Archive for Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Kansas House votes to end program allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants

February 22, 2011


How they voted

Here is how the local House delegation voted on House Bill 2006, to repeal in-state tuition for some undocumented immigrants. The bill passed 72-50 and now goes to the Senate.


Anthony Brown, R-Eudora; TerriLois Gregory, R-Baldwin City; Connie O’Brien, R-Tonganoxie.


Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence,; Paul Davis, D-Lawrence; Ann Mah, D-Topeka; Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence.

— House members have voted to end a program that allows some illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition to attend Kansas public colleges and universities.

The chamber voted 72-50 on Tuesday to repeal the law, which began in 2004. The bill now goes to the Senate.

Critics of the tuition program argue the state policy violates federal law and is unfair to out-of-state and foreign students at Kansas colleges and universities.

Supporters say the repeal is driven by fear that the tuition break is encouraging illegal immigrants to move to Kansas.

Similar measures have passed the House since adoption of the policy but have failed to find enough votes in the Senate.

The state Board of Regents said 413 students enrolled under the law last fall.


Paul R Getto 7 years ago

Dumb move, but expected. Punish the children for the sins of their parents. The Native American community should latch on to this theory. If they are successful, they can punish us for what our ancestors did when they illegally invaded this lovely country. Ah, Kochkansas! Will the last (legal) resident please turn out the lights when they leave?

llama726 7 years ago

How? Please, tell me how a 14-17 year old high school student who is not a legal adult! can go about becoming a legal student for purposes of going to college.

ksarmychick 7 years ago

Or my parents sin is that they make a lot of money so I don't get free grants for school? Even though they don't help me financially? If my parents matter on my financial forms and I am penalized because of it, they should be too.

llama726 7 years ago

Yes, if I have to suffer then everyone else should have to, as well.

They aren't getting free grants. They're getting in-state tuition. They likely don't qualify for most grants because most grants are forbidden from being given to anyone but legal residents.

xfitter 7 years ago

"grants are forbidden from being given to anyone but legal residents." Pretty much sums it up right there, they're illegally here...

llama726 7 years ago

If you're too simple minded to handle a little complexity, I'm afraid that life has a lot of challenges for you. These kids didn't choose to come here. They legally couldn't, as they were minors.

llama726 7 years ago

They didn't live in Missouri. They graduated from a Kansas high school. If your parents lived in Missouri, but you graduated from a Kansas high school, you'd get in-state tuition.

Brock Masters 7 years ago

Yeah, it sucks that the kids get dragged into this, but kids suffer for the parents sins a lot. The parent doesn't pay the house mortgage so the entire family, not just the parents, but the children too get evicted.

The parents are at fault, but that doesn't mean you allow illegal activity to continue. The cable company accidently hooks you up for free, but 5 years later discovers their mistake. They turn off the cable.

We should have never let illegal immigrants enter our school system in the first place, but now that we know we shouldn't allow them as adults to continue benefitting from their parent's crime..

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

So you're saying that things suck in lots of other ways, so it has to suck in this situation, too?

Just wanted a clarification.

Jim Phillips 7 years ago

The key words here are "illegal immigrants" which means they are not in the country legally. Why should we allow law breakers to benefit while other US citizens must pay out of state tuition to attend a school in their own country? I'm in favor of taking it a step further and mandating students be legally in the country before attending any university or college.

llama726 7 years ago

I would agree, if, of course, illegal immigrants could move here in July and get in state tuition in August.

They have to graduate from a Kansas high school to qualify.

Brock Masters 7 years ago

I'm in favor of taking it a step further and mandating students be legally in the country before attending any university or college.

Yes, this is a no-brainer and I do not understand how we allow them to attend now. I would take it one step further and not allow them into pre-k, K or any school if they are illegal.

notanota 7 years ago

Yes, because punishing children works out fantastic for everyone. Let's make sure they never learn to read, so we can have a pre-made permanent underclass that never has a chance to make life better for themselves all because of the sins of their parents.

emceelean 7 years ago

I agree in that this legislation seeking the REPEAL of opportunities for a FEW kids is wasting time.

And, please, understand that they ARE NOT eligible for financial aid. So your tax dollars ARE NOT subsidizing their education.

Therefore, this shouldn't matter at all to you.

Also, spending time and money to deport them would diminish resources for the poor and legal residents that you seek to protect.

formerksteacher 7 years ago

Because we're talking about young people who had no control over their illegal status, yet now have the intelligence to attend college and are at least able to pay in-state tuition, assuming they currently live in state like other students who pay in-state tuition. And frankly I'd rather have an educated illegal immigrant than an uneducated one. I know several young men and women who were brought to the U.S. very young to escape life-threatening circumstances in other countries, but who are now hard-working young people SO deserving of just the OPPORTUNITY to pay for tuition in the state in which they have lived for a number of years. If a person lives in any given state, they should be allowed to pay in-state tuition in that state. Or at least create programs helping young people attain legal status separate from their parents in order to qualify!!

Shardwurm 7 years ago

My parents were alcoholics. My sister was a drug addict. My grandparents beat me.

How about a handout?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

You mean in-state tuition? If you are a Kansas resident, you already get that, and it's not a handout.

xfitter 7 years ago

How are these illegal immigrants paying for their tuition? Through a job they shouldn't have being that they are illegal? If they have the opportunity for employment they can go through the process of becoming a LEGAL citizen...

llama726 7 years ago

What if they graduate at 17 years old? How do you even begin that process when you aren't of age?

ksarmychick 7 years ago

you wait till you are 18 and then begin the process of becoming legal. DUH!!! Most people turn 18 during the senior year of high school or in the summer before attending college. It is a very small number of freshmen attending a university that are not considered an adult.

emceelean 7 years ago

I don't think many 18-year-olds can pass a citizenship test. Even the ones that were born here.

If everyone, regardless of whether or not they were born here, had to pass a citizenship test then I bet you and others would possibly understand the challenges of earning citizenship.

llama726 7 years ago

Your tax dollars can't go to making sure kids have teachers and schools, but they can go to heading up and moving out people who were brought here when they were children and couldn't legally own property or apply for citizenship.


Jim Phillips 7 years ago

And you just proved Rush Limbaugh correct. If you have no argument, scream racism.

notanota 7 years ago

He's so funny. I'm especially tickled when he makes fun of the disabled.

Brock Masters 7 years ago

Sure when you can't debate launch personal attacks to distract from the real issue.

No one is seeking to deny legal aliens or legal immigrants in-state tuition if they live here, just those that are here illegally. Big difference.

It has absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with their illegal immigration status. Doesn't matter what race they are, if they are here illegally they should not even be admitted to our schools.

And don't blame the legislators. They are doing what they are suppose to do and represent the people that elected them.

llama726 7 years ago

13 year old kid can't legally decide to immigrate here. They do the best they can and graduate high school. Provision of current law requires them to try to get citizenship. Please think about this logically and not emotionally.

Brock Masters 7 years ago

I think emotional thinking drives those that want to let them stay here and get in-state tuition rates.

Logic says, yes it may not be their fault, but the fact remains they are here illegally and should not get any breaks until they become legal.

If I let emotion creep in I probably would say let them stay. It is hard to take the hard line against some of these kids, but logic dictates that we enforce the law otherwise why have laws.

Logic also says forget about the in-state vs out-of-state rate, if they are here illegally they should not be admitted, but deported.

Set up a program with their home country's government to assimilate them back into their own country. And, I'd even support not holding it against them if they want to come here legally after they go back to their home country.

llama726 7 years ago

How does logic dictate that? How does logic say that they made a decision to immigrate here when they're not legally old enough to apply for citizenship?

Brock Masters 7 years ago

I stateed the reason. Why have laws if we don't enforce them? It is illogical to have a law if you don't enforce it.

It is not an issue of logic when you discuss how they got here. Yes, their low life parents involved them in illegal activity and made them "criminals." I put it in quotes because I don't blame the child, only the parents, but if they are going to college chances are they are 18 or soon to be, thus they are an adult and they are now responsible for their actions.

They can continue to be here illegally and violate our laws or they can rectify it. But until they do, they should not be allowed to enroll. Fix the problem their parents created for them and then we can discuss enrolling in school.

I realize you don't see it the same way, but you're in the minority. Kansas voters said we want this and now those we elected are doing what we asked them to do.

llama726 7 years ago

This wasn't put up as a ballot issue.

Most Kansans vote Republican, regardless of the race or the issues.

llama726 7 years ago

In response:

"I stateed the reason. Why have laws if we don't enforce them? It is illogical to have a law if you don't enforce it."

Because we are not machines, and we can see nuance, and we don't have to apply punishment to someone who is trying to do the right thing.

"It is not an issue of logic when you discuss how they got here. Yes, their low life parents involved them in illegal activity and made them "criminals." I put it in quotes because I don't blame the child, only the parents, but if they are going to college chances are they are 18 or soon to be, thus they are an adult and they are now responsible for their actions."

So, as a 13 year old, they are not responsible and their parents can move them to the middle of the country where it is exceptionally difficult to get an actual job (on account of your immigration status AND their age) - they attend high school, have enough success to think about college - and then when they turn 18, they need to leave their family (or maybe rat them out?). The day they turn 18, they have to leave. Right?

"They can continue to be here illegally and violate our laws or they can rectify it."

So we agree. If they go to school and learn how to become a citizen, then go through the steps to become citizens, they stop breaking the law.

"But until they do, they should not be allowed to enroll."

Kansas law says you have to graduate from a Kansas high school. They should be allowed to enroll. There's still no compelling, logical reason why they shouldn't be able to enroll, beyond "They're illegal aliens." No, they're kids trying to get by.

"Fix the problem their parents created for them and then we can discuss enrolling in school."

We are fixing it. Rather than wasting resources deporting kids back to a country where they will have almost no chance of reintegration, we're giving them an opportunity to go to school, become citizens, and become productive taxpayers.

"I realize you don't see it the same way, but you're in the minority. Kansas voters said we want this and now those we elected are doing what we asked them to do."

Look up tyranny of the majority sometime.

Brock Masters 7 years ago

No tyranny of the majority, that is just a sour grapes comment.

llama726 7 years ago

Maybe, but maybe I have a point - we are passing a law to systematically oppress 400ish kids on the basis that their parents decided to bring them here when they immigrated illegally, and I'm being asked to accept it because a majority of people accept it.

Brock Masters 7 years ago

Isn't that the way with all laws in this country? i might not like the government passing restrictive laws for strip clubs, but I have to accept it if the legislature passes it.

It may not be a perfect system, but it is not tyrannical. It is one of the best in the world.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

Oh, cut the crap. Your arguments have nothing to do with "logic." They're pure emotion.

So-called illegal immigrants make up less than 3% of the population in this country, and nearly every study shows that they mostly earn their keep.

But you and your ilk want to very emotionally scapegoat them for problems they didn't create.

So focus on the real problems that confront us. The best way to begin that is to rid yourself of your xenophobia.

emceelean 7 years ago

No, Tocqueville's "tyranny of the majority" is simply a hypothesis positing that a majority sentiment is not inherently correct. It rebukes the idea of a direct democracy and is a core principle of our indirect, representative democracy.

It threatens eccentric views and can be equivalent to the oppression that an authoritarian levies against their people.

You suggestion that our elected officials are carrying out your -- the majority's -- agenda is undeniable evidence that tyranny of the majority exists.

jayhawkca 7 years ago

I'm torn on the issue, but that is not the point. My reason for disclosing this is that I don’t want the following to be interpreted as an argument for or against in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

The problem that I see with your statement is that it isn't necessarily illogical to be emotional. Reason and emotion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, without emotion, it's pretty hard to make decisions. This is not to say that we shouldn't enforce our laws and have respect for our sovereignty. I'm just pointing out that logic/emotion is a false dichotomy when it comes to real-world application. If you are interested in the importance of emotion in decision-making, I would recommend reading Antonio Damasio’s work with patient EVR, literature on the somatic marker hypothesis, or scholarly articles with the key words “cognitive neuroscience,” “emotion,” and “decision making.”

To say that something is "logical" in the colloquial sense (e.g., your statement, "Logic dictates that we enforce the law otherwise why have laws") in no way indicates that it is actually philosophically logical. First, I present a paraphrase of your statement: the government is not enforcing immigration law; therefore, the government should not enforce any law. The conclusion does not logically follow the premise. A logical conclusion of your premise would be that the government is not enforcing all of its laws. The following is a valid argument: the government is not enforcing immigration law; therefore, the government is choosing which laws it will enforce. Perhaps this is what you meant. Assuming this is what you wanted to say, we still have not reached the connection between condoning illegal immigration and disregarding all other laws. There are still premises without which your argument is not valid.

jayhawkca 7 years ago

To get from Premise A (the government is not enforcing immigration law) to the Conclusion (the government should not enforce any law), you need to present the following premises: B. The government is choosing which laws to enforce/is not enforcing all laws. (Deduced from Premise A) C. The government should not be allowed to choose which laws it will enforce. (Hidden assumption that does not logically follow, either by deductive or inductive reasoning, from Premise A. You also need the assumptions of Premise C, below) C1. The government should enforce all rules as they are written. For this to be at all American (think about the Bill of Rights and the other Constitutional Amendments), you must also add the following assumptions: C2. New laws can be written. C3. Extant laws can be amended. D. No law is intrinsically valuable. (This must be true if you want to say that no law is valuable unless all other laws are enforced.)
If Premise D is true, then that means that the illegality of, say, murder is not inherently valuable. (As a syllogism, if no A [laws] are B [intrinsically valuable] and C [the prohibition of murder] is an A, then C is not B.) A, B, C, and D are necessary and sufficient conditions for the Conclusion.
If A, B, C, and D are true, then Conclusion is true. You have to ask yourself, though is D true? Is C true?

If you have trouble swallowing Premise D, either in general or when specifically referring to immigration law, then maybe you should re-think Premise D. Without Premise D, which is necessary for your Conclusion, your argument is invalid.

Assuming all of the requisite premises are true, there are other arguments that you can make.

For example, if C2 and C3 are true, then immigration law could be changed. If immigration law were changed and all other laws were stayed the same and were enforced, then the government would be enforcing all laws. If the immigration law is not inherently valuable (per Premise D), then changing it is not a big deal and is allowed in this country.

I am not making a conclusion about whether allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition is right. My opinion on this law is irrelevant, actually. All I am saying is that your argument is hardly logical, however “logical” it may be.

llama726 7 years ago

In response (i'm clearing the thread) to your thread about closing strip clubs and "this is the greatest system in the world..."

Please don't wrap yourself in the flag and run away from the point at hand. I think our democracy is great. I also think that the Framers understood that a simple majority isn't enough to make a decision. People are emotional and make snap decisions.

Closing strip clubs =/= taking any opportunity for a degree and the success that can come from that away from these kids.

Brock Masters 7 years ago

No one is wrapping themselves in the flag and running away fromt he point at hand. I've addressed all your points.

No one said that stip clubs was the same as this issue, my point was simply that legislation is passed all the time that I may or may not agree with. It is just the way it is.

You are exactly right that the framers set up a representative republic and not a democracy to avoid the majority running everything. It is the same way here in the state - it is a representative government that makes the laws, not the majority of the people.

Flap Doodle 7 years ago

This post pre-removed for using a vulgar sexual term to refer to someone on the sinister side of the aisle.

stevejay35 7 years ago

Why are we worried about children who are interested in educating themselves? They are not eligible for grants or federal loans so they will be footing the bill themselves. I think people hear illegal immigrant and associate the sterotype to them.

Scott Morgan 7 years ago

stevejay, I doubt there are no financial aid packages out there for illegal immigrants. LIbguilt suffering citizens form a powerful tool, especially when spending other peoples money.

llama726 7 years ago

Wissmo, your personal doubts are strongly lacking in evidence. There are no taxpayer provided aid packages for illegal immigrants. None.

Scott Morgan 7 years ago

I didn't state taxpayer based aid packages. Although, I would bet there is.

I actually meant there is aid available, in fact too available for all non traditional students.

When the U.S.A. had enough money to turn on the lights, we were famous for helping out those judged to be in personal danger from their former homeland. Again, not sure this has stopped as well.

To paint the picture these people are living in cardboard boxes working 120 hours a week to gain an education is wrong.

llama726 7 years ago

Where is that aid you're talking about? Some form of scholarship or grant, privately given?

I assure you that there are no state taxpayer based aid packages. Please go to the FAFSA website and look at the requirements. You have to include tax information and have to be a legal resident.

To paint the picture that these kids are robbing old ladies for their school fix is more wrong.

Scott Morgan 7 years ago

Where there's a will there's a way.

While there are many scholarships for study in the USA, they often require US citizenship or at least US residency. If you find a college scholarship that interests you, the first thing you should do is to look at the scholarship requirements and determine if you must be a US citizen. There is financial aid available for international students / foreign students to study in the US, but it takes initiative and determination to find. Some places that have specific information on scholarships for international students / foreign students studying in the US include:

Scott Morgan 7 years ago

Lewis and Clark College for one. You want a thousand others?

While there are many scholarships for study in the USA, they often require US citizenship or at least US residency. If you find a college scholarship that interests you, the first thing you should do is to look at the scholarship requirements and determine if you must be a US citizen. There is financial aid available for international students / foreign students to study in the US, but it takes initiative and determination to find. Some places that have specific information on scholarships for international students / foreign students studying in the US include:

notanota 7 years ago

Is that in Kansas? Is it a public institution? Do they issue scholarships for international students without proof of legal residency?

Now try again. Name. One. You claim you've got thousands. Name a single scholarship an undocumented student in Kansas could receive.

Scott Morgan 7 years ago

How about all the colleges in Kansas, but maybe not a couple of tiny ones. Any student without independent wealth has to take out loans uses grants. What I hear is there is plenty of money if the student show promise.

TheStonesSuck 7 years ago

Holy crap, how many people does this actually impact, 20? 30? 100? Not a lot of money is involved here. This is useless legislation meant to placate the ignorant folks who vote these KS officials into office. The xenophobes might be all snuggly in their white sheets tonight, but the rest of us want those over in Topeka to actually get down to business. Accomplish something to address the needs of the state, stop pandering to the other knuckle-draggers.

chzypoof1 7 years ago

It's a "small" issue, so we should just ignore it? I for one am happy they accomplished something.

And let's have a small English lesson here: Illegal = not legal. It also = no benefits. If someone steals something, is it ok for them to keep it? I mean I know its illegal, but its petty theft. And what if someone smokes Mary J? It's just a little issue, just let it go.

Quit letting your polarized views block the fact that this should be pretty cut/dry. They are here ILLEGALLY. They do not have ANY rights, as they are not citizens. Quit trying to bring race into this. Legal citizens/visa holders are more than welcome to go to our universities and pay taxes. Both sides of the aisle need to step back and calm down. Very simple issue here.....


llama726 7 years ago

You know who else doesn't believe in human rights? Al Qaeda.

You want it to be simple. It's only simple if you make it that way. You're placing responsibility for the decisions of the parents on the kids, and that's not right to me, and I have a right to express that I feel it isn't right.

Brock Masters 7 years ago

Does anyone know the answer to this question - of all the illegal immigrants that have been admitted to KS schools how many actually became citizens?

llama726 7 years ago

Regrettably, the state doesn't keep such records. Perhaps a true improvement would be to require the students to become citizens. The university likely already has sufficient personnel and resources to keep a student along the path to citizenship, and perhaps they could be required to have applied for citizenship before they can apply for graduation.

Nah, who am I kidding? That's being reasonable and doesn't satisfy peoples' emotional needs to punish the brown people with the accents.

Brock Masters 7 years ago

You almost had me agreeing with you until that comment about punishing brown people. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin. I don't care what color the person is but I do care if they are here illegally. it could be a Canadian that is here illegally and I would feel the same way.

I've posted this before, find a way to grandfather the kids here today and take a hardline on anyone coming to this country after the law goes into effect. Make it a requirement that they apply for and are granted citizenship. If they don't get it no degree and pay back the difference in tutition and are deported. If they get citizenship then they get the degree after completing 500 hours of community service.

Sounds reasonable to me.

llama726 7 years ago

Sorry for the comment offending you so much. You may not be racist. A Kansas representative (one who undoubtedly voted for this legislation) recently made a comment about being able to recognize illegals by skin color. I'm cynical from the racists I've been exposed to in my life (a vast majority of which has been spent in this state).

500 hours of community service while working and going to school? I work 45 hours a week and have taken 12 to 14 hours for the last year (science classes, so they're not blow off courses). So far I've managed to only give about 70 hours of volunteering done in the past six months - and this semester, it's all but impossible to get in more than two hours a week and have time for everything else. You're asking them to do nearly ten hours a week for a year. If the school can help them find the community service, I suppose that's only 2.5 hours per week if they start the first year they're in school, but that's an awful high number.

Brock Masters 7 years ago

The number isn't set in stone, it was just an idea. Maybe 250 is more reasonable, maybe 125. The number itself wasn't the point.

llama726 7 years ago

I could easily get behind that. Hey, look, a reasonable solution! Now, let's just get elected...

Jayhawks1985 7 years ago

Those of us who are far from rich and have to pay out of state tuition are happy to see this change. Why would an illegal deserve in state tuition more than my son? He goes to school and works full time to pay his expenses. He will have to work just as hard as an illegal to be successful but he will never be given any breaks.

llama726 7 years ago

Tell him to move to Kansas and attend a community college for one year, then apply to KU. Saves him a boatload on tuition (out of state tuition at a community college is pretty much as cheap as in state tuition is at a university) and he'll be eligible for in state after one year:

It's not a bad idea at all, and it's always better to take a year and work at the community college level rather than get lost in the sea of faces at the university level.

Like any Kansas high school graduate with moderately acceptable grades, these kids are eligible for in-state tuition. If your son didn't graduate from a Kansas high school, he has another option. We're taking away the only option for these kids who didn't choose to move here. It's not their fault that their parents immigrated here, and it's barely (if even) affecting the costs for your son, so I'm having a tough time understanding your objections.

ksarmychick 7 years ago

It is almost impossible to get instate tution at KU if you did not graduate from a Kansas high school. If you move here for a year and attend a community college you are considered to be in Kansas for educational purposes and will be DENIED instate tution. In order to get instate tution you would have to move to the state of kansas, hold a job for 1 year without attending any school, and then apply to KU. I have been in Kansas for 10 years after turning 18, served in the kansas national guard and I still don't get instate tution at KU because in the eyes of KU I am not considerd a Kansas resident. Getting instate tution isn't as simple as you think.

We are not taking away any option they have. They have the option to go through the process of becoming legal, just like I would have to go through the process of becoming a kansas resident if I wanted the same benefit.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

The law as it has applied to you is just plain wrong.

But that's not a good justification for treating these students just as wrongly.

jhawkinsf 7 years ago

A plea bargain agreement. If the high school graduate (now 18 years old) is not culpable for the crimes that the person who brought them in, then in exchange for in-state tuition and a pathway to citizenship, they turn in the lawbreaker(s) who brought them here. That way we get new citizens that are well educated and we get rid of the lawbreaking illegal immigrants.

llama726 7 years ago

Oh, that's reasonable (Sarcasm, folks). There are no parallels to the Hitler Youth there or anything (turn your parents in, kids!).

How about, in exchange for in-state tuition we get a commitment from them that they will use their abilities to help their parents also become legal? Or maybe require some volunteer work helping immigrants? Or something productive for society, rather than destructive for families?

jhawkinsf 7 years ago

Actually, my comment was also made sarcastically. You're absolutely correct, we'd be putting the kids in a terrible position. But isn't that the exact position they're putting us in. If we allow them to go to college, and then work (presumably legally) what happens when the parents are picked up for working illegally or a traffic stop. We deport them and break up the family. My post was made to highlight that people are being put in a no win situation. I don't like being put in that position. I tried to turn the tables and suggest that they be put in the same no win situation. Either way, it's a no win. The logical follow-up and the real agenda here is in-state tuition with a path to citizenship followed by an amnesty for the original lawbreakers. And that sort of blanket amnesty is opposed by a majority of Americans.

llama726 7 years ago

I think it's opposed by a vocal group, but I'm not certain that group is a majority. I think that if it were explained reasonably (rather than by the television personalities that do the explaining in our country in a sensational manner for ratings), most people would probably be inclined to say that if these kids are willing to work as hard as they have to to learn English (which you HAVE to learn for a lot of professional programs) and integrate into our society, they deserve a chance at citizenship.

jhawkinsf 7 years ago

I said opposed to a blanket amnesty for all illegal immigrants. I'll stand by my assertion that most Americans are opposed to that. And it's the no win situation I alluded to that I'm opposed to.

ToriFreak13 7 years ago

Strange how a lot of people read this as "children of illegal immigrants are being deported". Instead of the the actual headline. They are not a legal resident of in the terms that they didn't get here they should not be allowed the benefits of families legally living here and paying taxes. They may "legally" be allowed to attend college...and more power to them for making it to that level. There are immigrants here legally for the purpose of furthering their education...and they pay out of state tuition. If the cultures that these various immigrants belonged to cared enough about such an issue, they should be pooling their money and creating funds to help assist these individuals in paying tuition. Sure there are a few scholarships here and there. But the money wasted on arguing and advocating bs could just be put to good use directly to the students in need. and you know of anyone that was from out of state...went to a Kansas CC, then qualified for in state tuition? You might want to check your facts...just because you can apply doesn't mean you are eligible. It isn't that easy to get in state tuition case in point these two guidelines... 2) that you rely on in-state sources for your financial support, and 3) that you have demonstrated intent to make Kansas your permanent residence indefinitely and are in Kansas for reasons other than educational purposes. Going to a JUCO for a year proves nothing towards those two requirements.

llama726 7 years ago

Thanks for the comment. I appreciate your concern.

76-729. Residence of students for fee purposes; basic rule, certain exceptions authorized; definitions. (a) (1) Persons enrolling at the state educational institutions under the control and supervision of the state board of regents who, if such persons are adults, have been domiciliary residents of the state of Kansas or, if such persons are minors, whose parents have been domiciliary residents of the state of Kansas for at least 12 months prior to enrollment for any term or session at a state educational institution are residents for fee purposes.

ToriFreak13 7 years ago

That is only one stipulation. It would be like reading the first line of a recipe and poof you have chocolate chip cookies. The ending " are residents for fee purposes" can be found at the end of other stipulations. You must meet all requirements, ask anyone that has moved here to complete a masters, then apply for grad school and still get turned down for in state tuition though they can prove they have a prominent job and love kansas so much they have a DoDo Bird tattooed on their ankle. Again it is not that easy.

llama726 7 years ago

Hmm. I must be misunderstanding it. I'm a Kansas resident and haven't had to investigate it that deeply. Sorry if I was wrong.

jhawkinsf 7 years ago

What's the point of giving them in-state tuition if upon graduation they still can't work here legally? Oh, you say, we'll let them become citizens. But what about their families? You mean we are going to deport the parents of these new citizens, these new graduates in whom we've just invested so much that they've become productive members of society? Oh, you say, we'll let them stay here too. We'll have a one time only amnesty. But didn't we have a one time amnesty some years ago? Oh, you say, we'll have a one time only amnesty every generation, as soon as we forget that we already had a one time amnesty. Oh, I see, this isn't really about in-state tuition for a few, it's about amnesty for millions. Why didn't you say so?

jhawkinsf 7 years ago

Wow. I agree with you or Wow. I disagree with you because...

llama726 7 years ago

It's clear that it would be a waste of my time to address the paranoid slippery slope theory.

jhawkinsf 7 years ago

Paranoid or inconvenient truth? Look in the mirror and tell me you don't see someone opposed to sending illegal immigrants back to their country of origin. Logically, it follows from letting the kids stay and not wanting to break up families. Amnesty, path to citizenship, it's the same thing. Another generation of individuals who circumvented U.S. laws and now want to be rewarded with citizenship. Go back to their country or origin and apply, like millions of others around the world.

akhmatova 7 years ago

There are a handful-hundred of students who are using the program, but the very large majority are in community college -- where tuition rates are incredibly small anyways.

Only about 60 kids are using in-state tuition in the six public schools in Kansas. They have to go to a Kansas high school for 3 years, graduate from it, and meet all of the residency requirements that Kansas has established.

And by the way, you can get in-state residency if you are not a citizen. If you are a permanent resident and have established residency in Kansas, you get in-state tuition. It's all about paying taxes, not about citizenship. It's very, very, very obvious that the people who passed this law do not understand residency guidelines and Kansas and the circumstances under which students are using the bill. There are only three possible explanations to me: out-and-out racism, a move to appease voters, or ignorance.

KU wants more in-state students to go to KU and graduate in 4 years. This bill does not take away money to the state, it provides tuition money to schools, as these are students who often cannot afford out-of-state tuition. It's pure malice to punish kids who were brought over to America, have never known any other home, have made a move to obtain citizenship (as mandated by the bill, as you have to sign an affidavit and pursue legal residency to qualify for in-state residency with the bill), and just want to be educated and support their country.

bchap 7 years ago

If people lived here, paid either rent or mortgage, spent any money, or were on a payroll (even with false documents), then they were taxpayers. So when you talk about "our tax dollars," you have to include the parents of these undocumented kids in the "us." I know, it makes your argument more difficult to make. Even impossible. I know.

llama726 7 years ago

400 kids going to college and trying to make a better life aren't draining this country. Corporations are draining this country.

llama726 7 years ago

So, you think that because a kid gets brought here when they're a minor, we should punish them the instant they turn 18, rather than allowing them the chance to do well. That's a productive use of government resources. Sorry, please go back to listening for Rush Limbaugh to tell you what to say, I didn't mean to interrupt.

emceelean 7 years ago

"They should rebell and have a civil war in their own country and fight for what they want rather than stealing it from others who did fight."

Sputum, I take serious issue with this statement. Did you fight for independence from the crown of England?

Don't bother with an answer, we all know that you didn't.

Flap Doodle 7 years ago

All power to the soviets, llama?

llama726 7 years ago

Yes. For daring to point out that corporations in our country may have an imbalanced amount of power, I must be a communist.

llama726 7 years ago

If you are that simple minded, then yes, that's what that means.

In reality, they're not living high. And you know that, but you have to try to make this into something more simple. Because if it is a dichotomy, it's easier to process for you.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

"The truth is that unauthorized immigrants are probably a net burden on taxpayers in the short term, but only if you consider education as a cost and not as an investment in the nation's future, as it was seen a century ago."

"What all this suggests is that public anger over the unauthorized already living here has less to do with history and economics and more with what Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel says is the special "outrage" citizens feel when they believe people are getting something they don't deserve."

"The most insightful study remains one done by the National Research Council in 1997. It gauged federal, state and local fiscal costs and contributions over the lifetime of an immigrant in 1996 dollars. Citizen children were included.

The study found that an immigrant high school dropout -- which characterizes nearly half of today's unauthorized people -- received $89,000 more in services than he paid in taxes in his life. But an immigrant with at least some college -- a quarter of today's unauthorized -- gave $105,000 more than he got. For the high school graduates left, those who arrived during their teens or earlier were slightly profitable for the government, while the children of those who arrived later paid off the small deficit of their parents."

Bananajoe 7 years ago

At the end no matter what happens . The "O'brien's" of this world will still need to deal with olive complexion people with and accent. Good Luck!!!

Jimo 7 years ago

Meanwhile, the Republican House of Representatives cuts funding for border security.

House Republicans Trim Border Security Budget, Despite Calls for More Resources

We have an immigration problem in this country because the GOP wishes it so. It provides cheap labor to the Republicans' puppet masters and serves as a means to rally the base (when flag burning, baby aborting gay Muslims need to take a break).

jhawkinsf 7 years ago

If that's true, that illegal immigration provides cheap labor to corporations and that benefits the Republican Party, isn't it also true that Latinos overwhelmingly vote Democratic and that this whole immigration debate is not good for Republicans considering that the numbers of Latinos is rapidly growing? It seems your argument takes one step forward and one step back.

emceelean 7 years ago

The operative phrase was "illegal immigrants" not "Latinos."

The Hispanic or "Latino" voters who support democrats are due their right to vote because of their citizenship. Permanent residents e.g. greencard holders cannot vote. Illegal immigrants cannot vote (duh).

illegal immigrants, who have no representation, provide cheap labor and are the source of great ire to conservative voters. So yes, it isn't too outlandish to believe that republican representatives benefit tremendously from playing both sides. GOPers can be pro-business and anti-illegal immigration at the same time despite the obvious dissonance.

jhawkinsf 7 years ago

Many Latinos can and do vote legally. And with 90% of the illegal immigrants being Latinos, they do feel like they have a greater interest in this issue. I was suggesting that the GOP's perception of being the party of anti-immigration, they are hurting themselves with that growing voting block. So if the GOP is sucking up to one constituency (corporate interests), they are hurting themselves with another (the Latino vote). I guess the opposite would be true for Democrats.

llama726 7 years ago

Yeah, that would be totally the same thing.

oldbaldguy 7 years ago

this is just dumb. these students by and large will be productive citizens. i doubt they will go back to where they are from. if they stay here, doesn't it make sense to have educated graduates rather than not?

ToriFreak13 7 years ago

The claim and argument that they will be productive citizens should be looked at as WHOM will they be productive for? Any of you hang out with children of illegal immigrants much? They have an agenda to give back to their most any culture would normally have. But the drawback here is that they are getting subsidized by citizens that they will not be providing services for...and that they actually could care less about. I have met many of these children...some attending KU now. Probably some of the most racist people I have met. Their racism stems from myths that The Man/White Man is out to get them. They want to either #1 move back to their home country and be a prominent citizen giving back to their roots...or #2 work here in the US to fight for the immigration rights of their people, work as a lawyer representing their people, work a social worker for their elderly populations here illegally that can not get services without getting caught...NOT become the top neurologist to save lives no matter what your color. There may be a few..but not enough that they all get a discount while others with obvious good intentions don't get the same treatment.

llama726 7 years ago

Tori, that's called anecdotal evidence and it's weak.

And by the way, look at this thread - the white man appears quite ready to "get them."

sibkiss 7 years ago

This is making it fair for the legal residents and out of state students who are coming to KS, but why not go above all this banter, and make college available to all Kansans, at a much reduced price, so that we may all get more educated smarts, and pay for it by taxation and interest free education savings, loans, and stop spending our tax dollars on things that do nothing to improve the education of our citizens.

jaketh 7 years ago

You all can keep on barking, ranting, raving & getting mad. You will only lose your hair, sleep & have to attend stress management. There is a seismic shift in the population demographic of our country. There is a browning of America which some of you cannot fathom. There will be more people of mixed races/multucultural by 2030 than whites. Whites have a zero population growth. Hispanics have the highest population about 3.2 growth followed by Blacks. Hispanics are already 50% of the population in 5 States, Statistics don't lie. It is better to deal with reality. Its a cold hard fact. How we racially profile certain races will define who America is in next 2-3 generations. I don't think they will forget being persecuted, especially when they attain the majority... Let the cool heads prevail.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.