• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

In-State tuition for undocumented students

Maryland passed the Dream Act in 2012. I think to qualify, students need to have attended HS here for three or four years and show that their parents have paid taxes. They go to their local community college and then may qualify to attend 4-year state universities if they meet certain criteria.

Honestly, I think it's a good idea, but I don't think original projections had many undocumented students actually make it through.
 
A kid from Texas can come to UNC, change his residence to Chapel Hill and get in state tuition after a year. A kid from across the river can move with his family to NC at age 5, go to North Carolina schools for 12 years and yet must pay out of state tuition all four years. This makes no sense.

The reasons for providing in state tuition in the first place apply just as much to undocumented NC high schoolers as they do to the general population.
 
States are free to do whatever the fuck they want, but I hope they have better protections against fraud than the feds do. If they say they attended such and such a school for 3 years, call the damn school to verify it.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
States are free to do whatever the fuck they want, but I hope they have better protections against fraud than the feds do. If they say they attended such and such a school for 3 years, call the damn school to verify it.
Click to expand...

Obviously someone who has never tried to get in state tuition in NC. It is hard as fuck to get approved for that
 
They didn't sneak into this country to be our friends-Lucille Bluth
 
RChildress107 said:
A kid from Texas can come to UNC, change his residence to Chapel Hill and get in state tuition after a year. A kid from across the river can move with his family to NC at age 5, go to North Carolina schools for 12 years and yet must pay out of state tuition all four years. This makes no sense.

The reasons for providing in state tuition in the first place apply just as much to undocumented NC high schoolers as they do to the general population.
Click to expand...

Has it become that simple. It sounds a lot easier than what I went through a while ago. I was denied in-state tuition after having been continuously resident for over four years.
 
My concern is the taxpayer issue. If you're paying into the pool that funds public schools, that's one thing. If you're undocumented and not paying, that's an unfair advantage. However, communities have a vested interest in an educated public so perhaps one solution, and one which may companies and governments use, is to obligate residency or volunteerism after graduation. If Exxon or Coke pays for tuition for an employee, that individual is obligated to remain there a certain time before being able to go to another company or repay tuition. I'm not talking indentured servitude but a way for those who didn't pay into the system to give something back in exchange for what too many people dismiss as less-than-valuable (see any debate on paying college athletes).
 
They are paying into the system. The rent they pay pays into real estate taxes which goes to schools. The products the produce and buy create taxes. There's little difference from any other resident.
 
wake20 said:
Maryland passed the Dream Act in 2012. I think to qualify, students need to have attended HS here for three or four years and show that their parents have paid taxes. They go to their local community college and then may qualify to attend 4-year state universities if they meet certain criteria.

Honestly, I think it's a good idea, but I don't think original projections had many undocumented students actually make it through.
Click to expand...

In general I support the Dream Act. My understanding of the proposed federal law was that kids had to have entered the US at 15 or younger. If kids come forward, doesn't that put their parents/adults who brought them in more at risk of deportation? A better educated workforce benefits everyone, but if trying to attain that puts your older family members in legal jeopardy how does that work?
 
"The system" isn't rent. That is a consumption expense we all pay in some form. People that actually pay in keep paying for fit, sit, sales, health care taxes. Good to know that I don't have to pay taxes if I pay rent... #facepalm

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
94Deac said:
My concern is the taxpayer issue. If you're paying into the pool that funds public schools, that's one thing. If you're undocumented and not paying, that's an unfair advantage. However, communities have a vested interest in an educated public so perhaps one solution, and one which may companies and governments use, is to obligate residency or volunteerism after graduation. If Exxon or Coke pays for tuition for an employee, that individual is obligated to remain there a certain time before being able to go to another company or repay tuition. I'm not talking indentured servitude but a way for those who didn't pay into the system to give something back in exchange for what too many people dismiss as less-than-valuable (see any debate on paying college athletes).
Click to expand...

jhmd2000 said:
"The system" isn't rent. That is a consumption expense we all pay in some form. People that actually pay in keep paying for fit, sit, sales, health care taxes. Good to know that I don't have to pay taxes if I pay rent... #facepalm

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But 50% of people aren't paying taxes anyways so what's another 50,000 or so extra kids who get to mooch off the gov't. If the rich kids are going to let a bunch of illegals keep them from earning what's rightfully theirs then maybe they didn't deserve it in the first place.
 
Also it makes so much sense not to allow kids who have done everything right in their lives to continue do that and become high end earners.

Yep, let's punish kids for the misdemeanors of their parents. While we're at it, let's just put the kids of people who have been in jail in jail. After all those kids should be responsible for the acts of their parents, too.
 
One thing people overlook is the billions that illegals contribute to federal withholdings via payroll taxes (in the cases where their employers actually follow the law and make those withholdings and payments to the Treasury). They'll never get to claim those unless and until they become legal. But we're talking state-funded education and the fact is many illegals are not paying real estate taxes due either to living in already subsidized housing, or housing in someone else's name. We're talking broad generalizations here and I temper all my considerations on this with the conditional "if." What is clear is that this issue has little room for absolutes or black/white thinking. And RJ's hyperbole aside, he does touch on the issue at heart: children have no say in whether they're brought here.

However, RJ, you should be wary of equating not being provided a taxpayer-funded education with "punishment."
 
Public spending on higher education continues to decline. It's harder and harder to call it "taxpayer-funded education."
 
PhDeac said:
Public spending on higher education continues to decline. It's harder and harder to call it "taxpayer-funded education."
Click to expand...

Then what's all this talk about "in-state" vs "out-of-state" tuition? I know we're all spoiled private school brats but I'm seeing a big difference in numbers here. I do get your point but there's still a gulf of difference.
 
94Deac said:
One thing people overlook is the billions that illegals contribute to federal withholdings via payroll taxes (in the cases where their employers actually follow the law and make those withholdings and payments to the Treasury). They'll never get to claim those unless and until they become legal. But we're talking state-funded education and the fact is many illegals are not paying real estate taxes due either to living in already subsidized housing, or housing in someone else's name. We're talking broad generalizations here and I temper all my considerations on this with the conditional "if." What is clear is that this issue has little room for absolutes or black/white thinking. And RJ's hyperbole aside, he does touch on the issue at heart: children have no say in whether they're brought here.

However, RJ, you should be wary of equating not being provided a taxpayer-funded education with "punishment."
Click to expand...

I was being facetious with my earlier post but the bold already applies to a decent swath of the population. Owning property as a requirement or justification for receiving vital government services would be a 150+ year step back.

The main justification for in-state tuition, IMO, is that children who grew up in the state are more likely to stay and contribute to the state after they graduate. I would bet that undocumented children (and poor children in general) have a much higher rate of staying in state than children of property owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top