The subject of illegal immigrants being extended colleges benefits such as in-state tuition is continuously distressing to me because the subject affects both my personal and professional identities. My ancestors are from Mexico and my mother’s first language is Spanish and she worked in the fields as a young girl. She listens to Spanish music, watches Spanish television, and has always made sure her children were involved in the community with recent immigrants. So, I know about immigrants, working in the fields (my two day punishment for ditching school), and the struggles of persons who speak Spanish and are trying to acquire a second language and acclimate to a new country. I also know individuals in our Northern Colorado communities who are illegal, but have been in the U.S. since being an infant or young child. So, I have firsthand knowledge of some of the struggles and barriers and I want to help. Frankly, I believe everyone who can benefit from an education should be provided one. I also agree with the article below in that it is economically self defeating if we do not educate illegal immigrants.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/pro-con-should-states-536097.html
In my professional career I am the Chief Tuition Classification Officer, I am the Primary Designated School Official for Homeland Security, and I am responsible for compliance with HB 1023, Verification of Lawful Presence in the U.S. to name a few areas that overlap with the immigration issue. I know that U.S. citizens are denied in-state tuition and I know that Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization expect individuals to return to their home country which is also illustrated in this article by the opposing parties on the subject of illegal immigration and in-state benefits.
I am constantly perplexed because my professional and personal roles are conflicting in many cases. Nonetheless, I like being employed so I follow the rules and regulations I have been entrusted with constantly and consistently, but it does not always feel like the right thing to do. I would prefer that the U.S. Government address our immigration dilemma and provide amnesty for those here and subsequently enforce immigration laws.
What is your opinion?
Pro & Con: Should states extend college benefits to illegal immigrants?
By Azadeh N. Shahshahani
Jessica Colotl, the 21-year-old exemplary Kennesaw State college student who fell victim to the Cobb sheriff’s abuse of the 287(g) power, which delegates some federal immigration enforcement authority to certain state and local agencies, is out on bond and hopes to restart her education soon.
The Cobb County Sheriff’s Office’s diversion of precious resources meant for securing public safety is case in point for why the unaccountable enforcement of immigration laws by local police in Cobb County and elsewhere in Georgia needs to end immediately.
As if this case was not proof enough about the perils of local enforcement of immigration laws, some are now calling for universities to also enter the dangerous terrain of acting as immigration police.
Undocumented college students are by and large talented high achievers who arrived in the U.S. as children because of the choices their parents made. They grew up in this country and persevered against the odds to graduate from high school and secure admission to Georgia colleges.
Read on for pros and cons………………………..
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/pro-con-should-states-536097.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst I want to say this is an extremely complex issue and there are no easy solutions or quick fixes.
ReplyDelete“Facilitating educational access to students also promotes economic growth.” This statement speaks volumes. If illegal immigrants are not granted equal access to post secondary education; what will they do after graduating from high school? What real career can they attain or how will they contribute to the economy? Since they don’t have the proper documentation to work how will they meet their basic long term needs and how will they survive in a job market that is proven to be scare and difficult for US citizens and degree holders? With the largest influx of illegal immigrants in the last ten years I truly believe these questions will have to be answered with some serious retroactive due diligence.
NO: Congress passed a law against it in 1996; it hurts out-of-state students.
As bias I think the author is I do think he makes some valid points. In terms of the college president’s actions I do not think they are necessarily outrageous; however, what’s to stop a student who gets a DUI from suing the institution because the institution refuses to provide counsel? Are there specific laws that guide public institutions of higher learning through the process of assisting students with legal issues? Secondly, what larger issues could develop from public institutions providing counsel to students facing federal, state, or local charges? I know some institutions departments of student life provide legal advice services to students free through student fees appropriations. If public institutions of higher learning are allowed to provide direct counsel to students, will this create an equity issue?
Yolanda, I appreciate your courage and candor in speaking out on an issue that so intimately relates to both your personal and professional identities.
ReplyDeleteI read the "Pro and Con' column to which you referred, and carefully considered the arguments made by Shahshahani (Pro) and Kent (Con).
As I see it, there are logical problems with the arguments made by both sides. On the "PRO" side, although it seems intuitively correct that an undocumented immigrant student will substantively add to a given state's economic wealth, where is the data to support this claim? Perhaps Shahshahani cites it elsewhere. Otherwise this argument is specious. And where is the data that supports the claim that such students tend to remain in the states where they have received college educations? It could easily be argued that college-educated persons are more likely to move out of state, for example. And how are we to really know if their immigration status will be "regularized" now or in the future? Another leap of faith, it seems to me. And the argument for fairness could be used by either side with equal conviction, it seems to me. Insofar as the legal arguments go, I don't pretend to understand constitutional law well enough to render judgement in this instance.
That being said, Mr.Kent's "CON" arguments are primarily legal (which, again, I don't feel fit to render an opinion on), but the tone of his argument seems to focus mainly on a sense of fairness and "outrage". He seems to think that illegals take up limited "slots" in state colleges that should have gone to law-abiding locals. This seems curious. Are Georgia's colleges all so impacted that openings are hard to come by? I frankly find this notion unbelievable. And Kent is insulted that illegals receive in-state tuition rates.The fact of their residence is irrelevant due to their illegal status, he insinuates. I think that the issue of residency should be properly addressed only when the overall legal questions are sorted out. Until then, why not allow in-state tuition to all students can in fact meet minimum residency requirements?
Such a challenging argument will have to be ultimately decided by the courts, but I am sympathetic to Shahshahani's position, not so much out of a sense of fairness, but rather out of a sense of generosity and justice that I believe made this country great in the first place. If we excluded illegals from this nation to begin with, as the argument goes, then there would be nobody here but indigenous Native Americans. It is the verifiable influx of wave after wave of illegals for the last few hundred years that have challenged and enriched our nation in cultural, economic, and scientific ways. And when other nations do happen to compliment America, it is invariably our sense of generosity and our commitment to individual freedom and self-renewal that they admire. These values are subverted by the likes of Mr. Kent's parochial viewpoint. Although I believe, as least as stated in article, that Shahshahani could make much stronger arguments for her case, I wholeheartedly support her cause and I believe as a great nation that the United States must resolve this challenge in a way that preserves what is best about our way of life.
Yolanda, as Michael stated, kudos to you for allowing us into a bit of your personal struggle with this topic. I was struggling with the “commenting” part of our assignment and Matt lead me to your blog, almost guaranteeing I would have an opinion. I think our class could have some great discussion regarding this topic.
ReplyDeleteIt is disheartening to me to think that youth in this nation are being held back because their parents brought them here hoping for a better life. I do believe that one of our nation’s largest problems is illegal immigration. I do not believe illegal immigrants should be given special (distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual) treatment in American schools at any level. However, I do believe they deserve a chance at a better life.
With all of that being said, I’d like to point out the struggles that these students face. First of all, they may be lucky to even get admitted into an institution of higher education because of their lack of “paperwork” depending on where they may be in the process of becoming a resident or citizen. If they are able to jump the hurdle of being admitted, they’re most likely to be charged out-of-state-tuition. And after all of this, if they’re able to muster up the funds to pay out of-state-tuition for long enough to get their degree, they better hope they don’t want to be nurses or teachers or doctors or any other practitioner that requires logistic paperwork.
Kent states that this situation is “an insult to the taxpayers and parents of children who strive to get into college yet their slots are taken by illegals. Adding to the insult is that Papp granted this illegal an in-state tuition rate.” Kent adds “So if the feds don’t remove them — the taxpayers have to educate them!”
Because Kent is talking about in-state vs out-of-state tuition and tax payer dollars, I’m going to assume he’s talking about public institutions. In response to his quotes, I’d like to throw out these thoughts:
• Are “slots” in as high of demand as Kent leads the reader to believe? I could think of a handful of state institutions in Colorado who aren’t turning students away if they meet their admission requirements.
• In the current economic times, less and less state money is going to institutions so how much can we say that taxpayers are paying for anyone’s education? At least in Colorado, education never seems to be a priority at the polls.
• How do we define taxpayer? The students (and their families) that we are discussing are living in the US, which means they are consumers, buying clothing, gas, vehicles, etc., all of which have tax attached.
• For a student to pay in-state tuition seems better for an institution than that student not attending at all and paying nothing.
I would hate to live in a nation in 100 years after this idea for the lack of education has been perpetuated for many generations. What kind of culture and life can that lead to? I also think there’s something to be said about handing the current issue so it doesn’t become worse. With all of these things being said, I truly believe the bottom-line solution is immigration reform, not education reform but that’s a different topic in a different class. :)
Thank you all for commenting on my post. Each of you bring up valid points which I will ponder further.
ReplyDelete