Hey, Heather:
Tell me what I’m missing here: Federal law says an illegal immigrant
shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . 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.
So you can’t do for illegals what you don’t do for Americans. I get that.
But the arrangement that Texas offers illegals is available to U.S. residents on precisely the same terms. If you were to move from, say, Massachusetts to Texas, go to high school for three years, graduate, and enroll in a state university, you’d be eligible for in-state tuition, too, since residency requires: actual residency in the state, being enrolled in a Texas school for 36 months prior to college enrollment, and graduation from a Texas school.
Kevin, the benefit given to illegal aliens based on residence in the state must be given to U.S. citizens or nationals "without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident." Requiring the citizen or national to become a resident of the state in order to gain the benefit would violate that part of the law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin, you're misreading the law by not applying the last clause: "... WITHOUT regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident." In-state tuition is, by definition, WITH regard to whether the citizen is a resident.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf my choice is between the candidate who made it possible for illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition in Texas so they could get good educations, become gainfully employed and support themselves and the candidate who made it possible for citizens, legal residents and illegal immigrants to depend on the government and Massachusetts taxpayers for their healthcare services, I choose the guy from Texas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt still waste taxpayer money to educate illegals because they cannot legally work in the US.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInsidious straw man! And a stupid one at that.
Please explain how compelling persons to purchase private health insurance is relying on the government and taxpayers for healthcare. While you're at it, explain why people ACTUALLY relying on the government and taxpayers (which seems to irk you so, but is exactly the way it was before he passed the healthcare law) is better and more conservative. The entire premise of the law was to prevent exactly this type of freeloading on productive citizens. You have never bothered reading even a synopsis of the mass healthcare law, yet parrot talking points brazenly thrown around in comments, that have little basis in fact. Socialized Medicine!!!! Indeed.
To your other point, if illegals want to be gainfully employed in the united states, they can apply for a workers visa like every other legal immigrant. And why does their college tuition need to be subsidized in order for them to get a good education? They can apply for a education visa and pay full tuition like other legal foreign students. Oh but they're too poor, you say? Well so are a lot of white kids in Oklahoma. You gonna give in state tuition to them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd if being here illegally makes it so darned difficult to get ahead, due to all the beurocratic hurdles of "the law", well they can go back to Mexico where they enjoy all the benefits as tax paying citizens. Just as I would do if I overstayed my tourist visa in Mexico and wasn't able to get a job as an illegal. I would come back to America. The hard truth, though, is in that scenario, Mexico would have deported me before I even turned in my first job application
My guess is you were against illegal immigration when John McCain was running, but are magically for it now that a good ol' boy is for it.
Jenna-Well said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis in state tuition kerfuffle is a no win
for Governor Perry.
With only 4 dissenting votes,
I assume the Texas legislature could have
overriden Perry's veto of the bill.
Had Perry vetoed the bill , I have no doubt Santorum
would have taken a different tack.
Santorum would have been on his hysterical high horse
accusing Perry of being cold hearted
towards hard working young people who ,
through no fault of their own,
were brought here illegally
by their families.
Young people who have lived most of their lives in Texas ,
who consider themselves American ,
who are trying to be good citizens in addition
to becoming American citizens.
Some of these young people brought here illegally
will fight and
die for the country they consider their own.
Santorum would accuse Perry of visiting the sins of the parents
upon the children.
He would say many of them pay taxes and work hard
and came here for
a better life for their children.
He would describe his parents coming from Italy
bringing the innocent bambino Rick to America.
Where Rick grew up and always assumed that he was an American.
Until he tried to go to college.
His voice shaking in anger , his face red,
his finger pointing in accusation
at Governor Perry
Santorum would thunder-
" But you, you heartless Texas Governor, you told me- I don't care if you were brought here as a child,
I don't care if you are in the process of becoming
an American citizen ,
I don't care if you love America ,
I don't care if you have good grades
and want to be a productive American citizen ,
you must be punished !!!! "
And then Bachmann would chime in about innocent girls
being held down and forced to take injections.
I'm a life-long Texan. I've voted for Rick every time he's been in a gubernatorial election.
But his record on immigration is horrific. He can stand up and posture all he wants. But the illegal alien tuition is an abomination to the taxpayers of Texas.
I was actually starting to get a tiny bit enthusiastic about his presidential run. And then he made the idiotic comment about being heartless if you don't want to fund tuition for illegals. Are you kidding me?? He just called about 2/3 of his own state's people heartless?
Perhaps he's forgotten that our tax dollars already fund illegals' K-12 education. And their healthcare. And the births of their anchor babies. Don't forget their jail cells. And I myself have to pay a deductible for a car repair, thanks to an illegal hitting me last month.
Until you've lived in a border state and paid through the nose to fund these people, don't be so quick to call this a non-issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident."
If I'm a resident of Massachusetts, the law says I should be eligible for the same benefits as every illegal alien gets in Texas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Williamson
What you're missing is this: one of the things that makes illegals eligible for in-state tuition in Texas is their residency within Texas. The law states that their residency MAY NOT make them eligible unless non-Texas US citizens also get in-state tuition. Since Texas denies that benefit to non-Texas US citizens, Texas is forbidden to take the illegals' residency into account. Consequently, Texas has a choice: provide in-state tuition for, presumably, ALL illegals, regardless of their residency status, in which case Texas could then lawfully deny in-state tuition to non-Texas US citizens. Or, it can provide Texas-resident illegals with in-state tuition, with a concomitant requirement that it provide the same tuition to non-Texas US citizens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSee, of all the things to criticize Perry for, this is one of the strangest. He's not giving these kids anything that an American kid doesn't get--I thought Santorum's attacks were disingenuous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Our kids have to pay the whole boat!" He yelled. Well, not if they live in Texas, they don't. And Perry's not giving in-state tuition to the children of immigrants who decide to attend, say, University of Florida.
So, the grassroots won't support Romeny.
Meanwhile, the leadership thinks that, holding all the cards in their favor this time (Obama's loosing support among all major constituencies) it's time to run another mush Mitt Romney. [Really, if when all the winds are blowing your way, you don't decide now's the time to show what policies and philosophy the Republicans really stand for, we seriously need to get rid of these Republican "leaders".]
The base would have foisted Perry on the leadership, but he flubbed it for good last night. But Romney, the debate winner, isn't making converts.
Time to go back and draft a real Republican - Chris Christie. Whatever it takes.
The default case is set to Gingrich now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"being enrolled in a Texas school for 36 months prior to college enrollment, and graduation from a Texas school."
And how many college students that attend a Texas school actually qualify for this? Not everything that Texas does or Rick Perry has done is solid gold. Tuition for illegals (normally that last part would get people thinking clearly, but I guess their hearts have turned to mush) is a solid brick.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy question should have read, "And how many out-of-state college students that attend a Texas school actually qualify for this"? That law above is worded so that it actually benefits illegals above Americans that reside in different states.
Oh, and here's another twister: What would stop illegal alien children from other states from picking up, moving to Texas, and declaring themselves a Texas resident by getting fake Texas documents?
I will commend Kevin Williamson, though. He has put up a better (albeit misguided) argument than Rick Perry ever has. I must say, that I wouldn't think that someone would make me sympathetic to Mitt Romney, but the twang from Texas has.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think what Kevin is missing is the relevance of the last phrase, "without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident." I understand this to mean that the reduced tuition is not available because reduced tuition is determined with regard to whether the student is a Texas resident.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not just that you can't do for illegals what you can't do for Americans--it's that you can't do for illegals something that you only do for residents of your state. The key phrase is:
"unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident." (parenthetical removed).
In other words, if you don't give the benefit to Massachusetts residents, you can't give it to illegals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCome on, you know what they meant. It would take Justice William Brennan to twist the obvious intent of the statute to have that meaning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's startling how many people have decided to give Romney a pass for his state's decision to mandate universal health care for its residents and how many are slamming Perry for his state's decision to grant in-state tuition legislation for illegal immigrants.
It is true that Perry simply hasn't given even a half-way decent explanation of the decision, which is quite defensible given the atrocious record of the federal government on border security and immigration in general all the way back to Reagan granting amnesty in '86.
But it's disingenuous to act as if Perry's signature is worse on the merits than Romney's, as any reasonable person could (and many did) predict that state run and mandated health care would have a negative impact on participants; and it's extraordinarily irritating to have our side tearing at a candidate not for poorly articulating his position (which Perry did) but acting like he's either duped by a special interest group or actually trying to attract illegal immigrants to Texas, which any sane resident of Texas knows he's not.
I understand that many people are passionate about their particular candidate and find fault with others, and that's fine. But the kind of acrimony on display amongst the Republican party is disheartening and ironically the type of potshots being taken at Perry remind me of the attacks leveled against Romney in '08 that led him to lose that nomination to McCain. How'd that work out for the country?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, maybe you can tell me what *I* am missing, but I think what you're missing is the first phrase: " ... shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State ..." That is, purely being a resident of a state is not a legitimate reason for the illegal resident to receive a tuition break that citizens of other states can't have. Your example points to *state* *residency* as a way to get in-state tuition. But the law says state residency *isn't* *enough*. So, forgive me, but your example seems to be beside the point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe last 2 lines belie your argument, of course. The law actually requires states to grant the same benefit to all citizens as all illegals, regardless of the citizens' residency. So nonresident citizens get the same benefit as instate illegals. Pretty obvious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe phrase "without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident" means "unless the benefit is provided to people who are residents and nonresidents alike." Kevin's example (someone who moves from Massachusetts for three years before college) does not involve a nonresident. By virtue of living in Texas for three years, such a person becomes a resident and is, therefore, an inapposite comparison, rather we must compare the benefits provided to illegal residents with those provided to someone who moved from Massachusetts three days before enrolling in college.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse