that is all that it takes.

MyName 5 years, 6 months ago

Well yeah, unless the Nebraskans decide to move across that line for a year and then they can pay in-state tuition just like any other resident. The law is still much more stringent on the immigrants since it requires them to have lived 3 years instead of just one year and to have graduated with a Kansas H.S. Diploma.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

These "Mexicans" grew up in Kansas and graduated from Kansas high schools.

And any Nebraskan who wants to get in-state tuition merely needs to move to Kansas and establish residency.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Don't you think it's weird that you can be a lawful resident of KS and get in-state tuition rates if you're not a legal resident of the US?

I do.

overthemoon 5 years, 6 months ago

And we have a large population of immigrants, some legal, some not, from Somalia, Vietnam, and any number of other non-hispanic countries. And as the climate changes and water and food become more scarce, we're going to have a lot more. Get used to it folks.

And we ought to charge Nebraskans triple... ; o

opchick 5 years, 6 months ago

Because Nebraskans have not paid taxes or contributed to the economic well being of Kansas. That's why. In order to be eligible for in-state tuition in Kansas, these children who are only guilty of not being born north of the Rio Grande must be graduates of Kansas high schools AND their parents must be paying income tax in Kansas. They also must be working on citizenship.

But go ahead and ignore all of that and just think of them as Mexicans. That statement actually says more about you than about them.

Now if any student from Nebraska can prove he/she has paid taxes in Kansas, then by all means, they should also get in-state tuition rates.

redneck 5 years, 6 months ago

They are here illegally, and they can thank their parents for that. They shouldn't be allowed to even go to grade school, unless they are here legally. They are not paying thier fair share (I said fair share) of taxes, so they should not be receiving any services that us taxpayers help pay for. Let me clairify, they are not paying ALL of the taxes they should be paying. The government would me to prison, if I decided that I should only pay sales/property taxes. That is because I'm here legally, and they know I'm here.

PortTabacco 5 years, 6 months ago

ckennedy, That Border LINE represents your butt not being in danger 24 hours a day! The border line has always been there because the Apache Indians would have roasted the brains of Mexicans for having entered their Apache territory. Native Americans and Mexicans never got along. You are aware of a law the Mexican government placed on Apache Indians? It was called PROJECT FOR WAR in the 1800's! The Mexican government mandated bounties on the scalps of Apache Indians. It's called GENOCIDE. There was always war between Mexico and the Apaches for generations. There was never an imaginary line between our territory and Mexico. Mexicans knew to stay out of certain territory. Mexico placed it's stinking flag on southwest territory for only 26 years before the U.S. Cavalry chased these bums out! Only idiots like you believe there was a friendship going on back and forth! Still watching Barney and Friends?

Robert Rauktis 5 years, 6 months ago

The Apaches still hate the Mexicanos. Just like many of the plains tribes preferred Canadians to this side of the line. The lines aren't imaginary. They demarcate lines of responsibility. Like "why am I responsible for their breeding problems?" Along those lines, the Brits give tons of charitable money to India who is leaching their jobs. What a joke.

sustainabilitysister 5 years, 6 months ago

There were and are Native Americans all over Mexico. I am a KU grad, born and raised in Lawrence and currently work and live in Mexico. You should come down to the beautiful and vast country of Mexico. It's worth experiencing. The people and their culture are quite lovely.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Why should a poor child from West Virginian not receive the same benefit that the child of an illegal gets? Think about what you are advocating? If illegals get the benefits then so should out of state poor children and did you forget???? That is the law.?

geekyhost 5 years, 6 months ago

Being excluded from contributing to society based on the mistakes of your parents seems more unfair.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

So what about the poor from other states in U.S.? Their situation seems unfair as well! Guess we should extend in state tuition benefits to them don't you agree??? That seems more "FAIR" what are we doing making laws based upon our personal "feelings"?

notanota 5 years, 6 months ago

The poor in other states are serviced by those other states as well as being eligible for Federal financial aid and other need based scholarships that undocumented students can't receive. In addition, many states have matriculation agreements that allow in-state tuition for certain degree programs.

Far from being legislation on "feelings," this is a practical measure that will improve circumstances for all of us. Those aliens aren't going home, no matter how many patrol agents you put out there, and chances are their kids are going to be US citizens. It's good sense to allow those who made the effort to graduate from high school the chance to work hard and earn a degree and a path to skilled work and legal citizenship. Legislating based on "feelings" would be to just whine that getting a slight discount on tuition is somehow unfair to out of state students.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 6 months ago

When I attended KU the rule was I had to pay out of state tuition until I had established RESIDENCY in the state for more than one year. These people are residents. Special treatment does, indeed, seem to be going on and it is heartbreaking. Some day (soon enough) the idea of white entitlement and supremacy will crawl back under the rock it deserves to be hidden under. For now, it is ascendant and celebrated by the ignorant.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Come on.

If you're not a legal US resident, you shouldn't be considered a legal KS resident either, especially for the purpose of gaining lower tuition rates.

I don't care what color the various individuals are - it just doesn't make sense.

And, it obviously gives a significant benefit (the tuition rate is about 2 1/2 times lower than out of state residents) to illegal aliens, than to American citizens who happen to live in another state.

overthemoon 5 years, 6 months ago

what about kids who have no choice in the matter, work hard, do well in school, and consider themselves Americans?

fu7il3 5 years, 6 months ago

You can consider yourself something all you want, it doesn't necessarily make it so. I could consider myself president of the United States and no one is going care about my views on health care.

It's not like they are saying they shouldn't be allowed to go to college at all. Just that they have to pay out of state tuition. How is it fair that a kid from MO who had no choice in the matter, works hard, and does well in school has to pay out of state tuition. while people hear illegally pay in-state?

MyName 5 years, 6 months ago

Yes it is fair, since the taxes from the "kid from MO" go into Missouri's coffers while the taxes from the legal residents from Kansas do not. If there was a compact where MO paid KS for educating MO students, it would be different, but there isn't.

opchick 5 years, 6 months ago

So you don't want their tax dollars? In these tough economic times, I don't understand why any source of revenue would be refused and just to make a political point.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

If that's for me, I'd say that people who are here illegally should be deported.

And that those who are trying to get here legally should have the first chance to do so.

Rewarding illegal behavior will only tend to increase it, according to behavioral psychology.

Is that what we want to do?

notanota 5 years, 6 months ago

Yes. How dare they have had parents who took them here when they were young and had no say in the matter. We shouldn't reward them for getting an education with the caveat that they must be seeking a legal path to citizenship. We should, instead, force them to remain in hiding and make sure that their children, who ARE legal citizens, grow up without the advantage of educated parents.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

We should deport them.

And allow those who attempt to come here legally to have the first and best chance to do so.

These sorts of amnesty programs are analogous to finding someone has broken into your home, and offering them some cookies for doing so.

notanota 5 years, 6 months ago

Yes. We should keep up with the expensive and futile efforts that have worked so well in the past. Take that, face!

redneck 5 years, 6 months ago

It's not about race dude! It's all about M O N E Y! Let me say that again. It's all about M O N E Y!

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

We just want everyone to be treated fairly. A poor child from W. Va. should be given the same favored treatment as the children of illegals? Citizenship should mean something. I think the you need to evaluate where the racism is coming from in society today--hint-- you will find it mostly on the left.

Scott Morgan 5 years, 6 months ago

• Have graduated from a Kansas high school or obtained a GED certificate in Kansas. Or, GED? Is it true even with a GED the student has to attend 3 years at a Kansas school?

Being here illegally is breaking the law.

California was scammed badly by the offer of liberal in state tuition. I maybe wrong, but think they still offer this. If a high school student earns a certain GPA, at least community college is free. New Mexico has a program like this too.

The scam was finding suitable residence for Mexican/other higher level kids seeking a better education in California. Maybe an aunt and uncle, maybe somebody for hire. Then taking advantage of the taxpayer funded education program by illegally sending a child to live.

If you really think about it, add up the costs of high school and college and think of it as theft. Not petty theft either. Kansas taxpayers offer very generous financial aid grants too.

somebodynew 5 years, 6 months ago

Corky, I certainly hope you are being sarcastic (hard to tell in writing), because otherwise you are delusional. Not that there wouldn't be more money, just that it would actually reach teachers. These idiots would find "other" uses for it.

MyName 5 years, 6 months ago

1) It is breaking a Federal law, not a state law. 2) How is anyone being 'scammed'? We pay to educate all of the young people in this state. In fact, up until a certain age attending school is compulsory. Clearly there is some benefit to making sure people who live here have some education, and yet you're claiming that a 15 year old kid (which is when the requirements for this start) should fend for him or herself and head to Mexico just so it can make you feel better about them having out of state tuition.

It's ridiculous. Especially when you consider that there are probably more students from China at KU or KSU then there are students affected by this law.

cowboy 5 years, 6 months ago

Perhaps Kansas needs a new law that dictates elected officials not have outside interests and dedicate their energy full time to the State of Kansas.

captainzeep 5 years, 6 months ago

Brownback eventually must reel Kobach in to some degree. These are not particularly important or mainstream issues he is pursuing.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 6 months ago

Note also this article does not give cost spreads for the other schools, but for the 14 students at KU, he's tilting at windmills for roughly $180K. And mind you, these are some of the better students in the state. Would not $180K be a good investment toward future productivity?

Also, I assume this effort would take up at least 1/2 to perhaps a full FTE in the AG's office. What about exercising some of this republican discipline we always hear about and cut the size of your office?

Jimo 5 years, 6 months ago

I've noted before that "constitutional scholar" Kobach seems to know little about the Constitution. He's lost in federal court before on this same scam. It was about Kansas' same policy. Hello!! Editor!! How can you write an article on this topic and not mention the local precedent?

As to appealing to the Supreme Court, surely there are a dozen law professors at KU and several dozen experienced attorneys you could call for a comment to explain how silly and improbable it is that the Supremes have the slightest interest in taking up a podunk issue from a circus barker.

Scott Morgan 5 years, 6 months ago

Kobach is not in office yet and not using Kansas tax money.

For the folks who dislike Kobach there's a silver lining. Most in the know think he will be in Washington soon enough.

Funny thing, we worry about Kobach using state funds when we pay at times for illegal immigrants health, food, housing, and education.

Kobach is thinking about high taxes, health care and jobs.

There aint no such thing as a free lunch. Think big.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 6 months ago

"Kobach is thinking about high taxes, health care and jobs." Lol!!!!!!!!!! Just leave that where it landed.

kernal 5 years, 6 months ago

wissmo, you may want to look up the duties of the Secretary of State in Kansas, because sometimes you need to look at what's in the box before you attempt to think out of the box.

Clara Westphal 5 years, 6 months ago

There is a federal law that states no non-citizen shall be given something not also granted to a citizen.

If this were enforced, no out-of-state student would be charged more than the illegals who benefit from the lower tuition.

geekyhost 5 years, 6 months ago

Citizens are already eligible for in state tuition. All they have to do is go to a Kansas high school for three years or earn their diploma here. Nobody's excluded based on citizenship status.

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 6 months ago

Good grief Mr. Hyland, if you want to write an article about California litigation, and then drop in some facts and quotes about Kansas' law, you've missed it. You left out a significant part of the story for your Kansas readers.

That part is that Kobach has already challenged Kansas' tuition law, and he lost that challenge, and also lost his appeal on that challenge. This is rather central to trying to connect your lead to the Kansas experience.

Kolbach regularly declares many laws "weak" and "unconstitutional." And many courts have told him he is wrong. Including courts in Kansas. Please include that in your reporting when you want to speculate about the impact of California cases in Kansas.

Sunny Parker 5 years, 6 months ago

I want all the benefits the illegals get. I don't want to pay taxes or pay for health insurance! I want free college too!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

The "illegals" don't get any of the things you list.

tomatogrower 5 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

geekyhost 5 years, 6 months ago

That's easy. Be dirt poor, and you'll get your tax withholding returned (documentation required) , you'll be eligible for Medicaid (citizen documentation required), and you can get Pell Grants (citizenship/visa documentation required) to pay for college (as long as you only go someplace cheap. )

Problem solved. Hope you like potato soup.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 6 months ago

Write your republican legislators and tell them that you want strong enforcement of illegal hiring practices. If traitorous employers were not employing these immigrants, then all the wrongs you imagine would not even be possible. For some reason, however, the republicans never seem to do anything that actually results in less illegal immigration. Is it because they like having the political issue? Or because their wealthy backers like having a class of people who will underbid American citizens on wages? Start doing something about the root of the issue and you will have less to complain about.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 6 months ago

It's only 917 miles from Topeka to Larado. Put the illegals on a bus now and they could be back in Mexico by supper time.

Scott Drummond 5 years, 6 months ago

And a thousand more are being funneled up here at the same time to work for illegal employers.

notanota 5 years, 6 months ago

We'll use your tax money to pay for the extra buses. It's a fabulous plan. What could go wrong?

tomatogrower 5 years, 6 months ago

And they were voted in with a promise not to expand government, but Kobach will hire investigators to hunt down all those illegal voters who voted for him and put him in office. And Brownback has already created a special "Jobs" commission headed by a Wichita oil executive. I doubt if he is going to do this job for free. I wonder how much tax money is going to make sure all alternate energy options will be kept out of the state. I wonder how many jobs are going to be created by executives. I mean, if you have low unemployment, you might have to pay competitive wages to get good workers. Higher unemployment means you have people begging for any job.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

I think you are only telling part of the story...these gentlemen were elected to enforce the law!

George Lippencott 5 years, 6 months ago

Gee, where were all of you when the wife got to pay out of state tuition while paying taxes because the laws of a number of states precluded military depemdents changing their status. The outcry was - well - absent.

Is this about equity or politics?

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 6 months ago

George, if you and the wife had previously declared Kansas as your residence, done the normal residential things, and paid taxes here before moving to the state, your wife would have been a resident for tuition purposes. But like many military I bet your previous residence of convenience (like Texas) was where you didn't have to pay any income taxes. (even as you used local governments goods and services)

No outcry for you.

George Lippencott 5 years, 6 months ago

Interesting. You don't like military people or lack the ability to read and understand. Here comes that envy again!

I paid taxes to the state I was in - that included property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes and some other taxes not applied by all states. Sometimes I paid to two or three states. It did not matter - wife could still not change status even though we were both paying to the state where she was attending school to update her teaching credential so she could continue with her profession. Love to have taken your advice but they did not tell me where the next state was and the one I was in looked rather questioning if I paid to somebody else. Just where do you get the notion the military avoid taxes -guess I was just stupid (or the law precluded claiming residence somewhere you were not and never had been (like Texas)). Envy is unbecoming and when coupled with ignorance is down right embarrassing.

I don't think Kobach had anything to do with it although people like him did. So, no, I am addressing the crocodile tears thrown about over illegal aliens when no tears are offered at all for people in service to the country who are treated the opposite of illegal aliens You all are a bunch of hypocrites.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

I have no idea about the laws to which you refer.

As do most people, I would think.

That would explain why there was little discussion of them, as opposed to the discussion of these issues which are currently front-page news.

If there are unfair laws regarding your situation, get somebody to write an article about them, and you'll see a lot of discussion of them.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Guess it is about politics...the lib's won't extend the benefits to the children of Americas poor...just the children of the politically correct illegal aliens???

camper 5 years, 6 months ago

Just like the voter fraud issue, all of a sudden we have another contrived problem. Out of state tuition. I never realized how huge of a problem this is.

In reality, if Kobach believes this is a top of the list agenda item, then I would have to wonder about his ability to view things in scale and the materiality of issues. In the real world, these are the types of people who do harm to organizations. They get people zeroed in on things that don't really matter thus wasting resources and time that could be better applied elswhere. They are the kind of people who watch the pennies, but not the dollars.

If this is not the issue, then there might be some other motivation for all of this.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Guess you -- the all knowing --- know what we should care about. Maybe you should have run for Secretary of State? Kobach is doing just fine he is representing alot of us who believe these issues are important!

kansastruthteller 5 years, 6 months ago

Just an observation. Many people are who railing against Kobach and his initiatives are the same ones that accuse the Republicans of being the party of "no." Shouldn't these people being saying yes to anything our elected officials are proposing if being the party of "no" is wrong?

Of course not, we need people to speak up and voice opposition when they believe the proposals are wrong. Just be consistent and respectful of those that disagree with a politicians agenda.

No need to call names or suggest racist motivations, etc. It is our right to speak out against our elected leaders.

Tom Wilson 5 years, 6 months ago

Whenever a KU volunteer calls to ask me (an alumnus) for a donation, I simply state the school's policy as it stands now (see the above article) as the main and only reason I stopped giving to KU. If my son has to pay out of state rates to attend KU while an undocumented child of an illegal immigrant only has to pay in state tuition, then KU really doesn't need alumni donations. In all cases, KU volunteers have accepted my reasoning. I have asked them / KU to stop calling me for donations until the law has changed.

tomatogrower 5 years, 6 months ago

If you haven't been in the state for the last 3 years paying taxes, your son needs to go to a college in the state where you live. These kids came to the state when they were young and attended Kansas schools. While here their parents bought all things necessary for living, thus paying sales tax. They rented a house or apartment, indirectly paying property tax. Unless you honestly think landlords don't consider their property tax bill into how much they charge for rent. If you think that, you probably need to go to college. Also, many illegals still have taxes withdrawn from their paychecks, but they may not ask for refunds, since that could get them busted, so they pay even more income tax. Even if they do get paid under the table, and I know some legal citizens who get paid under the table too, they have paid other taxes in Kansas. If you haven't been doing the same for your son, then, no he shouldn't get in state tuition. You haven't been supporting our state schools.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

If they're not legally US residents, then it makes no sense for them to be considered legal residents of KS, regardless of the tax situation.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

They are "ILLEGAL" that means they get NO benefits! Period. end of story.

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 6 months ago

Raby, it is not KU's school policy. It is state law.

notanota 5 years, 6 months ago

I'd be perfectly fine with your proposal. Just fully fund the university with your tax money, and we'll all be good to go.

kansastruthteller 5 years, 6 months ago

The law provides an incentive for immigrants to come here illegally. Do away with all perks and you will make coming to the US illegally less desirable. True that the parents were the ones that first violated our law and came here illegally thus making their children "illegal." But if the child is old enough to go to college then they are old enough to start living their own life and part of that would be to obey the laws of our nation. They should seek to become citizens otherwise they are no longer illegal because of their parent's actions, but because of their own.

I say the issue isn't about the tutition rate, but rather admission. No admission to anyone here illegally. And, start with grade school and we won't be having this discussion.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

Hi truthteller,

I want to point out a few things and I hope you'll listen to me, objectively, and consider what you're saying.

"The law provides an incentive for immigrants to come here illegally."

If they wish to attend a Kansas high school and live here for three years, sign an affidavit saying they are going to become legal or citizens, etc. That's a pretty huge task, and completely irrational. They're not coming here for college. There are only 413 people using this. I don't know how many students are enrolled at our colleges. Just at the big "U's" - KU and KSU - there are about 51,000 students enrolled according to what I can find out. I'm going to say a very conservative estimate of 100,000 college students in Kansas. 413 out of 100,000 is 0.413% - less than half of one percent of all students enrolled in Kansas colleges, assuming a very conservative number.

I don't believe in punishing children (or people as soon as they're becoming adults when they graduate high school) for their parents' decisions. I don't think most people do, either. The point I think you're missing is that it's excessively hard for the kids to do this. They have to learn English, acclimate to American schools, and achieve academically at the same level as their peers to go to college. Contrary to what some believe, you cannot get through a Kansas college if you do not speak English, and even the program I'm in, you have to take a English proficiency test before you can work through it. I think you're also missing the bigger point that they have to sign an affidavit saying they will become legal as soon as possible, or become a citizen as soon as possible. These kids are the ones who want to work within the system. Why punish them? Why not punish those who do NOT work within the system?

kansastruthteller 5 years, 6 months ago

llama, I did read what you wrote with an open mind and you make some valid points. I will say, when I was referring to the incentive it was the fact that children despite being here illegally can attend public school from grade one.

This is where we need to start - do not allow the children to attend grade school and deport the parents as quickly as possible. Why should we allow people who are here illegally to benefit from their crime?

So, while I hear you and understand where you are coming from, i still believe we need to prevent illegal immigrants regardless of the circumstances from benefiting from their crime or their parent's crime.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

You will have to then regulate businesses extremely heavily to ensure that they do not hire illegal immigrants, which is very difficult to do in a state that is as pro-business as Kansas is.

Are you then suggesting that primary and secondary educators have a responsibility to verify more than residency in Kansas, but actually, national citizenship? It's a tough thing to put on them, especially given how few resources schools actually have. The matter isn't as simple as we'd like, I'm afraid.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

It's not as hard as getting here legally in the first place.

And, standards for KS state universities are pretty low - I think you need to have a "C" average to get in.

The kids may be wanting to become legal citizens, but they got here illegally.

Why not reward the folks who actually go through the correct process to come here legally in the first place, rather than the ones who get here illegally?

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

They got here illegally through a choice they couldn't legally make in our system, so your point is moot. Their parents made that decision. Again, why should the kids have to be the ones to pay for that?

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Children often have to live with the consequences of their parents' decisions.

Why reward the parents by giving their kids in-state tuition rates?

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

The parents are unlikely to realize a gain. Children shouldn't have to live under the shadow of their parents' decisions. If the child is going to school and trying to become a legitimate citizen or resident as soon as they turn 18, and trying to make a better life for themselves by working (some might call this "The American Dream," you'd have to be pretty hard-set in your beliefs to turn your back on them.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Out of state tuition is about 2 1/2 times as high as in state tuition.

If parents are paying even part of their kids' tuition, then those much lower rates are a great benefit to them.

Children do in fact live according to their parents' decisions - they don't generally have a say in where they live, go to school, etc.

There might be some sort of argument that we should allow children in the situation you mention to apply for legal citizenship. I'm not sure I agree with that. But there's no really good argument for allowing them to get in-state tuition rates when they're not legal US residents.

And, if you don't think that parents take these sorts of things into account when deciding to bring their family here, I think you're very mistaken. Providing these sorts of benefits and opportunities to children encourages the parents to come here illegally, which is the opposite of what we should want.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

You're looking at a peripheral benefit. You're acting like people look at the employee discounts as the deciding incentive when they decide to get a job. Guess what? The job is the incentive. Nothing else matters.

And the argument you mentioned is reflected in the Kansas state law, which basically says they have to sign an affidavit and become legal citizens or residents.

I get it. You don't have any reasonable idea why we should work with these people who didn't willfully immigrate here (that is, the children of illegal immigrants). As usual, the issue becomes larger (people think illegal immigration shouldn't happen) and so a program or law that is good (it encourages their kids to integrate into our society, bring their own talents, learn English, earn a degree, and become legal citizens) receives intense opposition because people feel like it's rewarding illegal immigration.

The fact is, the kids going through college in a different country and learning in a different language is a massive undertaking, then if we couple that with how hard it is to become legal after you've been brought here legally - I think most people would have no idea about that. I certainly don't, but I have seen someone try to become a citizen, and it's insanely difficult. The fact is, our businesses encourage illegal immigration. This is America, though, so we won't ever pause to consider that the businesses are the biggest part of the problem on this topic.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

That simply is not true.

People look at various facets of a job, including all of the benefits, when they're considering getting one.

And, it is, in fact, rewarding illegal immigration by extending various benefits to the children of those immigrants.

It is very difficult to immigrate here, I've been told, but many people make the choice to attempt to do so legally. They are the ones who should get the chance to become citizens.

I fully support any and all efforts to hold businesses accountable as well.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

"People look at various facets of a job, including all of the benefits, when they're considering getting one."

False. Ever hear the phrase "beggars can't be choosers?" - Guess what? You don't have a job, are you going to take the first job offer you get, or are you going to hedge and hold out? You're taking the job. Similar situation.

We haven't even explored human trafficking, yet.

"And, it is, in fact, rewarding illegal immigration by extending various benefits to the children of those immigrants."

Nope. As I've mentioned, it's not. The parents are still stuck working for $5 an hour (tops). And paying sales tax for purchased items, property tax directly or indirectly for their homes, federal taxes if their employer payrolls them...

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

If you're desperate, you are right.

Not everybody who is looking for a job is desperate.

You don't think that parents care whether their children get cheaper tuition rates, loans, grants and scholarships (as you mention below), and can thus go to college?

I don't know what parents you know, but the ones I know would find that a great benefit, that their children have those options.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

So an average migrant laborer has access to the Internet and know-how to go online and research the state laws of the state in which they are considering their illegal employment - is that right?

I have an inclination to point out that Internet access in Latin America isn't as readily available as it is in the United States. I have an inclination to point out that many migrant workers come from areas where they don't have access to the volume of information about state laws that you are assuming they do.

My problem with what you say is the total lack of reason it employs. Please allow me to demonstrate, and I want to also thank you for staying calm through this discussion as this is far more productive than simply belittling each other's ideas.

You're saying not everyone who is looking for a job is desperate. I submit that I'm not making a statement about everybody - you are (illegal = illegal, we don't need to help any of them at all). I am saying that in general, most people who come to the United States as migrant workers are doing so because they think it will benefit their families.

Think about it: you are saying that someone wouldn't have to be desperate to leave their native country, their home, their friends and likely their extended family - cross national borders at great peril, enter a land where people are suspicious of them at every turn and where they don't speak the language, enter a working environment where they have few/no rights and low pay, where they are exploited and in some cases physically injured or abused, certainly emotionally abused, in some cases sexually abused - all for the prospects of earning $5 or so an hour. What is desperation, if not that?

They are desperate, in general. That is the reason our employers love them - that desperation makes them cheaper. The argument that there are people who abuse services isn't justification to do away with those services. I'm sure that there are a small number of cases where a parent may have taken these actions for that specific reason. I want you to think about how feasible it is that the number exceeds 50%, or even 10%. It's simply not logical to assume that.

The notion that someone moves up here with their child solely or even primarily for the purpose of obtaining a still-$8000+-a-year education rather than a $20000-a-year education is not founded in reason. It is not logical, it is not rational. A parent would not move to a state to earn $5 an hour and be subject to all of that for the simplest reasons: They still can't afford it! Think about it. And their child is going to have a hard time finding gainful employment as an undocumented person. Grants and scholarships aren't guaranteed and loans bring the government's attention, so no, I don't think that's something they sit there and ponder.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

You are probably right that most who come here illegally are desperate.

I feel bad for them, as I do for many people in many situations.

But we're discussing a national policy, not my personal feelings. The question for us as a nation is what sort of policy makes sense, and is in our best interests.

I never said they consider in state tuition for their children as a "sole" or "primary" benefit - I simply said that it was a benefit to them if their children got that, when you presented it as no benefit to them.

If we deported most or all illegal immigrants, punished businesses who employed them, and offered no benefits rightly belonging to citizens of this country to them, I think we'd see a drop in illegal immigration.

We have a limited amount of resources, and a limited amount of immigrants we can absorb without creating a lot of problems - I think we should be drawing from the pool of people who choose to go through the legal process rather than those who don't do so.

If you were just arguing that those children, once they turn 18, should have an opportunity to apply for citizenship, it would be one argument. I've already said there might be some argument for that.

But you're not - you're arguing that we should extend the in state tuition rates to someone who is not a legal resident of the country.

Makes no sense to me.

And, there are hundreds of millions of people around the world in very bad situations - should/can we just open our doors to all of them?

We give fairly large amounts of foreign aid, which I'm generally in favor of, although I think we should get our own financial house in order first.

Helping other nations improve the situation for their citizens is a better response to the problem, in my view, than just letting their folks come here illegally and then rewarding them for doing so.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

"But you're not - you're arguing that we should extend the in state tuition rates to someone who is not a legal resident of the country."

You're right in a sense, but you're deliberately ignoring the facet of the law where they have to attend high school for three years in the state and graduate, and have to work toward citizenship as a condition of their in state tuition. It might not make sense to you, but that's because you're policymaking from an oversimplified standpoint that doesn't consider a gray area.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

Furthermore, it is easier to move in from out of state and get in state tuition in Kansas by simply waiting a year to enroll in college, than it is to move here illegally, go to a Kansas high school, and graduate from that Kansas high school in order to qualify for in state tuition as a child of an illegal immigrant. That means the kid has been there for (at the very least) as long as the out of state resident would have to live here to get the in-state perks. There's also a key point you're deliberately overlooking. An out of state resident is probably from another state. That state probably has in-state tuition rates. Maybe not, but probably. The child of the illegal immigrants can't exactly go to a different state to get this service. There's no fall back plan. It's much less of a choice for them.

Finally, you overlook a critical point. Do you think these parents can afford college for their kids? I read a study a while back that put the average wage for an illegal immigrant at $5.45 or $5.50 or something like that.

Again, I emphasize - these kids are the ones who want to work and earn a degree or certification, presumably to become productive members within our society. The only way that these people can begin to make up for the "drain" you feel they cause on our government is to pay taxes, which is a lot easier when you have a path to citizenship and a good job.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

It's easier to live in your own country than emigrate to another one - is that your point?

Perhaps, but it must be easier to come here illegally, and then do the things you mention, than to try to come here legally. Otherwise we wouldn't have such a problem with illegal immigration.

Blame their parents for their situation, if you're looking for someone to blame. If it's a difficult position for a child of illegal immigrants to be in, that's a direct result of their parents' choice to come here illegally.

The fact is, again, that almost all children have little say in many facets of their lives - parents have most of the control and make the decisions. When I was growing up, I didn't get to decide where to live, where to go to school, etc. It's an inescapable part of being a child rather than an adult.

How will the kids pay for school if their parents can't afford to?

The kids may or may not become productive members of our society, but that's not the point.

They are simply not legal residents of the country, thus are not, in my view, legal residents of the state in which they reside, and are thus not entitled to in-state tuition.

I don't know whether illegal immigrants are a "drain" or not - some suggest that they pay more into the system than they take out, others less, and others suggest it's a wash.

I think we should be enforcing our immigration laws, and creating policies which make sense, rewarding those who choose to attempt to come here legally.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

"It's easier to live in your own country than emigrate to another one - is that your point?"

My point is that the out of state students have more alternatives than the kids of illegal immigrants.

"Perhaps, but it must be easier to come here illegally, and then do the things you mention, than to try to come here legally. Otherwise we wouldn't have such a problem with illegal immigration."

Or the people who come here and are exploited by businesses do so because they are human and they are trying to make a better life for their families, and the reward outweighs the risk.

"Blame their parents for their situation, if you're looking for someone to blame. If it's a difficult position for a child of illegal immigrants to be in, that's a direct result of their parents' choice to come here illegally."

Blaming is useless. We have a situation now, and we have to make a choice. Extend services to them after they've already gone through high school here, or don't. You say don't because it encourages illegal immigration, I say do because it encourages the next generation to make the right decisions and integrate better into America, rather than being a marginalized group.

You're right that kids don't have much say. That's my point. I still don't think that means we should not extend opportunities to the kids. The kids didn't choose this life, but they can choose to make the best of it, and college is a pathway to that.

"How will the kids pay for school if their parents can't afford to?"

Loans. Grants. Scholarships.

"They are simply not legal residents of the country, thus are not, in my view, legal residents of the state in which they reside, and are thus not entitled to in-state tuition."

Simple is the problem. Life isn't that simple. Again, you're assuming that the kids made the decision to break the law. Someone with more legal knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong, but a minor cannot be complicit with a crime their parents are committing. Thus, you cannot call the child a criminal based on the crimes of the parents. I understand your point, I just think it's overly simplistic and doesn't allow for us to consider situations.

"I think we should be enforcing our immigration laws, and creating policies which make sense, rewarding those who choose to attempt to come here legally."

Ambitious goal, and great talking point, but unfortunately, we have illegal immigrants here now, and we need to figure out how we approach it.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Enforcing our immigration laws is one way to approach the situation, and the one I'm advocating.

If people have come here illegally, they should be deported.

Those who choose to go through the process of applying to come here legally should be rewarded with that possibility.

Just curious - what are other countries' policies in this regard, do you know?

If the children we're discussing are in fact legal US residents, then there is no issue, so they must not be.

Here's an argument you could make that I might find more convincing - once they turn 18, allow them to apply for citizenship. If they do in fact become citizens, then they qualify for in state tuition if they meet the other requirements.

But for some reason, you don't make that one.

notanota 5 years, 6 months ago

You make some fantastic points, but the loans, grants, and scholarships aren't available to them. That's one of the reason most of these students take advantage of community colleges. KU tuition is pretty difficult to self finance on undocumented wages.

ivalueamerica 5 years, 6 months ago

i can see the point, but considering that the surpeme court just affirmed it is not unconstitutional, i would rather he spend kansas tax dollars fixing problems, not pandering.

kansastruthteller 5 years, 6 months ago

To whom are they pandering? If the politicans ran on a platform and won, then are they pandering if they work to carry out those election promises or are they simply representing the people who voted for them?

Just because it is not unconstitutional doesn't mean it is right. The SCOTUS only ruled it didn't violate the Constitution, not whether it should be a law or not. We the people should decide that question.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

I've always been torn on this one. On the one hand, I don't think it's fair to punish children for decisions their parents made.

On the other hand, it's ludicrous to accept an affidavit promising to apply for citizenship in the future. The students in question have been lying to various entities for years as to where they were born - why would anyone believe it would be hard for them to lie on the affidavit? I am NOT saying they are natural liars or people of weak moral standards; I am simply saying that a regular part of their existence has been hiding where they're from, and that particular learned defense mechanism has become ingrained.

And with very few exceptions, this is no longer a child living with the decisions of their parents - by the end of their first semester, they should pretty much all be legal adults responsible for their own actions. Forget the affidavit - if you want the instate rates, bring in the filled-out application. The school will mail it for you.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

And that's fair. An affidavit is a "soft" way to get them to apply for citizenship or legal status. I think a condition, especially at a four year school, could be that you demonstratively work on gaining legal status, not just idly promise to do so. It's not as though colleges don't have the resources for this already. Why not? I think that would receive some objections on both sides of the political spectrum, certainly, but the college can easily provide them the information they need to begin working on their citizenship.

RiverCityConservative 5 years, 6 months ago

Undocumented immigrants and their children are and should be welcome to Kansas. Immigration is the primary reason our population has not decreased over the past 25 years. Southwest Kansas in particular would be a true desert if not for the fact that so many have immigrated and settled there, and now we're into second and third generations who are keeping Kansas communities going with their work ethic, belief in the future, and positive contributions to society. This newly elected secretary of state has been failed in court to turn back the Kansas Dream Act since 2004 and obviously was not exactly thinking of "public service" when he decided to run for state office. It is just a new platform for him to continue trying to spread the venom and hatred that he and his ever-dwindling group of intolerant buddies, or let's just call them what they are--neo Nazis--spew. I do think there should be a special category of remedial education for people like him who didn't learn about the ideals of democracy in school the first time through. Secretary of Hate.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Sorry, I have to add this. I am amused, as usual, by all those referring to the people of the state who elected Kobach (rather handily) as 'idiots' and such. Especially given the quality of their arguments in favor of this law:

1) As a couple of others have pointed out, Kobach is not spending time on out of state issues in dereliction of his official state duties, nor is he spending the tax revenues of Kansas citizens - he's not in office yet. Believe it or not, he doesn't get to move into the SecState's office, draw a state salary, and spend state tax dollars starting on election night.

2) The "Supreme Court" made this decision on the California law, yes. The California state supreme court.

3) Kobach lost a challenge to the similar Kansas law, yes. But not based on the constitutional issues. It was dismissed because in the opinion of the court, the plaintiff's lacked standing to sue.

4) There is a federal law that says you can not give in-state tuition rates to undocumented aliens on the basis of residency unless those rates are also available to U.S. citizens without regard to residency (8 U.S.C. § 1623). Isn't the argument of those who rant against the Arizona immigration law that it's up to the federal government to set immigration policy, not the states? Isn't it one of the arguments of those who rant in favor of the health insurance mandate that federal law always trumps state law?

5) The California Court sidestepped that issue by claiming the California law is not based on residency, but on other requirements, e.g. attending state high schools. That is, as Kobach said, a pretty weak argument, since residency establishes where someone goes to high school, unless they're all attending private schools.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

"There is a federal law that says you can not give in-state tuition rates to undocumented aliens on the basis of residency unless those rates are also available to U.S. citizens without regard to residency (8 U.S.C. § 1623)"

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the "out of state" tuition requirement is waived if you have graduated from a Kansas high school, isn't it? The out of state tuition requirement is waived if you are a resident of the state for 12 months prior to attending college. Thus, it's easier to move from another state than it is to move in as an illegal immigrant and get in state tuition. I just want to make sure that's clear, before someone flies off the handle and assumes that it is not harder to do as an immigrant than as an out-of-state resident.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

"U.S. Code § 1623. Limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment of aliens not lawfully present on basis of residence for higher education benefits

"(a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident."

Federal law clearly states that a state can not give a tuition rate to a person in the country illegally, based solely on where they live, that is lower than the rate available to any U.S. citizen, regardless of where they live.

Again, the California court circumvented that by saying the lower tuition was not based on "residency", but on where they went to high school, which is just plain silly, since at least for public high schools, you can't attend a school unless you reside in the school district.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

Then it appears Kobach has a case. I'm no lawyer, I'm not aware of other codes, but it looks like he has a case, and that's disappointing to me, personally, because it seems like this law is poorly conceived. I was basing my assumptions on Kansas state laws, which seem perfectly reasonable, though they could add a little more "teeth" for requiring students to attain legal status. This law is worth a look for modification. I think it unduly penalizes children of criminals for the actions of their parents. Again, I point out what I posted above about the true cost and the potential gain of allowing these people a path to citizenship. I am also appealing to common sense. In-state tuition is offered to out of state residents more readily and easily than out-of-state tuition.

Based upon that law, it would seem that Kobach technically has a case. The letter of the law isn't always the right thing to do, though, and this is clearly a small group of people, so it's not as though they can easily advocate for themselves to enforce any type of change in our government.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

"that's disappointing to me, personally, because it seems like this law is poorly conceived."

As I said in my first post to this thread, I'm kinda' torn on this issue. There have been a few attempts in recent years to overturn the federal law, but I don't see much chance of that happening given the current political climate.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

I also hate to agree here, but saying people are "idiots" for voting for something or someone doesn't exactly win people over to someone's side. People might not be making the best decision in your opinion, but people have a right to vote. You might think them misinformed, but be productive. Talk to people, try to actually win them over to your ideas. Calling them idiots forever turns them off to anything other than what they already think. Condescension is condescension on either side of the aisle.

Scott Morgan 5 years, 6 months ago

Camper, Post high school education costs are skyrocketing. Our Kansas state universities are all looking high and low to cut services and costs for instance.

Scott Morgan 5 years, 6 months ago

Legal immigration made this country. I have nothing but great respect for any legal immigrant.

To make this problem clearer.

It would be nice if a neighborhood or small towns total taxes paid into state/local could be shown dollar for dollar.

A tax scoreboard of sorts. A scoreboard showing how much illegal immigrants really cost. Debit and credit. Put the daily amounts in the LJW.

Baldwin City for instance could be the designated small town which pays the hidden costs of illegal immigrants. If only they could in reality. Nothing else, all Baldwin tax bucks out go to illegal immigration costs. Shown on a scoreboard.

My bet is some eyes would be opened. Of course the entire population of Baldwin City state and local taxes wouldn't make a dent in our fine states actual cost of illegal immigration.

How much money do Kansas citizens pay for illegal immigrants.

Income out of for free and reduced lunch, English as a second language ESL teachers/administrators/supplies/transportation. mental health services, Section 8 housing, food stamps, temp. housing, job training, health care (emergency care) uninsured auto accident insurance coverage, crime/internment, should I go on. Didn't even mention local, and state scholarships for post secondary school.

What is returned to the Kansas taxpayer?

Somebody here stated he or she didn't realize it was such a big deal. Folks, our state is broke.

parrothead8 5 years, 6 months ago

Can anyone challenge a law in a state they don't live in? I don't understand what the Kansas Sec. of State-elect has to do with a California law.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Well, let's see: As of today, Kobach is not the Kansas Secretary of State, Biggs is. And Kobach wasn't the plaintiff in the case, several students who had to pay the higher tuition rates were. Oh, which would pretty much mean that out-of-state residents can challenge a state law.

parrothead8 5 years, 6 months ago

Thanks for pointing out what I already pointed out...that he's not yet the KS Sec of State. And I still don't understand what Kris Kobach has to do with a law in another state. If he's not the plaintiff in the case, how is he the one challenging the law?

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Um, he's an attorney. Representing the plaintiffs. Please do try to keep up.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

I want to point out some figures.

414 students.

62 in public universities at about a $5500 difference in cost per semester = $341,000 in tuition differential from instate and out of state tuition..

351 in community colleges and technical schools with about a $510 difference in cost per semester for in state and out of state tuition = $179010.

The cost works out to a little more than $1 million in savings per year in state versus out of state tuition offered to these residents. I can see where the outrage might come from for your average taxpayer. That's a big number every year.

In context, the FY 2011 KS Governor's budget allots about $610 million to public universities. That works out to be 0.16% of the entire state education budget is allotted to the discounts afforded to children of illegal immigrants who are trying to go to college. I can't emphasize enough - these people are trying, in general, to succeed in our system. If they're trying to "get legal," I don't see how anyone should object to that - they are doing what their parents did not.

Let's look at this another way, though. Let's assume that only 25% (104) of those students follow through with their promise, stay in Kansas, earn their degrees, and join the workforce, legally, at about $45,000 per year. Let's assume they all stay in Kansas for at least 10 years. In state income tax alone, not accounting for anything else, the state earns about $301860 in income tax per year. Over the course of 10 years, assuming that we've kept 25% of those graduates (and we likely will have kept more, if memory serves, but I can't find the studies now), we will have earned over $3 million for the state from these 104 now-legal residents. This doesn't account for sales tax or property taxes, either. Tripling your returns on a ten-year investment is sound math. The projection in this paragraph is based upon conjecture and shouldn't be used as a real assessment, but I think it helps to put it in context.

In summary: We're worried about wasteful government spending, but we're targeting fewer than one half of one percent of all of the students in our education system on the basis of what their parents did, despite the fact that they are trying to work through the system legitimately. We're worried about the costs when it constitutes less than two-tenths of one percent of the total education budget for college in Kansas. Finally, we're ignoring the potential gains in terms of income tax, notwithstanding many other peripheral benefits I don't have space to explore.

This seems kind of frivolous, in the end.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

Correction: It is 0.16% of the entire allotment of funds from the state to colleges. Not 0.16% of the entire state education budget. It is a much smaller number when considered on the scale of the entire education budget.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

You have to look at the larger problem. The government would have to grow and cost more to police the border completely enough to end illegal immigration, or the government would have to grow and regulate businesses more to really take away the cost incentive for those businesses to hire illegal labor. I don't think most people are willing for either of those things to happen. Until those things happen, what happens now will continue.

By the way I don't think they refuse to enforce immigration law. About 18,000 Mexicans alone are deported every year. I'm not accounting for any other country.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

We should not have laws in place that encourage in anyway illegals to remain in Kansas. Support legal immigration not illegal.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

Doppleganger, a 37 year old man has a 14 year old son. The 37 year old man crosses the state line and robs a bank.

Is the 14 year old son a criminal?

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

Please cite a court case wherein a juvenile was convicted for failing to turn in their parents for crimes. Further, what if the child was younger? What if the child was either unaware of the crime, or was too young to report the matter to police? What if the child were coerced not to report their parent? I think you are deliberately ignoring the fact that punishing the children for the crimes of their parents is unjust. Most people would agree, I suspect.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Not granting illegal folks in-state tuition is not "punishing" them.

It's merely saying that if they're not legal residents of the US, then they shouldn't be considered legal residents of KS.

The other position doesn't make any sense - if you're not in the country legally, how can you be in KS legally?

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

Please stop doing that. You're just trying to make this into this clear cut, black and white thing. We don't live in theory. We like in a world where gray exists. They went to a Kansas high school. They may have been your classmate or my classmate in high school. Why punish people who want to work? Why punish people who couldn't have decided to come here? You punish them by closing doors on them for no reason other than what their parents decided to do.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

It is clear to me.

If someone isn't a legal resident of the country, then they aren't a legal resident of any state, and shouldn't be treated as such.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

"Is the 14 year old son a criminal?"

Is the 14 year old son enrolling in a state university?

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

Four years later, yes. Relevance? The crimes of parents are not the crimes of their children.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

The relevance is that 4 years later they're legally adults, and if they're here illegally at that time it's they that are breaking the law, not their parents.

George Lippencott 5 years, 6 months ago

Yes. The Commonwealth of Virginia charged me out of state rates and would not let me become an in state student even though I reached majority status and paid taxes to that state and even though I graduated from a high school in that state. They were not alone in doing that.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

I'm speaking about Kansas laws, specifically. If you have residency in Kansas or graduated from a Kansas state high school, you're considered in state at colleges here. Virginia may not have the same law, but Kansas does. Sorry about what happened to you in Virginia - sounds unreasonable to me - but that doesn't excuse treating future generations unreasonably.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

The most recent information that I can find (which may be outdated):

Virginia has no law specifically allowing illegal aliens to get in-state rates because they live there. Actually, they attempted to pass a law specifically forbidding that, but it was vetoed by the governor, after which the Attorney General ruled that existing law says they have to pay out-of-state rates. There has been quite a debate in the Commonwealth over children who were born here (and are therefor citizens) but whose parents are illegals; as a rule, even if they were born in Va. and lived there their entire lives, they're not eligible for instate rates if their parents are illegals.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Apparently different states have different ways of determining residency for the purposes of in-state tuition.

Randall Uhrich 5 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Wow, great comeback, rush. Got any "logic" of your own to offer that might dispute anything that was said? Perhaps something factual?

Didn't think so, troll.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

Hahaha... Curious, have you read what I even wrote? What's your take on this subject, rush?

mr_right_wing 5 years, 6 months ago

Sounds like the right (and "right") person will be taking office as Kansas Secretary of State!!

ObamaCare in Kansas needs to be challenged as well Mr. Kobach.

camper 5 years, 6 months ago

I'm no expert in the In State tuition requirement, but my take on the provision is that it is about residency status not citizenship. If you are a resident of a state, and therefore paying sales and other taxes in that state, you are eligible. If you are not a resident of the state, you have not necessarily been paying sales and other taxes to that state, and are therefore not eligible.

When I 1st moved to Kansas I was interested in seeking an advanced degree at KU. I was informed that I was not eligible for in state tuition because I had not lived in the state for one-year. I was disappointed, but not outraged, because the requirement seemed reasonable to me. So if this status is revoked for undocumented workers, I would not feel one way or the other, just as I do now under the current provision.

My only complaint is.....why are the legislatures making this a big issue. For crying out loud, this provision applies to 14 students at KU & KU med combined. I say that again 14. This does not strike me as very noteworthy.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

It's not, as I pointed out, it amounts to less than a half of one percent of all students in the state of Kansas even with the most conservative estimates for the number of college students across the state. It amounts to less than two-tenths of one percent of the total cost paid in terms of higher education. And if roughly a quarter of those who get the benefit stay in Kansas for a decade, we see a return on taxes based on average wages which ends up paying enough to cover for the difference, plus we gain legal citizens who are less likely to commit crimes in the future. The Kansas law is perfectly reasonable, I just think it should do a little more to move these individuals toward legal status.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

If you're not a legal resident of the US, then you shouldn't be considered a legal resident of any state.

Scott Morgan 5 years, 6 months ago

llama, your math is correct if the illegal students were dropped on Kansas by an airplane with food, housing and plenty of money. Of course they are not. I've heard illegal immigrant arguments about paying fair share taxes for decades. This does not exist.

It's typical "lib o guilt" thinking. I wonder how you folks justify a poor Syrian green card worker being sent home, who complies with the law of the land honesty for instance. Yes, what do you think of immigrants who follow our law? Shouldn't we be announcing, "hey man do it illegally and be rewarded."

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072501605.html

It would cost about $41 billion to remove all Illegal Immigrants every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

Skip to the Impacts section.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584

I'm not contending that there isn't a cost. But this is getting outside of the scope of the argument. This isn't just an illegal immigration up or down vote. If it were that simple, it would be a lot easier to come up with a simple answer.

I'm not trying to make you feel guilty for anything. However, do you seriously mean to tell me that you believe that these kids shouldn't be able to do something to work toward full citizenship and legitimate productivity in the United States? Do you see me justifying sending anyone home if they're trying to make it here legally? No. So, if the son or daughter of an illegal immigrant proves themselves to be as talented as their American counterparts in the education system and seeks to attain a degree with the promise that they will try to become a legitimate resident or citizen, all I think is that they should get the chance to prove themselves and earn their way through college.

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

Not even in office yet, and he is already more concerned about playing political theater than looking at matters that truly concern citizens. His only goal in making these claims is that he wants people to know that he really, really, really doesn't like illegals.

George Lippencott 5 years, 6 months ago

Well Bea, that is exactly the point but not the way you present it. If those supporting in state tuition for illegal aliens have a morale basis for their argument then they would have found it just as abhorrent that the wife and I were charged out of state tuition despite having become legal citizens of the state we were in – even to the point of denying a change of status after a year.

The fact that several people though that it was just fine because we were military and by their argument somehow avoided taxes (which we did not) suggests that all this fuss is a political diatribe about making Democratic Party voters out of illegal immigrants and not about the moral argument of the sins of the parent should not be visited upon the son/daughter or in our case wife.

I restate – a bunch of you are hypocrites or worse.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

George, no, that's not acceptable, but the government provides benefits to servicepeople for education. So, I'm sorry that a few people said that to you. I don't think that means that you can label everyone who supports in state tuition benefits for everyone in the state in the way you're doing above. Calm down. Your situation was bad. Again, it's not an excuse to force that on others.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

This policy is going to be overturned the people of Kansas do not support giving in-state tuition benefits to the children of illegals!

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

Um George, even if not a single illegal immigrant paid in-state tuition, I don't see how that would have had an affect on your situation. One does not have anything to do with the other. Looks like you are just trying to blame others for your situation. This seems to be popular among conservatives in recent years, and one of the leading reasons why politicians are making political theater out of undocumented workers. They just love to make a big stink by pointing at the people that actually have nothing to do with your miserable circumstances.

Also, I have never claimed to be in favor of in-state tuition for people in the country illegally. So point your accusations of hypocricy elsewhere, bub.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

"One does not have anything to do with the other."

Translation:

"But ... but ... but ... but that's different!"

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 6 months ago

George, you are full of it.

Had you and your wife moved to KS to accept employment, or had you and your wife lived here for a year in the normal sense, you would have been a resident. Congratulations if paid your previously designated state of residence state income taxes. But to be honest, you also must acknowledge that many military families choose states of residence during their which do not have state income taxes. This is not a big secret. Nor is it discrimination regarding military families. It is a simple fact.

Kansas law anticipates and resolves many situations involving residency for families of active military. Better than most. But it does perhaps does not favor upper income retired officers. You get the same rules as everyone else who newly moves to the state......live here for a year. That is not a different rule. It is the same rule. And the rule is similar to the tuition rules of many many states.

You can not invoke outrage, or mistreatment, or declare hypocrisy when being compared to Kansas families, many whom have lived in the state and paid state taxes for over a decade, regardless of their immigration status.

I think Alceste has your number pegged quite well.

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

He calls himself "moderate." Of course he is full of it.

somemisfits 5 years, 6 months ago

Did he get beat out by a Mexican for the high school baseball team or something? The dude's definitely got an agenda.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Well, jack, the reality of the situation is that the very few of you who voted against him don't have a popsicle's chance in Hades of recalling him.

kernal 5 years, 6 months ago

After skimming the posts, it's still apparent too many people in this state do not have a clear understanding of what the Secretary of State job is, so here you go:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_of_Kansas

Joshua Montgomery 5 years, 6 months ago

My forefathers didn't cross the Atlantic ocean only to see this country overrun by immigrants!

I still have my great-great-grandfather's certificate from Ellis Island proving that I, like Kobach, am a TRUE American.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Well, technically, the "native" Americans immigrated too, from Asia.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Do the Native Americans return to Siberia every season?

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Geese and birds, which you mentioned specifically in the post I responded to, are.

And the word "immigrate" generally, but not always, refers to crossing some sort of political boundary. Generally speaking, "migrate" refers to continuous movement, while "immigrate" refers to relocation to a more permanent settlement.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Uh, yeah. That would be why I said "generally".

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

Jesse, your sarcasm meter might have become unplugged.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Difference between legal and illegal immigration, perhaps?

PortTabacco 5 years, 6 months ago

Why is Plyer vs Doe being used in California when this law was strictly for the state of Texas? Plyer vs Doe stated that illegal alien student could enroll in Texas public school ONLY if the illegal students were not anyway a burden financially to the state of Texas! This was back in 1981! Things have changed today and for the worst!

Illegal aliens are now a burden to each and ever state in the U.S. because we are now in a DEPRESSION!

    Kris Kobach is an American hero and all parasitic illegal aliens should be deported!

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

Where does the government get $41 billion to do that?

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Well, we could remove the loopholes that allow American companies to "off-shore" their profits.

Reduce/eliminate waste and fraud in government spending.

Cut way back on the size and scope of our military.

Get rid of earmarks.

Stop jailing people for non-violent and "victimless" crimes.

Legalize and tax all drugs.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

I don't know that I'd be so overconfident if I was you.

First of all, it's not a matter of whether or not Californians want to be able to give resident tuition rates to illegals. It wasn't Californians who objected. It was out-of-state students arguing that if illegals get a tuition break, they should get one, too.

Second, it's not just a matter of whether the California law was interpreted correctly. The issue is whether the state law is allowable under federal law. And while the justices of the California Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, say it is, the United States court system might feel differently about that. Kobach is absolutely correct that it was a weak argument; their reasoning was that residents of the other states have the same opportunity to qualify for resident tuition under the law, all they have to do is attend California high schools for three years. The federal courts might not believe that the option of a kid from Maine to attend a boarding school in California for three years constitutes equal opportunity.

The California court also portrayed this as not being an immigration issue. This is kind of ludicrous, when you consider that the California law, like Kansas', includes a requirement to promise to apply for citizenship, if I remember correctly. It will be interesting to see the stance taken by the administration. They argued against the Arizona law on the basis that it's up to the federal government, not the states, to determine immigration policy.

Finally, you might want to remember that the challenge to the Kansas law was decided in federal court not on the basis of the Constitutional issues, but rather was dismissed because the court ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. So we really have absolutely no idea how the federal court system will rule.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Nice speech. Touching. Really, there might be tears.

Oh, except using the plaintiffs are doing exactly as you said, using the rule of law to change the law. (Pretty much what the court system is for.)

Oh, and the plaintiffs in the suit were not asking that the illegal immigrants be charged the higher rate, but that they get the lower one. Every one of the things you said about honoring the law until it's changed applies to the federal law, too (a federal law which, incidentally, predates California's - and Kansas' - law by several years).

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

"It would be easy for residents of nearby states to attend a CA school (Nevada, Oregon, Arizona) if they lived in a border town- thus satisfying the US Code."

That was actually one of the justifications mentioned in the decision. Still, I think one could make the counter-argument that whether it's on the California side of the state line or the Nevada side, if it's still within school bus distance of the school, it's still based on residency. The wording of the federal law says you can't give it to them based on residency - it does not specify based on residency in that state. For example, consider two neighboring states that give in-state tuition rates to each others' residents; that's still based on residency.

"If one kid from out of state attends a private boarding school in California for the required time and earns the in state tuition benefit is that enough to satisfy the law."

I kind of doubt it. If I remember the wording of the federal law (too tired to scroll up and find where I posted it), I think it says the benefit must be available to 'all' citizens or 'any' citizen, not just the ones that can afford that option.

George Lippencott 5 years, 6 months ago

Bea and llama

The injustice visited upon me when I was a student and upon my wife when she was a dependent have long been corrected (although not before significant costs to both of us). This all was a test to determine motivation. Some flunked. You too did better.

Fior the record Llama. I did have a GI bill and used it to get my teacher training and a masters degree (kids today have to pay for their GI bill and it is a lot less generous). Dependents like the wife at my time of service fit into the old adage "if the army wanted you to have one they would have issued one." The system (Kolbachs of that day, made it very hard on her and there was no offsetting benefit. That too has been fixed to a significant degree although IMHO teacher certification at a national level is still broken.

George Lippencott 5 years, 6 months ago

Thank you. I am glad to hear it as the contributory one that replaced the Vietnam era one was not very generous. How generous is this one?

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 6 months ago

George, you are full of it.

Had you and your wife moved to KS to accept employment, or had you and your wife lived here for a year in the normal sense, you would have been a resident. Congratulations if paid your previously designated state of residence state income taxes. But to be honest, you also must acknowledge that many military families choose states of residence during their which do not have state income taxes. This is not a big secret. Nor is it discrimination regarding military families. It is a simple fact.

Kansas law anticipates and resolves many situations involving residency for families of active military. Better than most. But it does perhaps does not favor upper income retired officers. You get the same rule applied to you as everyone else who newly moves to the state......live here for a year. That is not a different rule. It is the same rule. And the rule is similar to the tuition rules of many many states.

You can not invoke outrage, or mistreatment, or declare hypocrisy when being compared to Kansas families, many whom have lived in the state and paid state taxes for over a decade, regardless of their immigration status.

I think Alceste has your number pegged quite well.

George Lippencott 5 years, 6 months ago

Boston

And your point is?? Our experiences were in California, Colorado, Arizona, Virginia and Alabama. Kansas was never a factor so your constant reference to it is irrelevant.

As posted above, our experiences have long been addressed by the states in question and the feds. This was not about us but about the argument concerning illegals and state tuition.

I tested you and your argument is that it was fine to charge me out of state tuition even though I graduated from a high school in that state and paid taxes to that state and was a resident of that state because my father did not pay taxes to that state. Those are the very arguments justifying illegals paying instate tuition. For the wife you argued it was just fine that she pay out of state tuition even though she was a resident of the state and paid taxes to the state and that the state would not change residence status even after she met the legal obligation to be a citizen of that state.

Like Alceste you are a hypocrite and worse. The rules only apply when you say they do and only to those you favor. Both of you deal intensively with stereotyping as the basis for your arguments – and regrettably your stereotyping is often way off the mark. Retired Colonels are not rich and what they have is determined by essentially a work contract with your government. Military personnel pay taxes, at least in my time, in accordance with the laws of the states in which they are residents. Your can not be a resident of a state unless you have lived there. How about you get your facts straight.

As regard to you military argument -Sounds like envy. Did you serve or just have a problem with those who did or some of those who did??

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 6 months ago

George, the state legislature, which includes lots of ex-military, adopted the rules, not me. You may not like their rules, but you have not said anything here to indicate they were not properly applied to you in your case. You kick and scream because you do not like them. This makes you the whiner.

I am just pointing out that you are the one wanting special treatment. Your babble above does not discuss these rules in any detail but you try to describe yourself as the one beset upon

Where you went to high school, or where your parents reside or pay taxes is of no importance if you are an adult. Or whether you were a Kansan 3 years ago. And as an adult, if you move into Lawrence and the state of Kansas, and can not prove you are doing to so accept employment, you have a one-year wait. (by the way, that is the same rule as Texas and Colorado).

You are not a resident until you have lived here a year. Continuous durational presence. Better not be paying income taxes in any other state either. That is the rule. You may not like it but that is the rule.

How have you been treated unfairly?

(answer: you weren't)

Sounds like it is you with the envy and entitlement.

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 6 months ago

George, you are full of it.

Had you and your wife moved to KS to accept employment, or had you and your wife lived here for a year in the normal sense, you would have been a resident. Congratulations if paid your previously designated state of residence state income taxes. But to be honest, you also must acknowledge that many military families choose states of residence during their which do not have state income taxes. This is not a big secret. Nor is it discrimination regarding military families. It is a simple fact.

Kansas law anticipates and resolves many situations involving residency for families of active military. Better than most. But it does perhaps does not favor upper income retired officers. You get the same rule applied to you as everyone else who newly moves to the state......live here for a year. That is not a different rule. It is the same rule. And the rule is similar to the tuition rules of many many states.

You can not invoke outrage, or mistreatment, or declare hypocrisy when being compared to Kansas families, many whom have lived in the state and paid state taxes for over a decade, regardless of their immigration status.

I think Alceste has your number pegged quite well.

Zachary Stoltenberg 5 years, 6 months ago

George,

I don't know what the laws were at the time but I do know that today, all your wife would need to do is fill out the residency application with the University stating that she was a military dependent and it's an automatic adjustment to residency status. Perhaps it was different in your day but we are debating the law as it stands today and your situation seems to be included.

George Lippencott 5 years, 6 months ago

Thank you. As noted my points were not really about us but about consistency in argument. We have been retired from the military for more than 20 years and most of what i wrote about had been fixed by then. To me the motive for posting is important and if you believe in something than you should believe in it - not believe in it only if it applies to a group you happen to favor.

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 6 months ago

"As noted my points were not really about us"

No George. Your points were exactly and precisely comparing you and your wife's situation to these students.

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

Dang GI Bill is nothing but socialism!

George Lippencott 5 years, 6 months ago

And just when did I come out against socialism? Of course I would title GI benefits a cost of war. In order to get people to play in your wars you either pay them up front (contractors) or you promise them benefits (soldiers). Our country has and is doing both.

Zachary Stoltenberg 5 years, 6 months ago

I'm a conservative, not necessarily a Republican, definitely not a TEA partier (not as it is now anyway, the TEA party was grea until they were taken over by that nut-job Palin) and I was an out of state student at KU for six years. My final year before gaining residency I was paying over $22,000 a year to attend the University. I was a sophomore when it was brought about and I had a BIG problem with this change. I cracked off many of the talking points voiced here and was firmly convinced that it was against the constitution of the United States. About a year later I was driving home and heard an excellent debate of the topic on a conservative radio talk show who's guest was an advocate of the change. Over the hour and a half of debate, I found myself agreeing more and more with the guest and less and less with the host. Here was the way it was presented that changed my position.

The individuals (illegals) that qualify to take advantage of this program must meet many different requirements, paramount of which is starting a path to citizenship. Not only them, but their entire families. That's what everyone against illegal immigration seems to want right? If you want government aid (FAFSA) then become a citizen and get it! These families do pay taxes for the most part and don't get anything on a federal return like you and I do. They pay sales tax on everything they buy, property taxes whether they own or rent, the only thing missing from the equation is citizenship and this program closes that gap. Secondly, they must be residents of that state. They must have attended high school in Kansas for three years and they must have graduated in Kansas. Guess what? If I had attended and graduated from a Kansas high school for three years, I would have gotten in-state tuition as well! These individuals must also maintain an eligible GPA to stay in the program and make progress towards citizenship or they risk being removed from the program and risk losing everything they have worked for so-far. As a college student who spent one semester on academic probation (it only took one to get my butt in gear) I probably couldn't have met that requirement. In some senses, these 'illegals' are held to a higher standard that either in-state or out-of-state citizens are.

The bottom line is, there really isn't any special or preferential treatment in the program. It isn't an incentive to come here illegally, (don't get me started on anchor babies) in fact it's only incentive is to go back and do it right. You and your family need to become citizens if you are going to take advantage of the education and government assistance this wonderful country affords. When you look at the statistics of what illegal individuals cost us as taxpayers every year, we cannot afford NOT to have this program. Make them go through the process to become legal, help them go to school, and turn them into productive taxpayers. So what's the problem here Mr. Kobach?

aequitas 5 years, 6 months ago

BAM! And zstoltenberg just hit a walk off home run. Kobach is a master of using anger and fear to rally to masses. That's all that's going on here folks. If someone can answer how does these student's attending college hurt them personally, then reply here. If you're going to say it's not fair then cry me a river. LIfe's not fair and posting on an internet message board isn't going to make it any better.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

The problem is that we're rewarding folks who come here illegally.

If people want to come legally, they should go through the various processes that exist in order to do so.

There are many people who do that - shouldn't they get the first chance to become legal citizens?

Zachary Stoltenberg 5 years, 6 months ago

How is this a reward? The program requires them to apply for citizenship just like any other immigrant. For lack of a better term, they go to the back of the line. And in the end, they are becoming citizens in order to reap the benefits of living in the US. That's what you want right?

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Giving in-state tuition to people who aren't legal residents of the US is a reward.

So is allowing people who have come here illegally to apply for legal citizenship.

What I want is for us to have an immigration policy that makes sense - so we can determine what level of immigration is desirable, and what kinds of people we prefer to have become citizens.

As a nation, we have to consider more than the question of whether someone wants to live here - that's their personal question. We have to decide what's in the best interests of our nation.

Perhaps any who have come here illegally shouldn't be allowed to apply for a period of time, or at all. There is some sort of limit as to how many immigrants we can absorb in total - why not make sure that those are drawn from the pool that is following the correct procedure from the start?

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

"The individuals (illegals) that qualify to take advantage of this program must meet many different requirements, paramount of which is starting a path to citizenship."

Not exactly. They only have to promise to start down that path. As a matter of fact, there's provision in the law, at least as far as I know, for any punitive action if they break that promise.

As I said in an earlier post, I have no major objection to allowing a person who moved here as a child, not through his own choice, grew up here, and attended and graduated from a state high school, to get in-state tuition rates. I do have a problem with the whole affidavit thing. Turn in your application for citizenship, filled out and signed, along with your enrollment papers; the school can drop it in the mail for you.

gatekeeper 5 years, 6 months ago

Can someone explain to me why conservatives want to scream state's rights when it suits what they want, but then turn around and talk about federal law when it suits them better?

When it comes to any and all immigration issues, which is it? When you say anything about the Arizona law it's all state's rights, blah blah blah. Now Kobach wants to push the federal law.

My parents, true old time conservatives, call Kobach much worse than an idiot. My poor mother asks god to forgiver her before calling him the pet names she has for that low life scum. He is not a good person and uses political office to further his hateful, racist agenda. As my mom says, he is not a Christian.

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

"Can someone explain to me why conservatives want to scream state's rights when it suits what they want, but then turn around and talk about federal law when it suits them better?"

Funny, I was going to ask the same thing about liberals. You know, gay marriage, legalizing marijuana...

"When you say anything about the Arizona law it's all state's rights, blah blah blah."

The Arizona law has nothing to do with state rights vs. federal law, as there is nothing in the Arizona law that supersedes or contradicts federal law (it actually just mandates the enforcement of those laws). The instate tuition rates for illegal aliens is a direct contradiction of federal law (just like gay marriage and legalized marijuana).

Hope that explained it for you.

Scott Morgan 5 years, 6 months ago

jafs..........you hit the nail on the head. Why reward illegal behaviors? Legally here honest green card workers are sent home routinely for doing the right thing. I see no argument here.

gatekeeper..........Why would a conservative constitutional law professor as Kobach draw the ire of your conservative parents? Details please. Perhaps your parents enjoy watching California go bankrupt dealing with the illegal immigration problem now spinning totally out of control. California hospitals closing down, schools not able to teach, and worse the cutting back entitlements to people who paid in often for entire lives.

Furthermore, I do not see how you could drop the R word. It's about law. It's simply about the law. It's about illegal immigration.

gatekeeper 5 years, 6 months ago

If you had ready people's earlier posts wissmo, you'd know that the idiot remark was because conservatives on here were mocking that liberals call Kobach and idiot. I was pointing out that old school republicans also think he's a raging moron.

Why would Kobach concern my parents? Because the idiot keeps running for office in KS, that's why. Funny you mention CA since that is where most of our family is at, my husband is from, all of his family current lives and where we all spend our time away from KS. You ever lived there? Go there every couple of months at least? I'm sure the answer is no. Illegal immigrants are just a part of the problem in CA. But hey, why don't you - a KANSAN - tell me about a place I've lived and am in all the time. And enjoy that produce you're eating, it was picked by latinos in CA because citizens out there won't pick it.

Explain why Kobach and other republicans aren't going after the businesses that hire illegals? If they want to solve the problem, that's the only way. No walls, no amount deportation, etc.... is going to stop illegal immigration. No jobs will. But see, bug business that owns our politicians wants cheap labor. So, no one in govt will do anything to these businesses that keep hiring them. But hey, let's punish their kids who had no choice in where their parents brought them and make sure they stay uneducated. Yep, that's the best way to treat children and definitely what God would want us to do.

whats_going_on 5 years, 6 months ago

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this law.

I don't think you can complain about people wanting "handouts" while at the same time trying to deny them a college education.

Makes no freaking sense, good job.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Not offering in-state tuition rates is not "denying them" an education.

It's saying that it makes no sense for an illegal resident of the country to be considered a legal resident of a state for tuition purposes.

PortTabacco 5 years, 6 months ago

autie are you also an illegal alien? Kobach is an American that wants to help American citizens. Something you probably disapprove of correct? More power to Koback!!!!

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 6 months ago

It is so wonderful to meet these new posters (PortTabacco) online.

Does Kevin G have to identify himself on these accounts? (or people similar to him)

Do people realize he has been banished 100-200 times?

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 6 months ago

It is so wonderful to meet these new posters (PortTabacco) online.

Does Kevin G have to identify himself on these accounts? (or people similar to him)

Do people realize he has been banished 100-200 times?

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 5 months ago

Wow--here we go with the "racist" label! Wow that doesn't seem like a real rational way to carry on a debate does it? Watch you labeling or someone might give you a label!

Scott Morgan 5 years, 6 months ago

Gatekeeper. Huh shrugging shoulders?

Kobach is being groomed for national office after the President Obama years are over.

I spent 2 weeks a year for 18 years working out of Hayward Ca. I know CA. Great state, but the chip owners are calling in for pay.

Oracle_of_Rhode 5 years, 6 months ago

Demagogy or demagoguery is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

Flap Doodle 5 years, 6 months ago

Such as Dear Leader's "punish your enemies" speech?

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 6 months ago

Gest.......

Is this the first day of yet another troll on the LJW site? Should we let the LJW know of your yet another violation of the terms of service?

Are you just yet another Kevin G or an acolyte? (answer: yes)

coolmom 5 years, 6 months ago

I was born and raised in Lawrence, I attended K.U for 3 years and the hubby graduated 3rd in his class from the school of eng. We accepted the best job we could and moved our small family to California although if there had been good jobs in Kansas we would have stayed. We have a daughter thats a high school senior this year and we dearly wish we could send her back to Kansas to school to be a Jayhawk where she was born. Out of state tuition is over 20,000 and thats not counting room and board or books or anything else for this kid that will either end up as a doc or eng. pretty sad.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

If you don't want her to pay out of state, then have her move up here and attend community colleges or work for one year, keeping an address in the Kansas area. Following that, have her apply to KU. She will get in-state tuition at that point.

George Lippencott 5 years, 6 months ago

BC

I guess I will not let your Texas statement stand. The following states do not tax personal income: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. Couple of points. Other than Sunbelt states do not tax income. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama tax personal income – they are sunbelt states.

The only data I supplied is that there are a higher proportion of military members claiming residence in Sunbelt state. I have no specific data on Texas. Do you or is your assertion motivated by envy that military members may not pay income taxes if they are resident of states that do not tax personal income and you do???

I also have seen statistical and historic data that reflects that there are a disproportionate number of military personnel from the “heart land” and the south. The data on state residence may simply reflect home of origin and not specifically an attempt to avoid taxes.

I remind you of my statement that most military members are enlisted or lower grade officers the majority of whom do not have children in College.

I restate that it appears to me you are pulling a Koebacb by making an issue out of a limited occurrence event. I have no data on how many military dependents who are legal residents of Kansas (lived here a year) and who graduated from a Kansas High School, actually attend a Kansas institution of higher education. Do you?

To restate my position. I believe that the “"sins" of the father should not be levied upon the son/daughter”. Ax far as I am concerned anybody who graduates from a Kansas High School and who has lived here a year should be considered an instate resident regardless of whether his/her father/mother is a resident of another state or a nonresident of the United States.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Well I don't think the majority of Kansans agree with you. I think we will see this whole policy revisited during the next session of the legislature! It will be much more restrictive and I would be surprised if there are any in-state benefits left to for children of those who are breaking the law to be in this country.

llama726 5 years, 6 months ago

I don't know how you can say that with any authority. I also don't doubt that most Kansans support the repeal of this law for the reasons I've highlighted above: It's easier to look at things as a dichotomy, but life is full of gray area.

It all depends on how it's painted, doesn't it? When you look at the numbers, the policy is pretty insignificant in terms of negative impacts and has a fair ceiling for possible rewards. I don't see rational justification for discontinuing the policy as it stands now. Regrettably, this won't be a rational conversation in our state. Why? Look at your very posts, as with many of the others. Illegal immigrants = bad criminals, punishing criminals = good. if we reward their children, we're encouraging illegal immigration, which is irrational. No one can examine these topics even a little objectively, it boils down to the same response we give to sports teams. So emotional, so lacking in any quantitative analysis or rational thought of any kind.

The thing is, you only have to persuade a majority to agree with a simplistic and emotional appeal. And it's not hard to turn people against illegal immigrants, now is it? Translating that rage to peripheral topics (like the children of those immigrants) is easy.

We have a tendency here to blame the illegal immigrant. The illegal immigrant doesn't get hired by the government's policy, they don't get hired by individuals - they get hired by businesses all over the place. And they don't lead a glamorous life, they are exploited because they are a cheap and easily bullied source of labor. I think it's bad enough that we perpetuate that by refusing to punish the businesses that engage in these practices (we do not want to seem anti business - EVER), but why not allow their kids (who are already integrated into our society among high schoolers) the same chance to go to college as we give other kids who graduate from our high schools? No logical reason to prevent that. I reject the simplistic notion that they are not residents of the country, and thus not residents of the state, because that implies that they have control as a minor throughout high school where they are a resident. They don't. Therefore, residency wasn't chosen by them to begin with.

George Lippencott 5 years, 6 months ago

kansanjayhawk

I believe you are accurate. Unfortunately. I prefer to punish the guilty not their offspring.

llama726 5 years, 5 months ago

@ Agnostick:

You suggested:

"First offense: Fine of $1 million for each undocumented illegal immigrant on the work site. Five illegal workers means $5 million.

Second offense: Seizure of all holdings and assets of the business, arrest warrants for the business owners. Business closed for 30 days, then auctioned off to highest-bidding, law-abiding citizen. Receipts of auction to Internal Revenue for back taxes owed.

It'll be interesting to see which traitorous coward speaks out against this..."

That's a stiff penalty, and really targets the cause of illegal immigration. Our government will never follow a policy anything like that for two reasons:

1) That is an "anti business" philosophy. It's not really, but it is for the intents and purposes of the people who run businesses in this country who hire illegal immigrants, businesses which are likely greater in number than most people realize. However, all forms of business regulation in the US are callously disregarded as anti business, job killing, or economy destabilizing when they are proposed, making them exceptionally difficult to pass.

2) The solution targets the logical cause of the problem, and our government is composed of the individuals we elect emotionally rather than rationally, so they govern emotionally rather than rationally on hot button issues.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.