HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Immigrants to Pay Tuition...

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:27 PM

Immigrants to Pay Tuition at Rate Set for Residents

Source: New York Times

Thousands of illegal immigrants living in Massachusetts can qualify for state resident tuition rates at state colleges, under a policy laid out on Monday by Gov. Deval Patrick — another shift in the fast-changing mosaic of states’ policies toward that population.

The shift builds on the Obama administration policy, adopted in June, that the federal government will not seek to deport most young immigrants who, as children, were either brought to the United States illegally or kept here illegally. The Massachusetts policy applies to that same group.

Officials say there are very few illegal immigrants currently enrolled who might benefit from the in-state tuition discount; the much larger effect will be in encouraging others to enroll. They estimate that Massachusetts has 15,000 to 17,000 residents in the age group affected by the change in the deportation policy; they would not guess how many might take advantage of new state and federal rules.

“Our experience has been that the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition is a prohibitive barrier,” said Paul Reville, the state’s secretary of education. The state’s flagship college, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, charges state residents $13,230 in tuition and fees; students from outside the state pay more than twice as much, $26,645.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/us/illegal-immig



I couldn't agree more with this decision.

87 replies, 8504 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 87 replies Author Time Post
Reply Immigrants to Pay Tuition at Rate Set for Residents (Original post)
rachel1 Nov 2012 OP
libdem4life Nov 2012 #1
lalalu Nov 2012 #2
rachel1 Nov 2012 #3
riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #6
Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #53
riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #78
Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #80
roody Nov 2012 #81
lalalu Nov 2012 #9
MADem Nov 2012 #18
lalalu Nov 2012 #21
MADem Nov 2012 #30
lalalu Nov 2012 #35
MADem Nov 2012 #67
didact Nov 2012 #62
MADem Nov 2012 #19
lalalu Nov 2012 #24
MADem Nov 2012 #25
lalalu Nov 2012 #29
MADem Nov 2012 #34
lalalu Nov 2012 #36
MADem Nov 2012 #43
lalalu Nov 2012 #48
MADem Nov 2012 #56
tammywammy Nov 2012 #59
lalalu Nov 2012 #60
MADem Nov 2012 #65
treestar Nov 2012 #32
lalalu Nov 2012 #39
MADem Nov 2012 #44
treestar Nov 2012 #46
lalalu Nov 2012 #49
treestar Nov 2012 #73
lalalu Nov 2012 #77
MADem Nov 2012 #66
roody Nov 2012 #82
Piazza Riforma Nov 2012 #4
panAmerican Nov 2012 #5
Piazza Riforma Nov 2012 #7
panAmerican Nov 2012 #8
Piazza Riforma Nov 2012 #11
MADem Nov 2012 #15
lalalu Nov 2012 #23
MADem Nov 2012 #26
lalalu Nov 2012 #27
MADem Nov 2012 #37
lalalu Nov 2012 #38
treestar Nov 2012 #47
lalalu Nov 2012 #61
MADem Nov 2012 #68
treestar Nov 2012 #74
MADem Nov 2012 #50
treestar Nov 2012 #75
lalalu Nov 2012 #76
MADem Nov 2012 #79
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #64
roody Nov 2012 #83
MADem Nov 2012 #84
lalalu Nov 2012 #10
MADem Nov 2012 #13
lalalu Nov 2012 #14
MADem Nov 2012 #16
MADem Nov 2012 #17
lalalu Nov 2012 #22
MADem Nov 2012 #28
lalalu Nov 2012 #31
MADem Nov 2012 #40
lalalu Nov 2012 #42
MADem Nov 2012 #51
MADem Nov 2012 #12
Orangepeel Nov 2012 #20
treestar Nov 2012 #33
MADem Nov 2012 #41
treestar Nov 2012 #45
MADem Nov 2012 #54
Xithras Nov 2012 #86
WilmywoodNCparalegal Nov 2012 #52
MADem Nov 2012 #55
WilmywoodNCparalegal Nov 2012 #57
MADem Nov 2012 #63
WilmywoodNCparalegal Nov 2012 #85
MADem Nov 2012 #87
pampango Nov 2012 #58
MADem Nov 2012 #69
pampango Nov 2012 #72
Politicub Nov 2012 #70
marshall Nov 2012 #71

Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:46 PM

1. Go Massachusetts...another accomplishment by our recently re-elected President for All People.

Education always gives back to the culture...regardless of race, color, creed, religion, age or sexual preference. That's what scares the Status Quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:50 PM

2. If they are here illegally then how can they prove they have lived in the state?

 

Will they have to show the same documents that American students and their parents have to show? It will be interesting to see what documents will be accepted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:34 PM

3. It doesn't matter. If they're here then they ought to be eligble for in-state tuition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:23 PM

6. Not so fast. The difference in costs between in-state and out-of-state are enormous.

Residency proof isn't something that should be tampered with imho, and will only engender serious problems in the long run.

The hoops that kids have to go through to prove they are residents should apply to everyone. Illegal immigrants shouldn't get a pass just because we want to win votes. Its not fair to those who ARE trying to do the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:37 AM

53. This is not about winning votes

FFS. This is about making education slightly more affordable.

I can't even fathom what kind of mind would react to this the way you have, in terms of 'votes' as opposed to human beings wanting an education.

I suppose some people might think those 'illegals' should stick to dish washing or mowing lawns or something.

I think I'll leave it at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #53)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:06 PM

78. Its the rare, very rare, politician that's altruistic. 99% of them are chasing votes

Patrick Deval is no different. He can read the election results and understands how important the hispanic vote is right now.

FWIW, I would LOVE to see in-state, out-of-state tuition rates equalized. Its crazy how higher education is priced these days. I have a ton of DU posts on my objections to the current system so calling me out means squat.

But right now, as it stands, the tuition differential is vast. There are kids who are cut off from getting the "in-state" rate by the most stupid of regulations - mere days of moving into a state for example can mean thousands of dollars in different college tuition costs. It sucks.

I want ALL of our kids to get an affordable education. But nobody should be able to "jump that line". I don't care who you are, or what your immigration status is. As it stands now, nobody should be able to jump the tuition/residency requirements. NOBODY, regardless of whether you are legal or illegal.

Preferably NOBODY should have to pay ANY price differential and it would all be normalized across state lines for public universities.

But that's a pipe dream....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #78)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:35 PM

80. His intentions are irrelevent

It is the impact of policy that matters.

The type of proof these undocumented students have to show to prove residency is on another post in this thread (#18). They don't get to 'jump the line'. They are residency requirements, not citizenship requirements. If you think we need citizenship requirements for university attendance then that is another issue on which I disagree wholeheartedly with you. If not, I think you just need to read a little more about this initiative before drawing conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #78)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:20 AM

81. Likely they will have to have graduated from

an in-state high school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:45 PM

9. That is not how it works.

 

In order to get instate tuition they do not just accept any documents. You have to present federal and state tax returns. Birth certificates are not acceptable because people are often born in one state and raised in another. ID such as licenses also are not proof. You have to have certified documentation such as recent tax forms and believe me they verify the information. It is not as easy as you think.

If they did not do this then just anyone can claim to be a resident because the cost difference is big. I would like to know how a family here illegally can prove their status. Will they be allowed to use documents that are not accepted from citizens?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:55 PM

18. This is NOT true. You do NOT have to "present federal and state tax returns."

Are you getting your info from Faux Snooze? You need two documents and you don't "HAVE" to present tax returns AT ALL.

Stop making stuff up. Go to the source and get the facts.

You can "prove" your status by getting a high school diploma in state, for starters. Or getting cable or paying an electric bill. Good grief. Stop shopping misinformation.

Please check the in-state or reduced tuition eligibility category that applies to you:
_____ For Community College applicants: I have been a Massachusetts resident for six (6) continuous months and intend
to remain here.
_____ For State College and UMass applicants: I have been a Massachusetts resident for twelve (12) continuous months
and intend to remain here.
As proof of my intent to remain in Massachusetts, I possess at least 2 of the following documents, which I shall present to
the institution upon request.
These documents are dated within one (1) year of the start date of the academic semester for
which I seek to enroll (except possibly for my high school diploma). The institution reserves the right to make any
additional inquiries regarding the applicant’s status and to require submission of any additional documentation it deems
necessary. Please check-off those documents you possess as proof of your intent to remain in Massachusetts.
_____Driver’s license _____Mass. High School Diploma _____Employment pay stub
_____Car registration _____Voter registration _____State/Federal tax returns
_____Utility bills _____Signed lease or rent receipt _____Military home of record
_____Record of parents’ residency for unemancipated person _____Other ________________


http://www.mass.edu/shared/documents/admissions/InStateTuitionEligibilityForm.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:57 AM

21. You are wrong.

 

That is a form you fill out.

You need to read this

http://www.umass.edu/umfa/uploads/listWidget/11810/tuitionclassification_rules.pdf

Part III. Determination of Residency
3.1 Proof of Residency
a) Each case will be decided on the basis of all facts submitted with qualitative
rather than quantitative emphasis. A number of factors is required for residency
to determine the intention of the person to maintain permanent residence in
Massachusetts. No single index is decisive. The burden of proof rests on the
student seeking classification as a Massachusetts resident.
b) The following shall be primary indicia of residency:
1) For unemancipated persons, the residency of parents, having custody,
within Massachusetts;
2) Certified copies of federal and state income tax returns;
3) Permanent employment in a position not normally filled by a student;
4) Reliance on Massachusetts sources for financial support;
5) Former residency in Massachusetts and maintenance of significant
connections there while absent.
c) The following shall be secondary indicia of residency, to be considered of less
weight than the indicia listed above in subsection b):
1) Continuous physical presence in Massachusetts during periods when not
an enrolled student;
2) Military home of record;
3) All other material of whatever kind or source which may have a bearing on
determining residency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:44 AM

30. Nice try. No cigar. That's the "form" that the Governor Patrick CHANGED.

Good grief, try to keep up. You clearly didn't even read the whole document you're offering as "proof," otherwise you'd see that all the material in para 3.3 has been superseded by Patrick's announcement. This material is OUTDATED.

The form that I provided is the current one. THAT's the material a student needs to provide. A car registration in MA, a cable/electric bill to a home in MA, a high school diploma from a school in MA, a pay stub from an after-school job at McDonald's...any two of these are sufficient to prove residency.

You're in error. Stop digging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #30)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:51 AM

35. You really get the "Duh" reward yourself.

 

So now you admit those were the original requirements for all students.

So now that Patrick has done away with those rules they should apply to all students who want in state tuition. They cannot have separate rules demanding different documents from American students they suspect may be from another state. They better accept the same lame documentation from American citizens. If they don't then I see a lawsuit and rightly so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #35)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:17 PM

67. Look -- you are just dead wrong on this. Give it up.

If a student can produce two documents that prove they are a MA resident, they AREN'T FROM another state. Double DUH! Admit THAT, why don't you?



Good grief, you've really lost the bubble here. There is no "suspecting"--the goal of the documents is to prove the person lived in the Commonwealth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:39 PM

62. WTF?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:57 PM

19. DUH....how about a MA high school diploma?

Their parents don't have to show shit--they aren't going to college. The student is.

http://www.mass.edu/shared/documents/admissions/InStateTuitionEligibilityForm.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:18 AM

24. It is becoming more obvious

 

that you have never attended college. I have posted several replies proving you wrong. You should refrain from using "Duh" and profanity since you obviously do not know what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #24)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:26 AM

25. I've provided a link proving you wrong--from the MA government itself.

And you're wrong about my educational bona fides, too--one of my degrees is from a Massachusetts college.

You have no idea what YOU are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:35 AM

29. LOL, keep posting it.

 

Now try to read it and understand what the word "parents" mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #29)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:49 AM

34. What do "parents" have to do with an 18 year old (adult) student?

Most graduates of MA high schools are 18 by the time they go to college--the cut-off age for kindergarten pretty much ensures that. It's the rare kid who is still under 18 when they are dropped off at the dorm or report for their first day of college classes.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that you're just talking out your behind. I've provided you with the most recent information, and you're pissed off at ME because you're wrong and I've proven it, but that's your problem, not mine.

Stop confusing financial aid with tuition. They are two different things.

An undocumented or documented student can apply to, and be accepted by, a MA state school without EVER INVOLVING THEIR PARENTS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #34)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:53 AM

36. Wow, so you also do not file income taxes.

 

The cutoff age is not 18, it is 24. Federal and state regulations recognize dependent students until the age of 24. If they are disabled the age is even higher. You really do not know what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #36)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:24 AM

43. The cut off is 24 for FINANCIAL AID. Stop confusing TUITION with FINANCIAL AID.

You're the one who is clueless here--keep doubling down, though. It's starting to get fun--albeit in a rather sad and train-wreckish way-- watching you flail while you get shirty with me for stating a few facts. With every post you reveal yourself--and what you reveal isn't very admirable.

An 18 year old in MA is an emancipated adult. If they want financial aid (which is not the subject here, the subject is TUITION), they will have to involve their parents--but if they have won a scholarship or have obtained a job with a work permit and can pay their own way, or some kind person has given them a loan, then they just need to show those two documents of which I spoke.

Keep digging, though--we'll be able to plant a rosebush soon enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #43)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:48 AM

48. This is my final response to you.

 

If you ever file a tax return one day this may help you.

Federal and state law recognizes dependent students until the age of 24. A student is not considered emancipated because they are 18. They must provide proof they live on their own and support themselves. That is because students would try to declare themselves emancipated to hide their parents' income. Which is why the article I linked you to shows that states require the parents of students to provide residency. BTW, the students in that article were over 18.

One day when you go to college or have a child who goes to college you will realize how silly you sound. There is no way you went to college and did not know this.

Your state will now have to accept the same documents from ALL students whether they or their parents are here legally or illegally.
Students from other states will use the same flimsy documentation and there won't be a thing you can do about it or you will face lawsuits. End of discussion. Bye

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #48)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:12 AM

56. Well, joy in the morning--that has NOTHING TO DO WITH TUITION, and it has

NOTHING TO DO WITH EMANCIPATION.

What you're missing--and you are either doing it deliberately (in a goading and baiting manner, as we see on rare occasion here at DU) or through sheer inability to comprehend the written word--is that "dependent student" is a status that is associated with FINANCIAL AID. It has NOTHING to do with a student who coughs up their own tuition, earns a scholarship, or gets a loan. It has nothing to do with "age of majority." It has nothing to do with "emancipation."

You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG--you just don't know what you're talking about. You FAIL this subject. I am not the only one who has corrected you, here--yet you double down and make idiotic and completely irrelevant (to say nothing of false) comments about age, parental status and education, when it's plain by your very words that you might want to check your own mirror on those scores. Those sorts of comments are the mark of someone who is woefully immature and has to resort to personal goads in an effort to pivot the discussion away from the facts that you--yes you--have gotten all wrong.

You continue to confuse the issue of financial aid with the issue of tuition for these kids. They are separate issues.

My state won't have to do a damn thing--they have EVERY right to make the rules as regards what they view as "residency" and other states can do the same for their state systems, or not--but they have no standing to complain about what we do in the Commonwealth. It's not discriminatory for a state to make their own determinations on this score, any more than it is not discriminatory for states to decide on issues like gay marriage or medical or recreational mj. No other state has the right or ability to cry about it, even if, in your mind, you believe they do.

Too bad if you don't like that. You're just completely off the mark on this issue, and you've acquitted yourself poorly in your arguments because they are based on fantasy and invention, not fact. You've been told where you've gone wrong, and you double down nonetheless, and let it all hang out for all to see. It's pathetic at this point--you are making a spectacle of yourself by continuing to press on in a deliberately obtuse fashion because you simply don't want to admit that you made a couple of very basic errors.

I love the "one day when you go to college" line--if only your half baked comments were true! I'm retired, but it amuses me no end that you see youthful vigor in my observations--of course, you've demonstrated that your powers of comprehension lack no small degree of accuracy or insight, never mind veracity, so it quite naturally follows that your perceptions about others are similarly flawed--in fact, I'm quite sure that's the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #48)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:57 PM

59. Your conflating tuition rates and financial aid

If a student wants to apply for Federal Student Aid they will have to include parents income until age 24. That is a separate issue from whether a university determines if a student qualifies for in-state tuition. Completely separate issues.

And the form that was linked to above is for both citizens and non-citizens. So the documentation requirements are the same for both.
http://www.mass.edu/shared/documents/admissions/InStateTuitionEligibilityForm.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:22 PM

60. What part of the following do you not understand?

 

_____Record of parents’ residency for unemancipated person"

If the student is living with and supported by parents, which is allowed by both state and federal law until the age of 24, then they are not emancipated and must provide proof of residency for the parents.

Colleges and universities use the same guideline and allow dependency until the age of 24.

It is not the same because American citizens who are dependents still have to provide documentation of their parents' residency. This is done through the use of tax returns. Students here illegally or their parents here illegally will be allowed to get around that issue. That is what this case is about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/us/florida-and-new-jersey-courts-aid-illegal-immigrants-college-bound-children.html

This is about once again they don't have to follow the law everyone else follows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #60)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:10 PM

65. There you go again! Colleges and universities "allow dependency" for the purposes of FINANCIAL AID

--not tuition.

You're really embarrassing yourself, here. You're PROUDLY missing the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:46 AM

32. High School diploma and school records will show it

the same way as for anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #32)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:00 AM

39. No that is not the law.

 

Just claiming it is does not change the facts. As i posted before there are illegal immigrants going to court to bypass this law. If your child is attending college and wants in state tuition rates the parents have to prove their residency also. They must provide documentation through tax returns. This is the standard and illegal immigrants are using the court or political pandering to get exceptions. If this going to happen then it should be across the board.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/us/florida-and-new-jersey-courts-aid-illegal-immigrants-college-bound-children.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #39)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:26 AM

44. This is not true in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

You are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #39)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:44 AM

46. If they require parents to prove they lived in MA

There are ways other than tax returns.

These people were brought here as CHILDREN. They should get a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #46)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:52 AM

49. This isn't about a break for them.

 

This is about protecting their parents. The standard clearly defined has always been tax returns from the parents. Lower in state tuition rates are supported by state taxes. Asking parents to provide tax returns showing they filed and paid taxes if applicable is not too much to ask and parents are willing to do it. Now you say certain parents don't have to?

Fine, you want to give them a break then it should be across the board. American citizens should not have to provide information people here illegally don't have to provide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #49)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:39 PM

73. No it is only about being a resident

It has nothing to do with whether the parents paid taxes or not. Poor parents' kids get in-state tuition too.

These kids lived in the state and are not at fault for what their parents did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #73)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:02 PM

77. It is about proving residency in order to get in state tuition.

 

The facts are clear. If you want to ignore them then go right ahead but not on my time. Go play with yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #46)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:14 PM

66. The parents don't even have to get involved. The student can produce two documents,

that demonstrate residency. A high school diploma and transcript, for example, or a car registration, or a phone bill sent to a MA address--this is all in the latest guidelines that the UMASS system has produced, that the poster is, for reasons that escape me entirely (unless the goal is goading, baiting and engaging in carping and disruptive behavior), deliberately ignoring.

It's very odd, indeed. The written word on this is not at all complex!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:23 AM

82. Lots of undocumented workers

file tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:07 PM

4. How nice of Massachussetts.

 

They'll give people here unlawfully in-state rates but make a US citizen from another state pay the full amount.

This is one area that I would support a law that requires that if a state gives illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates they must give ALL US citizens and lawful Permanent Residents in-state tuition rates regardless of residency or their public colleges and universities lose access to all federal student aid.

I don't see why a kid from Colorado that wants to attend UMASS should have to pay full rate while someone who isn't even a legally here slides in on a discount.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:13 PM

5. I agree with letting them attend - but with out-of-state tuition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panAmerican (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:26 PM

7. Not against letting them attend college,

 

even cool with them paying in state rates if the state extends that to ALL Americans no matter their state of residency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:40 PM

8. It's a nice idea, but there wouldn't be reciprocation in many instances

"Home Rule" reigns in many states, including my own state of New Jersey. People may want to agree to subsidize education in their own state, but not apply that to students other states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panAmerican (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:03 PM

11. My point isn't about whether another state will grant MA students in state rates.

 

My point is that MA will give people who are here in violation of law a discount on tuition but will make an American student pay full rate. If they can subsidize illegal immigrant students then they can subsidize American students as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:36 PM

15. Would you then agree that anyone smoking pot --either medical MJ or recreationally in the states

where the law was passed--should be arrested and jailed, because "the feds" don't agree with "the states" on that particular issue? Do you think that gay marriages, authorized by states, should have been invalidated by the feds back when DOMA was in effect?

If people are residents of MA, and graduate from MA high schools, and have transcripts that prove they lived and were educated in-state, they have met the requirements for in-state tuition. Come live in MA, go to high school here, have your parents work hard in this state, spend their money in the shops, pay rent to MA landlords, pay MA taxes, and you'll have those "rights" too. That's what our governor has said, and I say he's right.

It's not the job of Massachusetts to enforce federal law--the feds sure as hell didn't enforce it when they NEEDED all this cheap, undocumented labor in the country. Now that times are tough, they're suddenly getting all "They're taking our JERBS" on these people, but they gleefully looked the other way when they could get away with paying an undocumented worker five bucks an hour instead of seven fifty.

Why should MA offer in-state tuition to someone who hasn't been living here and contributing to the community, just because they are "American?" Who cares what nationality they are, they aren't Massachusettsians.

Those "illegals" are, though, based on their years of residence.

Just because people are "undocumented" doesn't mean that they haven't been contributing positively to cities and towns in the state. You can't say that someone from another state has contributed in ANY way to the Commonwealth--yet you think they have some halfassed "right" to come here and "take" based on "American citizenship," when they've never given a thing to the community or the state? Please. Go to your own state schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 07:07 AM

23. You must not have attended college or have a child in college.

 

Universities enforce all types of federal laws and that includes state universities. Students cannot get financial aid if they have certain convictions and that includes felony drug convictions and male students can be ineligible if they do not complete a military registration in case of a draft.

Students cannot get in state tuition or qualify for any state of federal aid if they do not submit tax returns from their parents. They are also necessary to take out student loans

People who have actually attended college and/or have a child in college know what it is like. Making up stuff does not work because some of us have actually dealt with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:30 AM

26. You are wrong on EVERY count. Try clicking on the link I provided to you, so you do not

shame yourself further by resorting (yet again, in flailing and desperate fashion) to personal aspersions when you fail to make your point.

No one is talking about financial aid here--get a grip. Stick to the topic, which is IN STATE TUITION--not "in state financial aid."

For someone quite pointlessly and frantically questioning the education level of others, you should do a bit of introspection and realize that you're convoluting two distinct topics here. If you want to talk about financial aid, start a thread on the subject. The topic here is TUITION, not AID. And you only need TWO DOCUMENTS to get in-state tuition, and I've proven that with the link I provided.

DUH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:34 AM

27. Your own link proves you wrong.

 

""Record of parents’ residency for unemancipated person"


Both your links contain that stipulation. It cannot be made any clearer. You really should not use "Duh" again because your own posts prove you wrong.

BTW, look up the words "parents" and "unemancipated"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #27)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:53 AM

37. The unemancipated person is the EXCEPTION, not the rule.

Most students have reached their 18th birthday before they go to college. It's rare when one hasn't. And they, the majority, do not need to involve their PARENTS in the admissions process at all. They simply need two "proofs"--and I've given you a list of them--a list you continue to ignore, for reasons known only to you.

You'd best get out your dictionary and use it. You're the one making a right fool of yourself, here.

Double - duh, for emphasis.

You're wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #37)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:56 AM

38. LMAO, most students are dependents and

 

not emancipated. If you had ever paid taxes you would know that students are considered dependents until 24. Now you are just making stuff up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #38)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:45 AM

47. Emancipation is only possible for those under 18.

Under 18, you are a minor unless emancipated.

18, you are an adult, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #47)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:24 PM

61. That is not true.

 

For tuition and tax purposes purposes they can be considered a dependent until the age of 24. You can spin this any way you want but the facts are the facts.

You people must never have attended college or filed tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #61)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:18 PM

68. Stop confusing FINANCIAL AID with TUITION. They are not the same thing. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #61)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:40 PM

74. The term emancipation does not apply to people who are already adults

People can be considered tax dependents in all sorts of circumstances, even after they are adults. That does not mean they remain minors. They are still adults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #38)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:18 AM

50. Most students are over 18, and therefore, emancipated adults in the eyes of the law.

Only in "la la lu I can't hear you's" universe are most students in college UNDER the age of majority.

People who are fifty live with their parents--are they "unemancipated" too, in your little world?

You don't "get" the meaning of the word, and you continue to confuse financial aid with tuition. Poor you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #50)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:42 PM

75. lalalulu is actually claiming people remain minors

if they can be taken as dependents on their parents' taxes. Tax dependent law is nice, but it does not stop people from being considered adults in the eyes of the law at 18 and over!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #75)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:59 PM

76. No, just that some of you have minor intelligence.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #75)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:15 PM

79. The poster is being deliberately obstreperous, I believe.

I am not sure what his or her agenda is, but I don't sense a progressive bent in the slightest in the comments he or she has made in this thread. This sort of carping and complaining about this topic, which is a social justice issue for the children--not their parents, just the innocent children-- is unusual for this web site. I wonder if the poster took a wrong turn?

It's either that, or the poster has comprehension difficulties that are unfortunately significant. I think the link I provided was fairly easy to read and it was very plain about what the UMASS system requires now of a student applicant--two very simple documents that demonstrate "proof" of residency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:50 PM

64. If they were giving in-state rates to out-of-state illegal immigrants, but not to

out-of-state citizens, then you'd have a point.

But, they are only giving in-state rates to illegal immigrants who live in the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:26 AM

83. Oat of them are Americans.

North, South, Central America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:30 PM

84. People who live in the state, who shop in the stores and pay sales tax, who

pay real estate taxes either through their ownership of property or through paying rent to a landlord, are "paying into" the state university system.

Someone living in another state is NOT doing that. They're paying into their OWN state's university system, and that's where they deserve to get their discount. Your reasoning lacks logic. Those "illegals" are more stake-owners into the state university system than someone who has never contributed a dime to the welfare of the Commonwealth. They ARE residents -- of the Commonwealth, if not the nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panAmerican (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:48 PM

10. Agree

 

The cost difference is substantial. I also want to know what documents they will be allowed to use because American citizens have to have certified and verifiable documents such as tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:18 PM

13. How about a high school diploma from a Massachusetts public school? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:35 PM

14. That is not enough.

 

Even an American citizen cannot get in state tuition rates with just that. Colleges take this seriously because there is a big difference in what they can charge a student.

The standard is proof from the parents in the form of tax returns going back a minimum of one year. Some states even require proof that a state tax return was filed to see if the parents owed and paid state taxes. Also the residency requirements in some states require additional proof that a person resided in the state consecutively for an entire year with no interruption.

It is definitely not as easy as saying you lived in the state and want in state tuition rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:48 PM

16. You're not accurate, there. You're way off the mark, in fact.

I have nieces and nephews who went from their Massachusetts high schools to their Massachusetts state colleges and they pay in-state rates. All they needed was a transcript and an address and some form of ID--a car registration will work.

You do realize that an 18 year old is an adult--they don't need to involve their "parents" and their tax documents in these matters.

You only need tax returns if you're looking for financial aid. If you're working and paying your own tuition, or you've gotten a scholarship from, say, a church or some local community/civic group, you don't need to be coughing up tax returns.

Here, read, learn: http://www.mass.edu/shared/documents/admissions/InStateTuitionEligibilityForm.pdf

Please check the in-state or reduced tuition eligibility category that applies to you:
_____ For Community College applicants: I have been a Massachusetts resident for six (6) continuous months and intend
to remain here.
_____ For State College and UMass applicants: I have been a Massachusetts resident for twelve (12) continuous months
and intend to remain here.
As proof of my intent to remain in Massachusetts, I possess at least 2 of the following documents, which I shall present to
the institution upon request. These documents are dated within one (1) year of the start date of the academic semester for
which I seek to enroll (except possibly for my high school diploma). The institution reserves the right to make any
additional inquiries regarding the applicant’s status and to require submission of any additional documentation it deems
necessary. Please check-off those documents you possess as proof of your intent to remain in Massachusetts.
_____Driver’s license _____Mass. High School Diploma _____Employment pay stub
_____Car registration _____Voter registration _____State/Federal tax returns
_____Utility bills _____Signed lease or rent receipt _____Military home of record
_____Record of parents’ residency for unemancipated person _____Other
________________

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:50 PM

17. See post 16. A utility bill and a MA high school diploma will get you in the door. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:59 AM

22. No it will not.

 

It will not get you in state tuition.

"Record of parents’ residency for unemancipated person"

Do you know what that means?

Unless a student can prove they have been emancipated or living independently for the last year then they MUST present records from their parents. Those records include tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #22)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:35 AM

28. You plainly don't know what it means--how many college students are under 18, hmmmmm?

How many undocumented students are under 18?

That's what "unemancipated" means. It doesn't have shit to do with where a student lives. Surely you're not suggesting that a 26 year old graduate student living at home is "unemancipated?"



For someone who is snarkily questioning the education credentials of others, you're really showing us your behind, here. Stop talking and start clicking on the link I provided, or if you're too lazy to do that, try READING the material I cut-and-pasted to make it easy for you--you are embarrassing yourself with these absurd and entirely false claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:45 AM

31. So now you claim all illegal immigrant students are

 

emancipated? Seriously?

A student has to go through a separate process to prove emancipation. They have to prove they have lived independently and have themselves paid all their own bills and have lived consecutively in the state. In they claim to be independent and have income then they themselves must present proof of it and their own tax returns. You really have no idea what you are talking about and have never been to college.

In fact there are cases such as this where illegal immigrants students went to court to bypass requirements that every American citizen has to abide by. I guess you are going to say this doesn't exist either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/us/florida-and-new-jersey-courts-aid-illegal-immigrants-college-bound-children.html

"he could not provide proof that his parents were legal residents of the United States. " A standard procedure for American students. There has been a growing backlash against this because they are bypassing proving their parents lived here and paid taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #31)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:07 AM

40. Bullshit. All "emancipated" means is that a minor is able to enter into a contract.

They don't have to prove that they paid their own bills, unless they are UNDER EIGHTEEN and went to court and stood before a judge and became emancipated from their terrible parents. People over 18 are NO LONGER MINORS in this state. Here, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors#Emancipation_in_the_United_States

Stop talking about "other" states. The subject here is MA and the tuition requirements HERE. I gave you a document that was prepared BY THE STATE OF MA that provides a list of what a student needs to prove residency. It's a simple list. You, OTOH, are babbling on about New Jersey and court cases elsewhere that have absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in MY state.

A child with a Massachusetts high school diploma and a cell phone bill in their name sent to a MA address has two "proofs." Others can be used as well, and you have that list because I provided it several times in this thread. Those are sufficient to demonstrate MA residency to the State University authorities. Too bad if you don't like that, but that's a fact. If you had bothered to read the link I provided the first time I provided it, instead of doubling down with BS assertions and OLD, outdated documents, you wouldn't be trying to defend an absolutely nonsensical position with a complete lack of understanding as to the definition of emancipation or stupid comments like "I bet you didn't go to college."

You're coming across very poorly indeed -- and it's all your fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #40)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:12 AM

42. Emancipated does not mean that and I have shown you

 

that several times. Your assertion that 18 is the cutoff point for college students is ludicrous. Anyone who ever filed income taxes and has attended college or has a child in college knows this.

I also linked you to an article explaining how it works and why these students are going to court to bypass it.

Your continued willingness to ignore the facts just prove you don't want to face the truth. There is an old saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. I do not continue dialogues with people who don't know what they are talking about and continue to refuse to educate themselves. Have fun convincing yourself of your own fallacies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #42)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:25 AM

51. You have shown me that facts mean nothing to you, and that you are unwilling to learn even when

presented with the written word in very SIMPLE language geared to the 8th grade reader.

You linked to articles that have nothing to do with what is happening in the Commonwealth. Your article is about NJ and FL--- In the context of this discussion, they are garbage.

You're the one ignoring facts and obstreperously making a spectacle of yourself. If you weren't so disagreeable I'd almost feel sorry for you; instead, my baser nature finds your teaparty line of discourse simply amusing in its cluelessness.

Of course you don't "continue dialogues" in this situation--you've been shown to be wrong on all counts and you have to get away from that howsoever you can manage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:17 PM

12. They are "residents" of Massachusetts.

If they've gone to grammar school and high school here, and have graduated from a Massachusetts public school, they're residents of the state. They may be "illegal" in the eyes of the feds, but they are our neighbors.

I don't have a problem with it at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:59 AM

20. States give residents lower tuition because their income and sales taxes help support the school

In state tuition rates are the rates for people who have been paying for years. The kid from Colorado and his/her family has helped support state schools in Colorado, which is why he or she should pay in state tuition there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:46 AM

33. They were brought to the US as children

And are just college age. This is not unfair to US citizens from other states. They'd pay out of state if they went to another state, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #33)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:11 AM

41. They've resided in the state most of their lives.

They've gone to school here, in clothing purchased in MA stores, eaten food purchased in MA groceries, worked summer jobs here, spent their allowances at the convenience store on the corner, lived in homes where their parents paid rent to a MA landlord, and as far as I'm concerned, they are residents of my state. Someone from Colorado is NOT a resident of my state.

The feds may have a problem with them, but the feds still have a problem with gay marriage--which is not yet the "law of the land," and legalizing pot--which is something Colorado did recently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #41)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:42 AM

45. Exactly

And they didn't violate the immigration laws of their own free will. Anyone lacking that basic empathy for them, even if not extended to their parents, is really too much for me. Mittens being against the DREAM act is one thing that proved him a true asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #45)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:38 AM

54. I have no problem with what the governor is doing in support of these kids.

I also think the DREAM act is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You're right about these kids--they had no choice.

No one had a problem--least of all Mittens, in hiring landscapers, particularly--in employing "illegals" when jobs were flush and there were more openings than people. It's only since the economy has taken a downturn that the whole wingnut, Teaparty/Asshattery of the Evil Hispanic Illegal who must be driven to "self-deport" has taken hold. We sure as hell held the door wide open for 'em when we needed 'em--and they're humans, they get married, they have kids. It's rank hypocrisy to pretend otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:59 PM

86. The point is that STATE TAXPAYERS get lower in-state rates.

Even illegal immigrants pay sales taxes and excise taxes, and they usually pay state income taxes as well.

The model is simple: As a resident of that state, your tax dollars help to fund the schools, so you get a lower in-state rate. Basically, it's the cost of your education, minus the portion paid for by your fellow taxpayers.

Out of state students don't come from families that have helped to support the schools. They aren't taxpayers in the state with the school, so they get to pay the full cost of their education out of pocket.

An illegal immigrant living in Massachusetts is paying taxes that are funding the university system, so their child gets to attend those schools at the lower in-state rate. A legal citizen living in Colorado is paying nothing to the state of Massachusetts and is not funding their universities at ALL, so their child has to pay the full rate.

On top of all that, you have the local preference thing. State schools primarily exist to improve the education of the people living in the areas they serve. Universities in Massachusetts, funded by Massachusetts taxpayers, exist primarily to improve the educational levels of people living in Massachusetts. A student from Colorado wanting to attend UMASS isn't their intended target, but an illegal Dominican living in Boston would be. Improving the educations of the people who live in a state directly benefits the state, which is why states fund them in the first place. The educational level of an illegal immigrant living in Boston has a direct impact on the quality of life and economy of the state of Massachusetts. The educational level of a citizen from Colorado doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:28 AM

52. Back in the early 90s when I was about to attend college

in NC, state law was clear that any dependent child of any immigrant in the U.S. pursuant to some sort of lawful status (such as a visa, TPS, asylum, etc.) could attend state universities but pay out-of-state tuition even if the 12-month in-state residence requirement had been fulfilled.

This meant that my sister and I, as dependents of an E-1 visa holder, had to pay out-of-state tuition despite the fact we both had lived in NC for 2 years at that point and both had high school diplomas in our hands. Moreover, at the time dependents of visa holders were not eligible for financial aid (as we were not yet permanent residents).

I'm all for the children of illegal immigrants to be able to attend school and go on to college; after all, they didn't choose to enter the U.S. without inspection and they should not bear the 'sins of their fathers' if you will. But I'm not all that favorable to bending the rules as far as tuition, when still plenty of dependents of immigrants who hold permission to be in the U.S. and otherwise meet in-state tuition requirements except for their immigration status.

In our case, my father's employer picked up the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilmywoodNCparalegal (Reply #52)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:48 AM

55. Now see, I disagree with you-- you should have been given the in state rate, assuming

you signed on to the proviso that you INTENDED to REMAIN a resident of the state. That IS part and parcel of the MA declaration that students are required to acknowledge. Now, if you were living in SC as a visitor and planning on leaving--not contributing to the state--as soon as you got your degree, then you aren't a resident. These kids, though, they know no other life, no other circumstances, and they've been raised in the community.
They ARE residents--not visitors. Your situation cannot be compared to theirs in the slightest. You had options as a consequence of your legal situation and your parents' status. These kids, through no fault of their own, are wedged between two worlds and they only know one--the one that says they are "illegal."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #55)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:09 PM

57. As a minor, I had no options either

As a legal immigrant, I don't see any reason why I should be treated differently on matters such as in-state tuition from those who are not legal immigrants - even through no fault of their own. If these kids can qualify for in-state tuition, then the kid of an H-1B worker or an O-1 worker or anything else should also be able to get in-state tuition.

Residence for legal purposes is defined differently. Residence for immigration purposes is also defined differently. I have no problem with these kids paying in-state tuition, but the same courtesy should be extended to the kids of other types of immigrants who as yet don't receive the same consideration in many states.

I can also assure you that I was too wedged in two worlds. When I arrived in the U.S. I didn't speak one word of English. I arrived two weeks before I began high school in a rural town in NC where no one spoke my language and no ESL classes were offered. I couldn't take tests or the SAT in Italian, I couldn't take my driver's license test in Italian. I had to sink or swim. I chose to swim.

I can assure you that was not fun - I was subjected more than once to ignorance and prejudice, not just from the students, but the teachers as well. So I do have some sympathy for the situation a lot of these kids find themselves in.

But we do have a large set of immigration laws that govern how people can and cannot enter the U.S. Surely, they need to be reformed in some way to ensure the kids who have no other choice can live their lives as full members of society, contributing as we all do.

At the same time, the laws that are in place should be enforced. Employers must bear the onus of verifying employment eligibility of their employees and must be fined if they don't comply. The main aim of immigration policy should be to bring in the best and brightest. The U.S. is already losing this battle thanks to incredibly long visa processing times and cumbersome multi-page forms that look like IQ tests.

All that I ask is that legal immigrants be treated fairly in the process as well. We certainly must find a solution for the millions who are in the U.S. illegally (either by entering without inspection or overstaying visas), but not at the expense of those who are following the rules and waiting years - if not decades - for their turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilmywoodNCparalegal (Reply #57)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:42 PM

63. You had legal standing--and your parents had the option to apply for citizenship

if they wanted you to enjoy the fruits of the state tree. They chose not to. You can't compare your situation to that of these undocumented children--you weren't living with the risk of deportation; you were documented. Your parents could have initiated the process of citizenship, gotten green cards, and gotten on the path to taking the oath, but they didn't. You had standing. These kids don't--and that's not their fault.

Your parents also had the option of homeschooling you, if they wanted. I am quite sure they wanted you to learn the language to help THEM out--and that's why they threw you in the deep end of the school pool.

I find it odd that you tell me about how tough you had it, and then want other kids to "suffer" just like you did. Why should they be punished when they didn't do anything wrong? That doesn't make much sense. You do know that many of these kids we are talking about started out in HEADSTART learning their ESL, and by the time they hit grade school, their native tongue was their "second"--not first--language. It's all well and good to "work permit" the parents and send them to the back of the line, but there's no reason to take it out on the children who had no part in the decision to come to USA. And DREAM doesn't give them a free ride, either--it will just give them a pathway--and it is a rigorous one, and not every kid qualifies. The ones that do, though, are American in their language, their culture, and their educations--the only thing missing is a piece of paper.

The parents of these undocumented children don't have the option of applying for citizenship, because they're trapped in the shadows-- and the kids don't have the option of going back to their home country to go to school--not only is cash an issue; oftentimes, their language skills are insufficient in their "native" tongue, and they are unlikely to find work to be able to earn money to go to school back home--they're not "from" their native lands, anymore. They can speak conversationally, but it's a different thing altogether to try to learn in the language of their homeland, even if they could find a way to be able to afford education in the land of their births.

Federal law is one thing...but it has nothing to do with state law. If federal law always held sway, without any exceptions, without states saying "No--we're not going to put up with that," we'd have no gay marriage anywhere in the nation, and no medical marijuana. One person's laws that "should be enforced" are another person's "bullshit laws."

It's all very well for you to talk about "best and brightest" when talking immigration policy, but when times were good and jobs were plentiful it was the FEDERAL government that was looking the other way, happily holding the door wide open, allowing people to come on in, the water's fine, and these kids should not be punished for the "sins" of both their parents AND the federal government, who engaged in lackadaisical enforcement of immigration laws as a way to plus up the workforce and keep wages low. The federal government didn't enforce those social security number rules, they didn't fine employers, hell, they looked the OTHER WAY. Those employers aren't going to bear any "onus" of checking on how "legal" people are unless the federal government makes it PAINFUL--and they haven't done that yet, and it's unlikely that the small business lobby will ever let up on making sure that doesn't ever happen. Both employers AND the federal government ignored all those laws on the books, and THEY--by wanting cheap labor to fill vacant jobs when times were flush--had a large and greedy hand in the fate of these young people, and it took President Obama to finally step up and acknowledge that. Governor Patrick is doing likewise--if people don't like that, don't move to the Commonwealth, and that way, their tax money won't help these kids get degrees in MA state schools.

I think what they are doing is right, just and compassionate.

I also don't think those kids are "illegals." They are UNDOCUMENTED. They didn't do anything wrong--they simply lived with their families, like most kids do. These are children who were raised in OUR 'village.' They grew up in OUR cities and towns, they played with OUR children, went to school and prom with them, were on the same baseball, football, basketball teams--they are part of the fabric of our communities and our Commonwealth.

They belong here, like it or not. This IS their home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #63)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:42 PM

85. You are wrong on a few counts

First off, getting a green card is not a one-day deal. Moreover, the rules for permanent residence as E-1 visa holders are very different. It takes several years to obtain a green card based on a visa such as the E. It takes a few steps that are not immediate. While the application is pending, you are still on an E visa and subject to visa rules.

You mention homeschooling - that would be fine and dandy if my mom, who didn't work, had been proficient in English, which she was not. My dad, the one who actually knew some English, had to work during the day, so our only option was a public high school. Again, this is the end of the 80s, no ESL classes in that rural high school, and certainly no help from teachers or fellow students.

I will repeat again and again that I had no choice in the matter, since I had arrived just two weeks prior to starting school, and I had to somehow manage without any help in my native tongue. I managed and did well enough to graduate at 17 and go on to college.

Because the green card process took a while - as it does for everyone who follows the many rules - and thanks to my dad's employer's attorney's bad advice, I turned 21 while the green card applications were pending. At age 21, you are no longer considered part of your family unit. Unless you notify then-INS that someone is about to turn 21, you'll be excluded from the green card application. That's what happened to me. I was then advised to remain in the U.S. as a F-1 (foreign) student until such time as my green card would come (at the time, the wait for those in my priority category was 11 years). All through this time, I had to hope that my F-1 status would not be rescinded each time I requested it. I was denied the opportunity to attend law school because the quota at the law school that admitted me (and didn't cost an arm and a leg) for foreign students had been met.

At one point, my ability to secure further extensions of the F-1 visa was denied. For two years, I was an 'overstay' - so I was legally an illegal immigrant and subject to deportation. I lived in the shadows myself, despite two bachelor's degrees and two master's degrees, ineligible for any other kind of work visa. Then, I got married and marriage cures overstays (but not entries without inspections), and we all lived happily ever after... So, yes, I had it rough. I know what it means to live in the shadows, but I never asked that the laws be changed to fit my situation. Had I wanted to, I could have gone back to Italy (though not knowing who to live with or how to support myself, but that's another topic), sure. But my ability to see my family would have been drastically curtailed every time I'd try to make it past the immigration officers at the airport, since having close family in the U.S. who are permanent residents or citizens is almost usually a bar to entry.

I've been working in U.S. immigration law for 13 years now. Yes, the U.S. policy on immigration is based on a system that prefers those who possess qualifications or abilities to contribute to society. This is no different than the immigration policies of most other countries, including Canada. In fact, many other countries have far more restrictive immigration policies.

I have yet to deal with a worker coming to the U.S. on a visa who is being paid less than everyone else or receives fewer benefits. On average, in fact, the professionals I work with tend to be paid much higher.

As far as the enforcement of immigration law goes, it is all already on the books. The penalties for knowingly employing an illegal alien are steep and already there. The Obama administration, in fact, has ramped up this aspect enormously. I-9 audits are being performed at record rates and expected to increase. Since 1986, the I-9 form has required employers to confirm that employees have the eligibility to work legally in the U.S. E-Verify is now required in 13 states with more to come. ICE is doing a lot of I-9 audits throughout the nation. Penalties are steep for violations. If employers are paying dearly for employing unauthorized workers, then they will stop hiring them, stifling the supply of jobs. This will, in turn, drive down the need for people to enter without inspection and get the vicious cycle running.

The terminology of 'illegal alien' is something that is used all the time among those who work in this field for a living. I was an illegal alien; I am now a legal alien. That's the proper terminology that has been used for a very long time. Illegal aliens are those who either enter the U.S. without inspection or who overstay their visas. Aliens are those who are not in possession of U.S. citizenship or U.S. national status. Legal aliens are those who have obtained permission by the U.S. government to lawfully be present in the U.S. (note that this only applies to lawful presence, not employment. You can be a tourist and be a legal alien, but you don't have permission to work). I don't feel any less human, by the way.

I'm not blaming these kids - but at the same time I don't think that legal immigrants should be placed at the back of the line either, simply because their parents decided to take a different path instead of entering without inspection. I also think that parents should have the common sense of knowing that their actions (entering a country - any country - illegally) will have consequences on their kids. Parents who live matches and gasoline next to their kids should reasonably expect possible outcomes. Parents who enter the U.S. without inspection should reasonably expect their children will have major problems getting a decent job or going to school.

If we allow anyone to come to the U.S., then what's the point of having immigration laws or employment laws? Is it even feasible to have an open borders policy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilmywoodNCparalegal (Reply #85)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:51 AM

87. I'm a bit disgusted at your comments, frankly. You ARE "blaming the kids" if you don't realize that

they are VICTIMS of US policy that enticed and entrapped their parents.

You married your way out of trouble, so you're "better" than these kids? You got yours--but you won't give them theirs? You know what it is like to deal with being "out of compliance"--but fuck them, because they weren't "lucky" enough to "marry their way out of trouble?" Like "lucky you" did? But then, you had "an education" so you're "better" than these folks? More entitled?

How offensive. Read what you wrote--do you know how horrible you sound????

What cracks me up is that you admit that your parents fucked up and left you out in the cold, and you were illegal...but somehow, you're BETTER because you managed to fix your situation? And you're BETTER because YOU got an education?

Give me a break. What do you think these kids want, who have lived here all their lives? A chance to get an education. A chance to fix THEIR situation. Why is it OK for you, but not them?

You act like these parents lacked "common sense" --what a load of hubris laden bullshit. They were living on the margins in their own countries, they took a risk--a big one--to provide for their families, to avoid brutal poverty and starvation--it wasn't a day at the beach, a silly little adventure, for them--it was life or near death. How did they get here? They either borrowed at usurious rates or spent their paltry life savings, and the US GOVERNMENT and BIG BUSINESS held the fucking door open for them. It was EASY to get in...and why? Because the feds and the business lobby wanted EXPLOITABLE WORKERS at LOW WAGES.

Jesus, I can't believe what an uncompassionate POV you possess. And YOU were an "illegal?" Your POV is just clueless and nasty and mean and entitled.

These children are NOT illegal and they are blameless. They grew up with our kids and grandkids. They are part of our community. You can push their parents to the back of the line, but these children are BLAMELESS--they only came here because their parents were enticed by lax controls and grand promises by US-based businesses that didn't want the minimum wage raised to what most of us would consider a LIVEABLE wage. They were aided and abetted by a US GOVERNMENT that looked the OTHER way so they didn't have to raise the US minimum wage. So your babble about "enforcement" and audits and strict controls? That's bullshit. People got hired with stolen SSANs, and employers looked the other way--to the point where they'd WARN employees that they had a bad number, so the worker could run and get another one that wouldn't trigger any alerts. Now that times are tough, and those "white people" will do those jobs that the brown folk used to do, they're finally getting into "enforcement." But they didn't do jack about it for DECADES....because they didn't want to raise the damn minimum wage any higher than they had to--and that's the truth. Cheap workers with NO rights--a businessman's paradise.

I spent half my life in Southwest Asia and Europe, no small portion as a kid. I never had a thing to worry about, because my parents didn't live in the shadows or on the margins, and I had that "sense of security" even as I had to navigate foreign languages and customs and schools. I can't imagine what it might have been like for me if I also had to live with the knowledge that my parents lived with the very real risk of being booted out of the country with no warning and losing everything.

FWIW, you mother could have homeschooled you in your native tongue--all it requires is a letter to the school board or superintendent. There's no testing, no oversight, no nothing--and foreign kids? If you lived down south, who gives a crap about them, that was their attitude. They wouldn't be chasing your mother down to throw you in school. Your mother wanted you to learn english, that's why you were tossed into the deep end.

You have not made your case with me--in fact, I am viscerally disgusted by your sense of entitlement and superiority, to say nothing of your lack of compassion and insight. I am very glad you're not calling the shots in Massachusetts--I think your POV on this issue sucks. You might do some introspection, and try putting yourself in the shoes of a kid who came here at age two, knows no other life, yet might run a risk of being deported to a country where they don't know the language, customs or culture except in a superficial, second hand way.

You may be "working in US immigration law" but you do not have a damn clue about the situation that most undocumented workers--not your arty farty "professionals" but guys who landscape, shovel, haul, sheetrock, paint, and use their damn tired BACKS to make a wage-- have to deal with. They get fucked out of their wages, forced to work overtime, and they can't complain or they risk getting sent away. They're victimized routinely.

You're obtuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:57 PM

58. You can sure tell that Massachusetts is a Democratic state by this. The wave of ALEC-inspired state

immigration laws that were enacted by republican-controlled states did exactly the opposite of these "Dream Act-like" Democratic state laws. In these republican states these new laws make it illegal for undocumented immigrants to go to college at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #58)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:22 PM

69. These children did nothing wrong. They are part of our community.

The federal government looked the other way when their parents dragged them over the border, and the state governments did, too. So did the employers who hired them at rock bottom wages, no questions asked.

Why? Because they wanted to keep wages LOW back when jobs were plentiful and applicants were scarce, and the only way to do that was to "import" cheap labor on the sly--let 'em in, but don't give 'em any rights, like a water tap that one can turn on and off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #69)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:38 PM

72. Good points. Conservatives don't want any move towards legalization because it removes

an exploitable workforce. Studies show that 'self-deportation' does not work, so keeping undocumented workers here (but not legal) is great for unscrupulous employers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:24 PM

70. Education brings prosperity and opportunity to the population as a whole

There is nothing but good that can come from Mass doing this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachel1 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:37 PM

71. Resident of a state/commonwealth vs. Resident of a country

I think they are two different things. One can be an "undocumented immigrant" and still be a resident of a state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread