Ruling on In-State Tuition Hurts Legal Californians and School Funding (CA)
November 24, 2010
Last Monday, the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens. The ruling applies to those who, while not Californian citizens, attended and graduated from high school in California.
While supporters laud the legislation, declaring that their cause is on the right side of history and that discrimination has once again been felled, a more objective observer questions the implications of the verdict.
That illegal immigrants and their children will now be rewarded with the reduced tuition paired with the potential loss of revenue for the already suffering California college system, are two consequences that do give pause before outright celebration.
An illegal immigrant is not a citizen; each excludes the other. Yet, with the current ruling, illegal immigrants in California reap the benefits while legal citizens of other states are still forced to pay out-of-state tuition rates.
The precedent of non-California citizens paying out-of-state rates has been overturned, favoring criminals over legal residents.
This is not to say that all Americans should pay in-state tuition rates regardless of residence, but if we are to guarantee rights for illegal immigrants, then we should ensure the same for American citizens as well or occlude all non-California citizens equally.
Simply put, the issue of in-state tuition cannot be settled if we as a state refuse or are incapable of first de ciding what punishment, if any, a person should suffer for breaking the laws.
The precedent that the California Supreme Court has established is both presumptuous and irrational.
Supporters posit that during an illegal immigrant’s high school career, they and their family contribute to the Californian commonwealth through taxes and should be allowed the accompanying benefits.
However, that supposition is rather specious and suspect as the only taxes they would realistically pay are sales taxes.
One must remember that their contributions have been criminal by definition.Whether they have benefited California or not should in no measure exonerate their undeniably criminal activity.
Aside from the obvious conflicts of privilege and the law, however, the UC system, along with all other California colleges, will continue to suffer from the ruling.
Out-of-state tuitions account for an appreciable portion of the UC system’s gross revenue, and the potential income would disappear should illegal immigrants be guaranteed in-state tuition rates.
One might also argue that the plight of illegal immigrants alone should satisfactorily deflect the opposition to the ruling and the still-standing law.
While considerably touching, it becomes entirely irrelevant when considering similarly destitute American citizens from, say Colorado, who might wish to attend a California school at a reduced rate more than anything.
Were this law accompanied with responsible amnesty legislation, the Supreme Court’s decision would be markedly more tenable.
In fact, save for the initial breach of law, amnesty for law-abiding immigrants seems the only logical, remedial and empathetic solution for the problem.
Wit hout that stipulation, the current verdict offers benefits to criminals and harms California schools for their sake, a stance that cannot be justified and should likewise have not been instantiated.
The problems that illegal immigration poses to California are ubiquitous; assuch, our judicial system should not go about ‘fixing’ the smallerinconveniences before directly addressing and resolving the larger, moreexigent predicament.