My position on the Texan illegals’ “in-state tuition” controversy.

DefendUSA has a nice comment here.

I’m almost sure I agree.  The (extremely slight) uncertainty is due to not knowing details about Texas higher education subsidies. 

To be precise, I absolutely agree with children getting primary educations, regardless of their legal status.  But this is available to all children, is in fact mandatory.  That’s not the case for higher education.  That costs private money, and very poor Texas youths can’t attend college even though they’d like to.  So if there’s any tax subsidies for higher ed, poor taxpayers are having to finance illegals’ education when they cannot attend themselves!

That is wrong, pure and simple.

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to My position on the Texan illegals’ “in-state tuition” controversy.

  1. DefendUSA says:

    Amen. I was playing devil’s advocate with making all tuition equal…Obviously because competition is key. And you’re right. I never thought about the “poor” in TX who cannot even attend and it’s their dollar…

  2. Billy says:

    My understanding is that anyone in TX can qualify for assistance; just because you are illegal doesn’t get you in the front of the line nor guarantee you a spot. The issue is that someone from another state must pay full out-of-state price; One would think a legal from OK would get the same or better price than an illegal living in TX. I could be wrong though; just because I live here doesn’t mean I’m 100% right.

    • DefendUSA says:

      Forgive me if I misunderstand, but I think you’re missing the point. It is not about qualifying. There are “residency” standards for Illegal Immigrants that must be met in the state of Texas. The whole point is that they do not even deserve the right to be rewarded with in state tuition because they are ILLEGALLY living here. Their parents have ostensibly paid no taxes because they are also illegal, yet by law we were required to give them a standard education and it was paid for by mine and your tax dollars. Not so for college.
      Any illegal immigrant in any state should have to pay out of state rates because they are not US citizens. Period.

      • Billy says:

        You misunderstand, or more likely, I didn’t state things clearly. I was trying to give details the WORM mentioned he may be lacking. I don’t know how much of, if any, instate tuition is subsidized by tax dollars, Are the universities making it own their own with tuition from instate and out of state students, sporting event, donations, etc., or does part of our state sales tax offset the reduced tuition of instate students? I really don’t know; each state is probably different.

        I’m coming close though to changing my mind; here’s a question: Would a legal resident of TX rather have illegal kids 18-22 years old attending university, Or, part of a gang, doing day labor, not working, in jail or deported. The deported thing isn’t happening and never will. Jail probably cost more than tuition. University is likely the best avenue to keep them out of trouble and on the path of being a productive member of society. Maybe a few tax dollars is best spent on them.

        But you know one thing we can agree on. The people in each state should decide for that state. The fed government should not mandate it one way or another.


        • MG says:

          The deported thing isn’t happening and never will.

          Then the Great American Experiment has failed. If the laws of the land are so trivial that they can not even be applied to non-citizens then there are no laws of worth.
          If there are no laws of worth there is no nation, there is no union. If citizenship means nothing, then the nation pretending, in that case, to be one, isn’t one.

          I assume (fully noted) that the institutions with an ‘in-state’ rate come from this critter:
          or, at the bottom of that link:

          Other Texas public universities—notably all institutions in the Texas State University System, Texas Tech University System, University of Houston System, University of North Texas System and some UT System and Texas A&M System institutions—are prohibited by law from sharing the income from this endowment, but since 1984 have been served by the Higher Education Assistance Fund, a much smaller fund.

          And looking at ‘Texas State University System’:

          The Texas Legislature appropriated $1.13 million to fund the System Office for Fiscal Year 2010. The state appropriation for the System Office and all eight institutions combined was $334 million for the same fiscal year.

          So, if that’s correct, yeah, taxpayers are getting boned. Private schools, last I knew, don’t have ‘in-state’ rates. The theory, traditionally, is that in-state rates are for citizens of the state since they or their families have paid into the system and are more likely to continue doing so. The problem here to me is that the state deliberately went out of its way to give a benefit to an illegal resident; I have that bone with my own state too on another subject; it’s wrong, what is the point and value of citizenship in such a case, followed to its ends?

          People forget that the money pot, while more vast than people realize, isn’t able to fix everyone else’s problems.

          That said, I’d like a redone immigration system which saw more immigrants per year and no quotas, especially for skilled and educated categories. But illegal immigration only to see notable exportation of income isn’t good for the country.

        • DefendUSA says:

          In the big picture, we have spent our tax dollars to give them what the law allows for. And secondary, ie, college does not fall into that category. I am not saying taxes pay for college. What I am saying is that no matter what way you slice it, spin, spit it that NO illegal immigrants deserve in state rates.
          You are using emotions and scenarios that play out all over the country with any population of kids. I can guarantee that any kid who wants college will find a way to get there and won’t be some street thug.
          In my state, we have had illegal aliens who have murdered people with guns, DUI, knives and anything else you can think of and they get deported…only to show up months later with new i.d.’s. because borders are unmanned.
          We need to use the facts. If one is here illegally regardless of what got him here…no in state rates. In state rates are not dependent on who will commit crimes, or not, who works or not. They cannot be productive in this country unless they are citizens and pay taxes like the rest of us. Otherwise, they are stealing.

      • MG says:

        The whole point is that they do not even deserve the right to be rewarded with in state tuition because they are ILLEGALLY living here.
        The whole illegal immigration issue is a time bomb, luck has not prevented it from costing lives thus far and isn’t likely to in the future…
        That’s of course part of the problem, people try and parse it into tiny pieces and corner people into not complaining; like the “heartless” comment.
        It is not heartless of me to remember that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, or that the September 11th attackers were functionally using the environment of accepted illegal entry.

        Their parents have ostensibly paid no taxes because they are also illegal, yet by law we were required to give them a standard education and it was paid for by mine and your tax dollars.

        That’s the best case scenario, the other, too common one is that an American citizen finds their social security number being fraudulently used, and suffers notable financial issues because of it.

  3. Billy says:

    When I said “The deporting things isn’t happening and never will”. The context was these 18 year- olds, brought here by their parents, been here for 4-14+ years, have a high school degree and want to go and pay for college, Deport these kids? Really? There are 12Mil+ people who could technically be deported; these kids would be at the bottom of any rational person’s deportation priority list.

    Deportation for truly undesirables has been used in the past, used today and will be part of any Dream-act likely to pass in the next 10 years. Passed hopefully AFTER the border is truly secure. Granted, deportation hasn’t rounded up nearly enough.

    Any version of the Dream act will account for these 18 year-old kids and give them some right to be here and work, and some pathway to citizenship. Whether this is right or not is a whole different topic. The WORM wanted some fresh topics, perhaps he can enlighten us on his dream Dream-act, which in my opinion should address the anchor baby thing and what I feel is a misinterpretation of the constitution that allows automatic pure birth-location citizenship.

    TX and any state needs an educated populous. Helping these kids afford university or community college may be the best thing for the state. Once they get a good job, they will pay into the system they used for an education. Notice I said “may be the best thing.” I’m still on the fence. Having more educated residents (legal or not) is beneficial to the state. Worth the cost; maybe. Right thing to so in all aspects, no, as you pointed out. This is why I would want each state to decide it’s own policy, not some Fed edict.

    As for taxes and who pays for it. Keep in mind TX has no income tax for their parents to circumvent. They buy stuff and pay sales taxes. If they own property, they pay property taxes. If they smoke, drink, play lottery, etc… So they are sort of already paying into the TX system.

    • MG says:

      Socrates and the hemlock, after speaking about the laws of Athens.
      We’ve done the amnesty thing before, with promises that the law would be enforced in the future; since we’re talking about this…that obviously didn’t happen. Citizenship has to mean something, obeying the law has to mean something; this casting it aside hurts the country and its relations with its people; it undermines the authority of the country with illegals also since they are by definition told that they don’t have to obey the law.
      The problem with ‘but the children’ arguments on this subject is that it inflates the population in question, we go from the children to their parents and immediately hear how they can’t be ejected because of the kids; all of a sudden it’s no longer about the children but 2 other foreigners, maybe at times even more than that, working and taking jobs from actual citizens.

      Deportation, as shown in the PJM link, and, in a case in Massachusetts where a drunk who nearly rammed a police car is now simply unaccounted for, is not being applied, even to criminals. Much as I’ve said about taxes, the system is broken and needs to be redone.

      A Dream act is a mistake, it is simply another patch amnesty on top of the broken system with no intent to actually enforce the laws afterwards. Make no mistake, a Dream act is political cowardice hiding behind appeals to people’s morality; it doesn’t do anything for the problems with our immigration system; it just rewards, again, people for breaking the existing law.
      Oddly, anchor babies are easily dealt with in the current law, except again, we don’t enforce it: The US does not recognize dual citizenship, and except for odd cases, it is the obligation, under our law, for the actual person, at 18, to choose a citizenship and renounce the second. This, if enforced, would work by: the parents are returned with the child to their country, barring legitimate asylum issues being at work; at 18 the child goes to a consulate and provides the proof of birth with a letter stating what citizenship they desire and renouncing the other; the US shares this with the other country and it’s done. As a US citizen they may return to the country at will.
      It was part of an appeal to people’s ‘hearts’ to declare that we should never send families back to their home countries simply because their child had dual-citizenship while a minor; and make no mistake, the correct standard is dual-citizenship, not simply US citizenship.

      Texas needs a law abiding population more, as all governments do; one that broke the law to begin with is a bad idea. Also, population growing faster than the economy can be very bad and illegal immigration drastically increases that risk. (Note: I like very healthy population growth, but legal please…) The problem with each State deciding is that they aren’t allowed to give US citizenship; that’s not a State’s right. Getting into States Rights over citizenship privileges puts us dangerously on the road of being able to decide what is a man.
      If no Federal funds are used for the schools and no laws are broken to get to them (illegal immigration), then yeah, whatever the state wants. That bar is not met on both counts.
      Consumption taxes are nice in that they tax people who are avoiding taxes, or shouldn’t be there, but it leaves the early problem in place, if they shouldn’t be here then they shouldn’t.

      Part of the issue with taxes is it isn’t just the people of Texas who are affected by the taxes which directly or indirectly assist this. The nation is, via Federal assistance to the schools. The citizen in, say, Wisconsin who gets told by Social Security they’re freezing their benefits because of unreported income in Texas; who also gets told by the IRS that they didn’t report properly and are likely to be fined. This isn’t theory crafting, it is happening. You tell me why you don’t hear it on the news when the IRS has a form for it. (We should both know, of course.)

      Later I’ll post my actual direct suggestion about the immigration system.

      “Then, O Socrates! be persuaded by us who have nurtured you, and do not set a higher value on your children, or on life, or on any thing else than justice, that, when you arrive in Hades, you may have all this to say in your defense before those who have dominion there. For neither here in this life, if you do what is proposed, does it appear to be better, or more just, or more holy to yourself, or any of your friends; nor will it be better for you when you arrive there. But now you depart, if you do depart, unjustly treated, not by us, the laws, but by men; but should you escape, having thus disgracefully returned injury for injury, and evil for evil, having violated your own compacts and conventions which you made with us, and having done evil to those to whom you least of all should have done it—namely, yourself, your friends, your country, and us—both we shall be indignant with you as long as you live, and there our brothers, the laws in Hades, will not receive you favorably knowing that you attempted, so far as you were able, to destroy us. Let not Crito, then, persuade you to do what he advises, rather than we.”

    • Mountainbear says:

      Yes, deport them.

      We have a similar case in Austria, which has been going for years. Google Arigona Zogaj if you want to know more. The whole case pisses me off on a level you can’t imagine, so I don’t want to go into details about it.

      There is a law. The law applies either for everyone or for no one. There is only 1 or 0.

    • MG says:

      On Immigration:
      First, a postulate: Our immigration law has been fundamentally unfair and biased so long as it set quotas, defined classes, and otherwise set people apart as anything other than what they are; people.
      Now, a point on that, the right way to change laws is to change them by process; or, to contest the law and to be prosecuted/persecuted in order to draw attention to an unsound and unfair law so that it is changed by process. This is the King concept (it can also be identified with Gandhi); it is not that you break the law in order to not have it enforced but to make clear the wrongs of the law itself. It is not sound theory to make laws to be unenforced; it undermines the authority of the state and wears down the willingness of the people to be governed, as said by Machiavelli.
      Further, the passage of trivial laws crosses into the dangerous territory of violation of the social contract; a law can be said to be trivial, and even malicious, if its enforcement is not even-handed. Clearly, the enforcement of immigration law has fallen under this category. Until the law is corrected the correct answer is to enforce it as it stands, or accept that all laws can be challenged because of that failure.
      Elian Gonzales was a great representation of the problem of the system and its spiteful application.

      Now, the basic points of an actual plan are simple:
      No quotas or immigration limits, and no education bars. (Under the current system, being educated makes it harder to immigrate due to fewer available visas.)
      Criminals need not apply; however, we should accept the need to have an appeal process since some countries might use false records to prevent dissidents/potential dissidents from leaving. A false appeal should result in permanent blacklisting, though. A process for trivial crimes histories to be ignored, involving military service (combat ready), should be available to allow people to admit mistakes and show their interest and will to join the nation.
      A streamlined system to apply and receive visas which would drastically shorten the application process to preferably less than a year, but no more than a year.
      A clear requirement to succeed in this country and not receive welfare or social services support for at least 2 years; to pay taxes and Social Security along with all relevant local taxes, as themselves. The 2 years should not be a lifetime limit if no crimes are committed, people should have the chance to try again if they need it, but it should not either be a way to skip becoming a citizen; visas should be exclusively for those seeking citizenship. They should violate no serious laws; with allowance, maybe, for running a stop sign a couple times but none for DWI, for instance.
      A 2-year to citizenship function, which sees people as American at the end of the 2-year visa, or leaving the country; moving residency to a permit that is not a visa and requires money/property investment and clear financial self-sufficiency along with tax obligation completion. Only skilled labor and above should qualify for residency, with a strong encouragement to seek citizenship; uneducated and unskilled labor should be seeking citizenship, and not on resident permits, to give them access to the support of the nation in bettering their education/skills in the future.
      An English standard, multilingualism is great, but it weakens the law to translate it and retranslate it. It slows decision-making and increases the complexity of government, increasing costs and inefficiency.

      For current illegals, yes, something should be done, but they should have to note they broke the law and there has to be a price for that. My personal solution would be:
      Current illegals would have a time limited window to self report, identifying their time here, locations, homes, jobs; this would all be catalogued and they would be required to return to their home country for one year, at which point, assuming the upcoming standard was met, they would get a 2 year citizenship visa to return and become citizens.
      The issue standard should include:
      If they have had false ID they must document it and provide it for destruction. They must identify those who provided it and agree to testify against them. Doing so would reduce their wait time 6 months. Making the agreement but not following through would result in blacklisting.
      They must identify any assumed identities and social security numbers they have used. A signed letter of remorse and moderate fine, to be given to the victims, combined with the identities of anyone selling identities, and testimony for prosecution, would allow for a visa to be issued in 1 year instead of blacklisting for stealing the identity of a citizen. However, the penalty for being a seller of identities should simply be blacklisting or prison.
      Functionally, I wouldn’t stack the effects since the year should be the sacrosanct goal of the immigration system, they would see a six-month wait in practice. Those who fail to report by the end of the timeframe would be blacklisted and deported.
      No matter what, the system should handle the existing log of legal immigrant applications first and that should be built into the time frame. (Very possible since you’d have around a 6-month window minimum to start, followed by 6 months.)
      The counter for illegals would start once they arrive in their home country, encouraging them to comply as quickly as possible.

      So in the broadest sense, this plans outlines: Gives a mere 1 year to visa and then 2 years to citizenship for those who desire to be American. It sets no limits on how many a year or their education or wealth. Because the question should be the desire to be one of the greatest-nation-on-earth’s citizens; if the answer to that is yes, then…God bless.
      It provides a path to citizenship for illegals in return for their forwarding the laws of the nation; a critical demonstration for the nation as a state, their peers as citizens, and their own self-interest in a nation ruled by laws (even if they don’t know they have that interest). However, it also sets a date certain when illegal entry is done; the excuse is gone from the system and after that date the price is ejection and blacklisting.
      It changes those with no interest in citizenship to self-standing only people, with residency permits that do not allow their competing with citizens for jobs and do not allow welfare.

      With all these we need a real asylum and refugee system in the US. We need to build the infrastructure to handle real refugees and asylum seekers so that when they land on our shores we can move, protect and decide what is needed. We are lacking in this, and it is a shortfall we should fix.

      The plan done, people assume the desire is always citizenship; unfortunately, it isn’t. And, unfortunately, some countries have enjoyed the benefits of exporting their problems to us; removing illegal immigrants would affect our unemployment rate; there is no reason for us to continue being the world’s sugar daddy. Those not wanting citizenships need to be standing on their own abilities beyond question, or somewhere else; we do not need the drain of a nation exporting its poverty to us to avoid their having to deal with it.

      I would love to once again open the nation’s arms to their ‘poor, your tired, your huddled masses’, but they need to come into our arms and not sneak behind our backs, and we do need to fix the amalgam of law which has so hampered our healthy growth.

      “What else, then,” they will say, “are you doing but violating the conventions and compacts which you made with us, though you did not enter into them from compulsion or through deception, or from being compelled to determine in a short time but during the space of seventy years, in which you might have departed if you had been dissatisfied with us, and the compacts had not appeared to you to be just? You, however, preferred neither Lacedæmon nor Crete, which you several times said are governed by good laws, nor any other of the Grecian or barbarian cities; but you have been less out of Athens than the lame and the blind, and other maimed persons. So much, it is evident, were you satisfied with the city and us, the laws, beyond the rest of the Athenians; for who can be satisfied with a city without laws? But now will you not abide by your compacts? You will, if you are persuaded by us, Socrates, and will not make yourself ridiculous by leaving the city.”

      • Mountainbear says:

        See, this is why I love the Japanese immigration laws. They’re so strict. Same with nationalizing people (you get two visit by the police for that one, and they actually listen around among your neighbors, etc; the Swiss have a similar system for nationalization, the people in your environment actually get a say in it.)

        When I go to Japan my papers are in order. Always. Not only for the immigration office at the airport (they don’t check everyone, depending on who’s sitting there I may get waved through, as I know some of them personally already.) But the police over there can stop you and demand your ID. And they actively do that. People from China or Korea can blend in easier, but white illegals? Good luck. I’ve been asked for my ID a few times in my years. And I think it’s a great idea.

        Also, being an island nation helps.

        • MG says:

          It’s kind of embarrassing for the US that our officers can often ask for ID when someone is in a public place but they generally don’t for fear of being accused of profiling.
          Beyond that, our social systems really indicate a ton of questionable residents only to be deliberately blinded by the same accusation.

          Strictness should be the norm for gaining the ‘keys to the kingdom’ that are citizenship!

        • wormme says:

          I remember vacationing in Key Largo, and learning that crime there was almost non-existent, and nothing like what you’d expect so close to Miami. When something really bad happens they just roadblock both ends of the island. (And I guess also keep an eye out for boats in a hurry).

      • wormme says:

        I only now got the chance to read this and your previous post. Man, you did most of the work of a scholarly paper on this. I appreciate both the effort and the argumentation.

        • MG says:


          This is a really odd political mistake; if Perry had simply gotten an overly broad bill to get as many people educated as possible, this could be ignored as an accident of inclusivism. But, theres a carve-out, where illegals were manually added, and I don’t see how to interpret that (for myself) any other way than I have.

          Also, the new line he’s trying about how Texas had to because of the Fed is not good; the Fed didn’t make them write the bill, or vote it, or sign it.

          Also, man, what kinda morals is it to pile, even at lower amounts, the debt of going to college on a not legally employable kid? Talk about a bait and switch: “Hey, go to college so you can have a better life and get paid more!”
          “Oh, by the way, no one can hire you!”
          With the discussions recently about the value of some degrees in the real world I can’t even bring myself to the idea of ‘wanting to help them’.
          “Congrats! Your degree won’t pay for itself AND you can’t be employed legally!”
          WTF, if this is helping I’m leaning towards sitting it out…

        • MG says:

          I had the misfortune of running into this yesterday:

          It’s really hilarious that this is supposed to be a defense; let’s look shall we.
          I have decided to not quote as liberally as I had before when whining about a bad article.

          Rick Perry is not always his best defender. For the last two weeks, Mitt Romney has hammered Perry

          I was really looking forward to someone explaining a missing piece, which made the puzzle make more sense; I was cheated. We all know now that Rick Perry is not his own best defender, thanks, why should he be running against Barack Obama if he can’t defend himself?
          Mitt Romney has hurt him on two issues, one Obama can and will use against him in the general (Mediscare), and one the media will use to hamper his bases’ enthusiasm, that’s not good news. That this issue isn’t as likely to be brought up by Obama, save for the same vein he’d bring up Romneycare (“see, I’m right, even they want to do what I do”), doesn’t make it a non-issue.

          Romney said sardonically,

          I went into the Romney quote expecting a detail lowering Romney’s numbers, again I was cheated; Romney’s quote hurt because it hit a nerve for the country; deal with the nerve, don’t dismiss it.

          In his defense Perry dolefully concluded… “I don’t think you have a heart.” …Well then. Perry would have done better to describe the program,

          Perry’s defense was abysmal; did you miss the focus group opinion on it? The fail was strong with that one. The implication I’m getting, which could be wrong, that Perry could and should have gone into some explanation is not a good idea; you don’t win friends telling people why your calling them heartless is right. And still, at this point I was waiting for the extra detail; I remained cheated.

          To understand Perry’s law, you have to go back to the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe.

          My understanding of the Supreme Court ruling is that it was an act of broad inclusivism aimed at schools legally required to provide services irregardless of the number seeking them. There would be no problem here with a broad inclusivism defense if it were the defense; that case isn’t being made because it isn’t applicable however. Also this kind of contradicts your whole “Texas has a special relationship with illegals” argument further down.

          As Plyler was being contested, the inflow of illegal immigrants to the United States was ramping up, eventually leading to the 1986 amnesty signed by President Reagan that legalized 2.7 million of them. After the amnesty, illegal immigration from Mexico and South America surged to even higher levels.

          Reagan, honestly, made a mistake trusting that the immigration system would be corrected. The amnesty was done and Congress never fixed the problem; Congress lied. And yes, illegal immigration exploded with the assumption that another amnesty was guaranteed, and the system was still broken; why are we having trouble accepting that the amnesty type routes have been tried and not fixed the problem?

          for the first time in American history, a large pool of illegal residents who had been educated from the start in American schools and were, at least theoretically, eligible to attend college.

          Going to mandated, must provide service schools is very different from admissions required college. And eligibility is a farce reason to imply; I’m ‘eligible’ to be given a fortune by the government, any ‘natural citizen’ is eligible to be President; colleges are exclusivist by nature, not everyone will get in, not everyone will graduate; just being, in one way, theoretically eligible isn’t enough.

          The push to help illegals go to college began at the grassroots level.

          Human societies usually make really bad decisions in large groups. How do we know this was a good decision made by a group? I was hoping for that clarity and not given it.

          Three years later, the state legislature took up a bill (H.B. 1403) which extended the same benefit to all undocumented Texas children, provided they pass four requirements: (1) They must have resided with a parent or guardian while attending high school in Texas; (2) they must have graduated from a Texas high school or have a GED; (3) they must have gone to high school in Texas for at least the three previous years; and (4) they must file an affidavit testifying that they would apply for permanent residency as soon as possible. The Texas House passed the bill 142-1; the Senate passed it 30-0. Perry signed it into law in June 2001.

          Frankly, I’m disappointed in Texas’ law writers; that’s horribly assembled in my opinion. Also, it has the operative problem (number 4), why make the affidavit for that purpose by law? This is a problem searching for a solution, badly. If the clause had simply been a residency check with a hear/see/speak no evil about what happened before the residency check it’s just like the SCotUS case, inclusivism, these things happen in broadly based free societies; but that’s not what was done.

          As the roll call demonstrates, the law wasn’t particularly controversial.

          Citing the roll call is like asking a lemming about a bridge, just because ‘everyone’ loved it and agreed with it doesn’t make it right. There’s a reason we are not, and were not intended to be, a true democracy by the Founders.

          Texas Democrats loved it,

          You missed the part about assuming they’d vote and who for.

          Texas Republicans had slightly more nuanced reasons for supporting it,

          Ah, “nuance”, if only that was a safe word to use, ‘cause there’s no “nuance” argument potential about a Republican Governor in blue Massachusetts doing a health bill; nope, none at all.

          For starters, Texas Republicans understood that tuition isn’t all that important to the state university system.

          Then why do they charge it? Would it have anything to do with funding and a slight exclusivism mechanism? Teehee, what was the problem this solution was for?

          Republicans argued that, as a matter of fairness, illegal immigrants had been funding the colleges just like everybody else.

          Not supposed to be here remains not supposed to be here, why is this hard? And ‘fair’? What? So, because the burglar bought the crowbar to break into your home, it’s fair he did, you know, having spent money to get the ‘job’ done and all…?
          Do any of these schools have space for every single applicant seeking a degree at the time desired by the applicant? I assume not and no one has provided that information, so what about fair for the citizen who gets turned down for an illegal to go to college?
          Is this letting the colleges pad their equal opportunity numbers, for larger Federal assistance, with illegals? I doubt they’re not taking advantage of that. That’s fair? Fair to the states with smaller illegal populations that Texas can pad its numbers?
          And ‘relative unimportance’? It’s money, what school doesn’t whine about being short money for something?

          Another reason was Texas’s Permanent University Fund,

          You know, what I see about the PUF in this is Eastern Conservatives who don’t know what happened in the West, a number of the States had huge land holdings which they set aside to use to generate funds; mine also set aside a lot for education. That was a choice to try and focus the cost there; it is the public’s property generating funds for public purpose, if not being used to fund schools it would fund other government projects, it doesn’t simply exist explicitly and exclusively, forever and ever for education should a different choice be made. We could always get into a dangerous analytic about opportunity cost for this, to offset illegal education or pay down the bloated government retirement bonds of those states! But then you admit tuition is exclusionary, why does a citizen deserve to be discriminated against in favor of an illegal via costing?

          Texas also has a history of going its own way with regard to immigration and Mexico.

          All of this isn’t really germane; unless it explains why this view is superior, it’s fluff.

          All of which made the bill an easy sell.

          I am not a lemming, I’m a human being; I don’t jump off cliffs, I climb them. You’re not endearing me here.

          And since then, 11 other states have done the same.

          Everyone else did it? Seriously? Is this a defense? Note the lemming line above; are you a lemming or a person? Besides, 11 isn’t enough to change the constitution now is it, we’re talking a minority of States.

          And now for the horrible part:

          To hear Mitt Romney tell it, you’d think the University of Texas at Austin was overrun with the children of illegals, taking slots and taxpayer money from smart kids in New Jersey who’ve dreamt about being Longhorns their whole lives — and would have gone to UT if only they could have afforded the out-of-state rate. But the reality is very different. It turns out that of the 1.8 million students enrolled in Texas higher-ed, only 16,476 students are illegals (the state refers to these kids as “affidavit students”). Of those, 12,028 go to two-year community colleges. For the most part these schools have noncompetitive admissions and hardly any out-of-state students. A vanishingly small number go to the state’s competitive flagship schools: The University of Texas has 612 of them; A&M has 362. Romney’s fretting about a “$100,000 discount” being given to illegal immigrants is something like an argument for abortion rights centered around rape and incest.

          Son, I am disappoint.
          I was hoping this would get some meat, some good reason, but I was dropped and then really failed in the end. Innumeracy is not a rational defense, thank you. Cheap emotional appeals are not a defense of innumeracy either, FYI.

          Here’s what’s wrong with that paragraphs numeracy: It’s hiding behind people not paying attention to the math. You failed to attack what I assumed someone would explain down: Romney’s 100k number. So I’m going start with that.
          ‘Only’ 16,476 illegals, not much right?
          At 100k less than their out of state peers that means the Texas system is shorting itself 1,647,600,000.
          For just 16k illegals.
          So for more clarity since people do have trouble with math: 1 billion, 647 million, 600 thousand dollars is the shortfall Texas is inflicting on its public colleges for just 16k people. This is indeed a mouse built to government specifications.
          Now, lets be overly nice and assume a 70% reduction in the cost per person to correct for different degrees and different colleges (I note again that no one is contesting Romney’s 100k). 100k – 70% leaves us with 30k, I would assume this is under-estimating for four years difference between in and out of state rates, but does it make a huge difference from our total above?
          16,476*30,000 = 494,280,000
          Well, it’s a difference, but it’s still 494 million, 280 thousand dollars. Frighteningly close to the Solyndra loan size oddly enough!
          Comparatively, TSUS, which has eight institutions in it, received a total FY2010 allotment of 334 million dollars.
          Assuming the 30k number above… We’re not looking at flattering comparisons here, that 30k difference for the stated population is more lost income that the total outlay for eight institutions. The 100k had just plain better not be right or this is entirely indefensible. (If it is, the income loss per year equals 411, 900, 000 dollars.)

          And finally: Crummy emotional appeal to hide weak argument: check. Here’s a horrible emotional counter appeal, keeping the misuse of rape and abortion: you’re asking the taxpayers to approve an abortion for Jaycee Dugard while not pursuing the kidnapper-rapist holding her in a tent. DEAL WITH THE DAMN RAPIST. Stop ignoring the problem and treating only the symptoms. Honestly, when I first read this, I might as well have exploded at this point, can we not be stupid and argue the damn point without throwing technical-Godwin’s in?

          Mind you, if the people of Texas decided to use their tax dollars

          If they’re using no Federal funds for the operation of the Schools sure, guess what they’re doing though…

          and the entire raison d’être for in-state tuition is to discriminate in favor of one group and against others.

          So, it’s now ok to discriminate to benefit someone breaking the law…?

          is whether this decision by the people of Texas has had good outcomes, for either the intended beneficiaries or the state. And on that score, the evidence is mixed.

          1: The State: It’s costing money, they’re getting less money than they would have, no. Shall we nuke the discussion by broaching opportunity cost?
          2: The beneficiaries: Funny, I usually think it inappropriate, at best, for the government to worry about non-citizens first. Besides, what the heck is the benefit to a college degree when it’s illegal to hire them? Is this some kind of sucker punch I’m missing, a kind of bait and switch to punish them and deter future immigrants by dropping them with debt while being virtually un-hirable? I’m not cool with that and it is not merciful or moral.

          (1) College coursework adds value in the labor market

          Un-hirable, what part are we not understanding? It is a crime to hire them for the jobs that would reward the degree.

          (2) illegals can be lured into college coursework by financial discounts

          Why an illegal over a citizen? We’ve settled the exclusivity point by default; why do they deserve an exclusivity advantage?

          (3) since the marginal benefit to the school of in-state versus out-of-state tuition is relatively small, the state will reap benefits by having better-educated illegal immigrants — because these people will earn more and inevitably pay more in the consumption taxes that drive the Texas tax base.

          Yeah, 494,280,000 is ‘small’ (smaller of two bad numbers that is)… Also, this incidental gain assumes they can be gainfully employed at market rates like a citizen…
          Wait for it…
          They can’t!
          Illegals are more likely to be abused, in bad work environments and under-paid; if we don’t fix this damn problem we will have to deal with a virtual slave class in the future; my morality screams against that.
          Stop hiding behind this kind of crass political cowardice.

          A few studies have been done on the subject; their conclusions vary.

          If we all just sang around the fire it’d work out! …Yeah, no. Fix the problem. Like the Danes we need no ghost come from the grave to tell us something’s wrong.

          The only definitive conclusions the Texas experiment offers are about Mitt Romney.

          Ah, closing with the open-ended declaration of faith assuming the reader automatically goes with the writers view, how original. I expected more, I didn’t get it, that’s life; Perry messed up and blew this into a liability, that’s life too, stop trying to fork it into someone else’s problem.

  4. Pingback: Jet-lagged, in a sense. | World's Only Rational Man

Leave a Reply to wormme Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s