What Perry Should Have Said to Bachmann: Taxing Illegals Should Be Illegal


One of the most dismaying moments of last week's GOP presidential debates was how Rick Perry handled Michele Bachmann's broadside against him for allowing college-bound children of unauthorized aliens to pay in-state tuition rates in Texas. She insinuated that he was forcing Texas taxpayers to subsidize the college education of illegals. And he accused her of "not having a heart" which sounded more like a mea culpa than a response. But the issue of course is not Bachmann's heart but her head.

In-state tuition is not a welfare program as Bachmann made it out to be. Public universities are supported by the taxes of state residents—legal and illegal. In-state rates are simply an acknowledgement of the fact that residents have already pre-paid part of the fee when their children go to college. Asking any resident, regardless of status, to pay the full tuition would be requiring them to pay twice for the same service. Yet this is precisely what denying unauthorized aliens in-state tuition does. As the Wall Street Journal notes this morning:

Lower in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities aren't akin to welfare for the indigent; they're not means-tested. They're a discount for residency. The same logic applies to hunting or fishing licenses.

Immigration status aside, state residents are thought to be deserving of a subsidy because they pay sales taxes, property taxes and other fees to support state institutions that non-state residents don't pay. Especially in a state like Texas that has no income tax, illegal aliens are more likely to bear a larger share of the tax burden than their counterparts in most other states.

Most children of illegal immigrants—some 73%, according to the Pew Hispanic Center—are U.S. citizens by birth. But as of 2008 there were 1.5 million children in the U.S. who are illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled that these children are entitled to a K-12 education. Lawmakers in Texas, which is home to the nation's second-largest illegal population after California, determined that tuition breaks for these residents made economic sense. So did the state's business community, which lobbied for the measure on the grounds that a better-educated population would translate into stronger economic growth.

State tax officials estimated that increased college enrollment by illegal immigrants would be budget neutral. (Emphasis added). It would bring in new students who would pay tuition, and those students who graduated would produce increased tax payments to the state. A college graduate's lifetime earnings are nearly double those of someone with only a high school diploma. The Dallas Morning News has reported that in 2009 illegal immigrants who were taking advantage of the tuition subsidy were 1% of the state's million-plus college students. The program is hardly the draw on state coffers that critics have claimed.

Perry should have reminded Bachmann that this country fought the Revolutionary War to defend the principle of "no taxation without representation." But unauthorized aliens pay taxes even though they have no representation. Denying them in-state tuition on top of this would mean effectively allowing taxpaying residents who can vote to exploit another set of taxpaying residents who can't vote.

So if Bachmann is at all interested in fairness and upholding bedrock American principles, here are her choices: She can either offer citizenship to unauthorized aliens so they can represent themselves and pay in-state tuition. Or she can stop collecting taxes from them. Perry should have said to her that he would revoke in-state tuition for illegals provided she made this her campaign slogan: "taxing illegals should be illegal."

My previous column on how illegals pay more in taxes than you think here.

NEXT: Obama's Jobs Bill: "An infernal mish-mash of taxes, subsidies, and regulations."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I own a home in Nevada, and paid about $5000 in property taxed on that home in 2010, same expected in 2011.

    My son was discharged from the army in June, and began college in Reno this month. He pays out of state tuition rates. This puts the whole issue in perspective for me.

    1. Is he still considered your dependent after serving in the military?

      1. No, he state of residence is whatever he had on his military paperwork. Most states require several years of official residence (a mailing address) before granting in-state tuition.

      2. no, he is not my dependent. The thing is, he is not really a “resident” of any state in the union at this point. He has not lived in any state for more than about 9 months at a stretch for the last six years (lots of deployment). His “home of record” is California, i.e. that where he lived when he enlisted. His intention, for what it is worth, is to live in Nevada, but that intention is not enough for UNR to consider him a resident.

        1. However, he would have paid in-state tuition if he went to UCLA.

          1. True. But he lives in Reno and that was his intention all along.

        2. While I appreciate the difficulty for you, this is justifiable.

          While listing his state of residence as California, your son was being taxed accordingly. California was getting a portion of his withholdings.

          We need to be careful about treating in state tuition like some sort of right or entitlement. It is a recognition that someone has been paying taxes in that state- which your son has not been doing, regardless of what he intended.

  2. I’m thinking that your Perry threads would be more poular if you used photos of Katy Perry.

  3. “So if Bachmann is at all interested in fairness and upholding bedrock American principles, here are her choices”

    The problem, Shikha, is that Bachmann, like the rest of the Republican base, isn’t at all interested in fairness and upholding bedrock American principles. These people want revenge. Looks like you better vote for the black guy.

    1. yep, teh wingnutz drooling paranoia about the kenyan socialist is their undoing…even w/in the gop

    2. “From the, heart of Bedrock, it’s a place right out of kids’ stories.”

  4. In a 0% income tax state, this article has a little legitimacy. But come to NY, and tell me that kids of illegals should only have to pay between 1/2 and 1/3 of what a NJ or Connecticut resident who might even work in NY has to, and you see the absolute injustice.

    1. They still have a sales tax, no? And illegals, I assume, buy stuff, don’t they?

      They also have a property tax. And part of what illegals pay in rent goes to pay that.

      1. illegals pay rent to the owner. its that person who pays the taxes. its the legal homeowner who should benefit from any state programs that his/her taxes pay for.

        1. The taxes aren’t part of the rent?

        2. So by that logic, nobody who rents should get in-state tuition. That’s a shit-ton of people in apartments in large cities.

          After all, they don’t own the apartments, so they aren’t paying any taxes!

      2. So if nobody is renting a house the owner is not required to pay property tax? Duh.

      3. All true, but granting in-state tyition is tied to residency. As I posted above, I paid a lot of taxes in Nevada and my son was discharged from the army three months ago. He was last stationed in Texas, but his “home of record” is California. He enrolled in college in Nevada and he is charged out-of-state tuition (about 250% of NV residents).

        Why should a state carve out a special exception for non-residents, just because they happen to be illegal aliens?

        1. Because this “Reason Magazine” where illegals are special people and Veterans aren’t.

          They have a grand plan of admitting millions of illegal aliens into the U.S., magically converting them into Libertarians, and winning big in the next elections. Everyone knows how libertarian Mexican peasants are.

          1. Yeah, that’s it.

            Or maybe some of us think that we have the right to contract with whomever we want to, regardless of what their passport (or lack thereof) says.

            1. if a passport is meaningless, then what is the point of citizenship or even borders? I hear a John Lennon song breaking out and it sounds just as ridiculous now as it did then.

              Your right to contract is predicated on having the legal standing to enter into a contract.

              1. I didn’t say a passport or citizenship is meaningless. I said that I (a US citizen) should be able to deal with whomever I want to, regardless of their national origin or my country’s stupid immigration policy. I know what the law is now. It is wrong (as are many laws).

                None of my rights depend on a government granting me permission to do something. Any government which prevents me from entering into any mutually agreeable contract with another consenting adult is trampling my rights.

                1. If you enter into a contract with a criminal (under the law this is what an illegal is) and something goes wrong, you have no legal standing. No court will touch it, no insurance company will cover it. But you go ahead. Sign that contract. Zebulon loves living on the edge.

                  1. Being in the country illegally is actually not a criminal act nor should it be… unless you’re calling for the prosecution of 10 – 14 million people. Good luck with that logistical nightmare.

              2. Your right to contract is predicated on having the legal standing to enter into a contract.

                The State, source of all rights.

        2. Isn’t the exception for illegal aliens who are residents?

          1. Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

            1. Um, no. Residence has to do with where you physically reside.

              1. Not according to the states. Why would anyone ever pay out-of-state tuition? Just move to Los Angeles the week before you start classes at UCLA.

                1. Are they giving in state tuition to people who just crossed the border? No, they are not. They are giving it to people who actually live there. According to the state.

                  1. How do they know how long an illegal has been a resident? Wouldn’t they have been deported if documented?

          2. Yes, I think so. But, again, to my son’s example. His intention is to be a Nevada resident; he has lived there since his discharge from the army. He is charged out-of-state tuition to attend Nevada’s state university.

            Politics is “about who gets what”, so why should illegals be in line ahead of veterans?

        3. Residency requirement for U of Nevada:
          “A student who is financially independent and has established residence in the state of Nevada for a minimum of 12 months prior to the first day of instruction of the semester in which the student intends to enroll.”

          How hard is it to figure out that if you are set on going to U of Nevada, get a job for a year, take some online courses and get residency. You must have looked at this from a cost benefit standpoint. So your your son chooses to pay 250% of residents to get the same education he could have waited for 12 months to get for less. What’s the problem?

          1. Yes, I did look at cost/benefit and so did my son. there is a cost to waiting. I am not complaining about son’s situation, I am simply pointing out that Perry’s policy would put illegal immigrants in line ahead of veterans.

            1. If your son was smart, then 100% of his tuition will be reimbursed by the United States government, regardless of whether he pays in-state or out-of-state rates.

              Think of the residency subsidy as a voucher for money you’ve already paid. If you haven’t lived in the state, then you haven’t paid the money, so why should you get the voucher?

            2. …Perry’s policy would put illegal immigrants in line ahead of veterans.

              No, it isn’t. It’s treating them equally. An illegal who has lived there less than 12 months would not get the benefit. What you want is an exception for your son to be put in the front of the line over another resident (illegal or not; anyone who hasn’t lived there for 12 months doesn’t get the benefit).

              Was your son drafted? No? Then he does not deserve special treatment over others. Old Solider believes otherwise, but as a veteran myself, I disagree. We signed on the dotted line, and don’t deserve to be treated any differently than anyone else.

              1. I was not advocting specail treatment for Veterans (i.e. in-state tuition other than their home states).

                How does an illegal prove residency? “I snuck in here a year-ago, I swear. Here’s the fake Social I’ve been using. Here’s my power-bill under a false name.”

                1. I don’t think you have to prove your immigration status to rent an apartment or set up utility service.

                  1. Old Soldier-

                    You need to provide proof that you lived here…Phone bill, copy of a lease, etc. None of those documents require proof of citizenship…

        4. Wayne: Old Soldier’s bullshit aside, you =/= your son. Regardless of his intent, his home of record is California. He has not paid taxes to the state of Nevada for long enough for them to consider him for reduced tuition. The fact that you have paid those taxes is irrelevant; you are not the one going to college, your son is. And unless he is a dependent, that is the operative fact here.

          1. “And unless he is a dependent, that is the operative fact here.”

            So, you are citing rules as the reason to exclude my son from in-state tuition. Fair enough. The rules also say that illegal aliens are not residents of the US, at least in the legal sense, so why should illegals be granted in-state tuition?

            On a more fundamental level, do we need inducements for non-US citizens to come here illegally? Do we not already have enough illegal aliens living here?

            1. Wayne-

              The Illegals who have had residence for over a year get the same break that EVERYONE gets if they’ve lived in the state for a year.

              And this is not an inducement. An inducement would indicate that the Illegals are getting some sort of break…They aren’t. They are paying taxes and thus getting credit for that fact when they try to use a state college.

              1. You don’t think free education through grade 12, and then cheap education through a PhD is an inducement to enter the country illegally? Really?

                How can you be Texas resident without being a US resident?

                This tuition thing is ultimately a political decision. I imagine that many Texas residents will see the grant of in-state tuition rates to foreign nationals as subsidizing the educational expenses of other nations citizens.

                The argument that a kid from Lima, Peru gets charged $5,000 per year to attend UT while a kid from Lima, Ohio has to pay $15,000 is not likely to play well with some voters.

    2. This is amongst the silliest of conservative arguments. In most cases, illegal immigrants would be getting tax credits based on their income. Thus they’d be COSTING the state money if they filed income taxes. We should be thankful they aren’t paying income taxes.

  5. You’ll never convince conservatives on immigration, regardless of facts. They are driven by a mad xenophobia that blinds them.

    1. Always with the xenophobia accusations. Go sneak into Mexico and find out how they feel about it. Or is xenophobia reserved only for Americans?

      1. Other countries policies are irrelevant. We are talking about US (or Texas more specifically) policy here.

      2. It’s xenophobia both ways, but that doesn’t make it right. And since when was “it’s good enough for Mexicans…” a strong argument?

        1. what the mexicans do is irrevelant & does NOT define our conduct.

      3. I take it you’re one of those people who opposed the Park 51 Mosque because “Christians aren’t allowed to build churches in Saudi Arabia”.

        1. Be nice if they could rebuild the St. Nicholas that was destroy on 9/11.

          1. What is stopping “them”?

    2. “xenophobia” is the type argument I would expect from the hysterical left that believes America is more a theme park than a country. All immigrants are foreigners but, for some reason, there is a belief that one class of immigrants – those who ignore the law – should get breaks ahead of those who actually go by the numbers.

      1. …should get breaks ahead of those who actually go by the numbers.

        Please point out where anyone here has suggested they should get anything “ahead” of anyone else. The argument is that they should be treated equally. Sticking to the topic, they are not being given some benefit that others are denied when using the same criteria (i.e. Wayne’s son is not being denied because he is a veteran, he’s being denied because he hasn’t lived there for 12 months. An illegal who hasn’t lived there for 12 months wouldn’t get the tuition discount, either. Equal treatment).

        What you seem to want is for them to be treated worse than others, because you seem to conflate equality with getting “breaks” “ahead” of other people, which is not happening.

        1. how does an illegal document his prior 12 months residency?

          1. Invoice from the guy who muled him here?

          2. how does an illegal document his prior 12 months residency?

            The same way anybody else does. I have a U.S. passport and a social security card, but that doesn’t help me prove my state residency.

            1. A driver’s license? Filed tax returns? Started a business? Proof of employment?

    3. Actually, this conservative is driven by rules and following the law. They are not called illegals for no reason. As much as I am sick and tired of illegals in this country, I am sick and tired of cops who don’t give politicians tickets, people who protest (and not peacefully) who destroy property and are not held accountable, people who think yellow lights mean go faster, people who work under the table to avoid taxes, people who give everything they own to their children 5 years prior to going into a nursing home so the government has to pay for it…basically, thieves make me sick.

      1. …also escaped slaves, and black people who don’t sit in the back of the bus… teh law is teh law.

  6. “no taxation without representation.”

    The worst argument I’ve ever read here. I’ve paid sales tax in Texas and lots of other states. Should I get to vote there? Should my kids get in-state tuition? I’m not represented in Texas, I guess no more sales tax there for me. What a joke.

  7. Property taxes are the main source of income for state tuition assistance. Not many illegals are paying property taxes.

    Regardless, legal residency should be the litmus test for discounted tuition. If I a resident of California cannot get discounted tuition in Nevada, why should someone whose family came to the US illegally, regardless of how long they have lived here, get a subsidized education to which they are not entitled to?

    1. They are paying property tax, albeit indirectly. Renters pay the owners and the owners pay the tax.

      1. as I said above, the owner of the property pays the taxes, the renter is not entitled to any subsidies simply because they pay rent.

        yours is a false argument

        1. Renters enjoy the same use of public services as homeowners. Unless you are arguing that renters’ kids shouldn’t be able to go to school at all, regardless of immigration status?

      2. So if i buy a 2nd home in Texas but don’t establish residency, I should still be able to vote and get in-state tuition?

        Your argument sucks.

        1. voting rights are determined by each states congress and residency is required by all states as far as I know. the states also have the ability to make residency restrictions for in-state subsidies.

          burn that straw man before it burns you

          1. So the answer is “Yes” if I’m an illegal immigrant. “No” if I’m a U.S. citizen or a legal immigrant.

            Really? Rick Perry is going to campaign with that stupid answer? Watch those poll numbers drop like a rock.

      3. Again with the ignorance. Property owners pay the tax regardless if they have a renter or not, so the renter’s paying rent is irrelevant to the issue. They are not ‘indirectly’ paying property tax. They are paying rent, period.

        1. Yes, and by the same token corporate income taxes are not a tax on all of the customers of corporations. But they still see it in the prices they pay.

          1. no, not by the same token. Property tax is paid regardless of who lives in the property. Sales tax is paid on actual sales; income tax is paid on income. Without sales, there is no income to tax. But even without a tenants, property tax still has to be paid.

            1. I see your point, but it seems pretty nit-picky and irrelevant. Yes, the property owner pays the taxes whether or not he has tenants. But the owner of a rental property owns such property with the intention of collecting rent which will, in part pay for the property taxes.

              1. NO ZEB.
                ONLY TAX PAYER PAY TAX
                CONSUMER NEVER PAY TAX

        2. Let’s say Bob has a debt to Joe. Now if I give the money to Bob, and Bob pays Joe, who paid the debt?

          1. Uncle Sam paid it. All money flows from the government, Tony told me so.

    2. Property taxes are the main source of income for state tuition assistance. Not many illegals are paying property taxes.

      You think rent wouldn’t be lower if there were no property taxes? If you’re paying to live somewhere, then you’re paying property taxes.

  8. Everybody leaves out a very important fact about what Texas does.

    You can’t go into the UT admissions office with your sneakers still wet from wading the Rio Grande and get in-state rates.

    You have to be actively engaged in seeking legal residency. That makes a big difference, to me at least.

  9. Their “residency” is ILLEGAL. So, they are not “residents”. The fact that they have not yet been prosecuted and convicted for their crime does not mean that they are not violating the law. Without exception, every time one of these “residents” has found themselves on death row as a consequence of committing a murder, regardless of having lived the majority of their lives in the U.S., they have always claimed to be foreign nationals and entitled to diplomatic intervention. Why?

    As for paying taxes in Texas justifying an education subsidy, If I visit Mexico and as a consequence pay sales taxes and hotel taxes should I be entitled to an education subsidy courtesy of the Mexican government? What if I visit Texas prior to enrolling in college and pay these taxes? Appeals to lawlessness are not libertarian, they are anarchist.

    1. Residency is a state matter. If a state wishes to define residency irrespective of immigration status, then that is their prerogative.

    2. “If I VISIT Mexico and as a consequence pay sales taxes and hotel taxes should I be entitled to an education subsidy courtesy of the Mexican government?”

      No, and neither should the Mexicans ‘visiting’ the US. If you lived there OTOH…

    3. Their “residency” is ILLEGAL. So, they are not “residents”.

      Nope. The definition of residency for the university system makes no reference to citizenship or immigration status.

    4. If you had bothered to read the damn article: Most children of illegal immigrants?some 73%, according to the Pew Hispanic Center?are U.S. citizens by birth.

      So those kids ARE in fact residents.

      1. If they are already residents then why the big fuss, they already get in-state tuition, right?

  10. “”Immigration status aside, state residents are thought to be deserving of a subsidy because they pay sales taxes, property taxes and other fees to support state institutions that non-state residents don’t pay””

    Non-residents in TX are exempt from sales tax?

  11. what is this notion of “prepaid”? So if you are a property owner in Texas, you are “prepaying” for your tuition at UT until you die or move? Thats a crock. The residents of Texas are subsidizing the tuition of residents of the state of Texas in the same way that property taxes subsidize the cost of k-12 education.

    That out of staters are required to pay more is a reflection on the fact that local residents do not want to subsidze the education of those from other states. That Texas is treating illegal residents in the same manner as legal residents extends that same subsidy to the illegals.

    1. I fail to understand why the residents of a state would want to penalize the residents of other states, apart from the fact that they have not paid the same taxes.

  12. does anyone care about all the americans that have died because of illegal immigrants. illegal is illegal and the only right they have is the right to be deported. isnt texaS ALSO BROKE?

    1. What about all of the Americans who have had their lives saved or improved by the presence of illegal immigrants? Everything has a cost and a benefit.

  13. Just because you’ve italicizes legal doesn’t make it relevant.

    To be a ‘legal resident’ of a state has nothing to do with your immigration status. My wife (a foreigner) is a legal resident of Arizona because she’s lived in the state long enough to be considered one. It has nothing to do with her green card.

    1. That was a response to mike.

    2. Is she also a legal resident of the US?

      Can a German (or Brit, or Kuala Lampurian, or anybody else) come here on a tourist visa, reside in AZ for a year then attend ASU and pay in-state tuition?

      1. The fact that she’s a ‘legal’ resident of the US had nothing to do with her state residency.

  14. Guess what all you little bitches, you want in-state tuition in Texas? Go there, live there for 3 years, and voila. You can do it too. Quit whining that some beaner stoled yer durgree.

    1. Actually, I think it’s 12 months… which only strengthens your point.

    2. I could also say, “Guess what all you little bitches, you want in-state tuition in Texas? Immigrate legally to the US. You can do it too. Quit whining that some gringo denied you your human rights.”

      1. Yeah, that’s a myth that really needs to be debunked, especially if we’re talking about people from Mexico (or anywhere else in Latin America). For the vast majority of Mexicans who don’t have an immediate family member (i.e. a spouse or, if they’re under 21 and unmarried, a parent) who’s already a U.S. citizen or legal resident, there’s no alternative that doesn’t involve waiting well over a decade for a visa. Many don’t even have that option.

        Whether these aliens are justified in breaking the law is a separate issue, but it’s not like they’re just trying to avoid a minor bureaucratic hassle.

        1. Hey, the bureaucratic hassle is there because we don’t any more goddamn foreigners in our country, especially spics and Muslims.

          If people decide to go around it because there’s too much red tape, they’re defeating the point of the Ministry of Immigration and Naturalization, which is to prevent Immigration and Naturalization.

  15. Ppppt. Whatever. The important point is I’m ‘tougher on illegal immigrants’ than him. Thats all that matters. You think anyone else cares about the hypocrisy regarding taxation, representation etc.? Next thing you’ll start telling me that building a wall between the US and mexico doesnt stop immigration or increase the integrity of our borders… hah~! Tell someone who gives a shit! People love the darn fence, and I’m gonna promise one 5 feet taller than Rick Perry does…

    1. juan’s ladderz are mucho tall enough !

  16. As the spouse of an “illegal immigrant” (with a lapsed visa status we’re in the process of correcting) in Texas, I think I have a little perspective. We are currently paying 3x the tuition rate of legal residents (international rates) at her community college, yet we have paid full sales and property taxes to the state for four years now, and we file and pay federal taxes every year. They told her that was the rate she had to pay. She shouldn’t have to pay different rates from any other resident regardless of her visa status, due to the fact we’ve paid taxes to the state of Texas for years. Period.

    1. Illegal is illegal~!!

      1. The law is the law, no matter how wrong and messed up it is!!

      2. You just want to keep brown people uneducated.

    2. Props, I’m not sure wy you aren’t paying the in-state rate. It sure sounds like your spouse should qualify. Does the policy not apply at community colleges?

      1. I don’t know – I should definitely get her to follow-up. But they told her should could pay in-state only once she got her legal residency.

  17. In-state tuition seems to for people who are legal residents of a state. It is hard to justify how someone who is an illegal alien can also be a legal resident of the state.
    Denying them in-state tuition on top of this would mean effectively allowing taxpaying residents who can vote to exploit another set of taxpaying residents who can’t vote.”

    How are you being exploited if that’s the situation you walked into eyes open? How is that not an argument for giving illegal aliens the right to vote? After all, that’s what “taxation without representation” actually refers to. The fact that Dalmia actually wants a large underclass of non-citizens is something the pro-illegal immigration does not seem to recognize as problematic.

    1. It is hard to justify how someone who is an illegal alien can also be a legal resident of the state.

      Because the definition is whether you actually live here, not whether you are allowed to live here.

      1. Exactly. It’s even harder to justify how someone who resides in a state can be anything other than a “resident” of that state.

        1. The justification is not for “resident”, but “legal resident”.

      2. I went to college out of my home state and went to the trouble to change residencies. The process involved getting legal documentation that I was, in fact, living in the state I was going to school in. I know the requirements became more stringent in the years after I graduated. It would seem to me impossible for an illegal alien to be able to legitimately obtain the documenation to prove they were a resident of a state.

        Secondly, RC, do you not think that its problematic for a representative republic to be importing a large non-citizen underclass?

        1. I’m pretty sure in Texas, you just have to prove you’ve lived, ie: either a house or apartment address, for 1 to 3 years (memory is kinda hazy on that).

          I personally have never understood why colleges, who are astronomically more expensive than most degrees are worth, charge different rates because you live on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

          Aren’t most public colleges funded by land grants and tuition and fees and alumni donations, not necessarily taxes?

  18. So did the state’s business community, which lobbied for the measure on the grounds that a better-educated population would translate into stronger economic growth.

    I thought Texas needed lots of uneducated immigrants because the natives got too smarty pants for some jobs.

  19. The thing is, the two major universities, UT and A&M, are both funded by land grants and mineral rights. So while taxes may provide some money, it is not nearly as much as these two things. If anything could be argued, it would be that out of state tuition and international tuition (which are often two or three times what residents pay) subsidizes in state tuition.

  20. Never understood why there’s not just ONE FUCKING tuition rate.

    Then again, I never went to college.

  21. It is hard to justify how someone who is an illegal alien can also be a legal resident of the state.

    Because “alien status at the federal level” != “residency status at the state level”

    Also, at least as far as I know, there is no federal law predicating state residency upon alien status at the federal level (and disallowing state residency for illegal aliens, specifically).

  22. When did we lose our common sense? Our Government, has allowed the invasion of 30 million criminals in direct violation of Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution. they force American tax payers to pay Billions to provide Welfare, Prison cells, Educate the invaders children, free medical care,massive document fraud, & are destroying our schools, hospitals, communities, culture while Robbing, Raping, Killing & Assaulting American Citizens WE ARE BEING INVADED! WAKE UP PEOPLE!
    An education is a good thing.



    Every Non-representative including obama and holder are not upholding the oath of office! they swore to defend the Constitution! If these clowns were to do their job, this would all be a Moot point!
    Anchors and their criminal parents go, period, you knew you were breaking the law when you crossed the border.

    Next shut down any business hiring illegal labor. Oh and owners go to jail.
    Got a better idea? Lets hear it!

    1. Yeah the better idea is for you to shut the fuck up.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.