November 18, 2010

In State Tuition for illegal immigrants

This needs a new post.    Brendan so what you are telling me is that although someone is an illegal immigrant, they still have resident status in the Commonwealth of Masachusetts. 
  • I am not saying "illegal" immigrants are not residents of Massachusetts either. 
  • I am saying, however, they should not be entitled to the benefits of being a "resident" of Massachusetts since they are "illegal" immigrants.  
Bottom line I think you need to be a "legal" immigrant to receive the benefits of being a "resident" in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.   Let me take this one step further are you saying that "illegal" immigrants should have the right to vote as residents of Massachusetts too? 


Brendan Melican said...

Ok so we agree that you can be a resident and not a citizen. And we can probably agree that non-citizens who are here legally, say on various types of work visas, are also residents.

I'm not sure why you keep using the 'illegal' line, we're taking different levels of enforcement here so it's a moot point. DA Early couldn't charge Jahn for possession of under an ounce of weed using federal statutes, he has to works with state laws. And Gov Patrick can't work outside of the scope of the laws of the commonwealth.

Our rules for in-state tuition rates demand residency, nothing more (the new proposal is actually designed for people here under refugee status and legal non-citizens). Giving the same opportunity to people here illegally, dosent give them a pass on an ICE raid. It just means in the long run they're statistically less likely to be a burden.

Bill Randell said...

Bottom line is this....

People on work visas, here under refugee status and illegal immigrants may in fact be residents. We agree.

I feel that in order to qualify for qualify for in-state tuition I think you need to 1) be a US citizen and 2) satisfy the residency requirement.

You on the other do no think that they need to be a US Citizen. That is where we disagree.

That still leaves me the question if you feel that they should be eligible for in-state tuition as a residnet without having to be a US Citizen. Why not let them vote to???

Where do you stand on that?



Brendan Melican said...

I cut my last comment short by accident, there was some voting stuff in there.

Voting is possibly a better example.
For federal elections, citizenship is a requirement and MA state elections demand the same. But a local government can set it's own rules. Brookline is in the news today for voting overwhelmingly to allow LEAGAL, non-citizens to vote in local elections. That's their right as a community. I can't think of any benefit to allowing illegal immigrants to vote.

When you say citizenship should be a requirement for in-state tuition, do you feel the same for refugees or legal non-citizens? I'm confused as to why you would try and shoe-horn federal law into state affairs. I thought the 10th amendment was big with you tea-party types? ;)

David Z. said...

From today's Worcester T&G, The popular student body president at California State University in Fresno has publicly revealed what he had tried to keep a secret: He’s an illegal immigrant.

Jahn said...

When is Marsha Croakley going to stand up to City of Worc's zoning ord. that says no more than 3 unrelated individuals can live in a dwelling unit. One of poss. 2 fed'l courts have ruled in otehr locales that such ord's are illegal.
I only ask b/c what if 4 unreLAted illegals were living in a dweelling unit............would it then in fact be illegal to be ILLEGAL in MASS- hOLE -ACHUSETTS?

This came to head a couple yrs ago and it has since faded away. Me thinks city decided to let sleeping dawgs lay (or is it LIE)

Bill Randell said...


I do feel citizenship should be a requirement for in-state tuition for both refugees or legal non-citizens.

I think it is insane to let even LEGAL non-citizens to vote!!



Rich Greenhalgh said...

"Shoe-horn" is in the eye of the beholder. See Roe v Wade

Brendan Melican said...

Well you can't be a citizen non-citizen, so I'm not sure what your last point was.

So it's insane to let someone who's been a fulltime resident for years and paying taxes while on the path to citizenship to vote on local affairs, but we should let you as a Holden resident join boards and commissions in Worcester?

Bill Randell said...


I will make this as simple as possible. I dont think people who are not citizens, whether legal or not, should get in-state tuition.

I also think that in order to be on a local board you need to be a citizen. Instead of requiring residency, however, I believe non-residents like myself should be eligible since I am a tax-payer in the City of Worcester.

Right now that is not the case and I am not eligible. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Brendam, sorry I disagree with you. I just don't think non-citizens should be eligible for any benefits. Call me crazy.



Nicole said...

Just to clarify, you need to be a registered voter to serve on a board in Worcester, which (at least for the moment) means you need to be a citizen. For the record, I'd be in favor of resident aliens voting in city elections. I'm also in favor of lowering the voting age to 12.

Bill -- I've been reading and am having a hard time understanding why you make the distinction between citizens and non-citizens for things like in-state tuition. Why don't you feel that resident aliens (or whatever we call them these days) shouldn't get in-state tuition?

Bill Randell said...

I just think you need to be a citizen to be eligible for benefits like in-state tuition?

You guys don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We simply disagree on this.

Brendan Melican said...

Bill, no need to apologize, but you have failed miserably at offering any explanation as to why citizenship should be a requirement for benefits targeting residents. Honestly, it dosent seem like you're even aware that the two are not interchangeable words. We could spend days outlining the number of things residents are eligible for without being citizens, funny it only comes up in conjunction with the smallest demographic within the non-citizen world, illegals.

I hope you're equally disturbed by the tens of thousands of non-citizens fighting your wars for you.

Bill Randell said...


You are right. Brendan I see the light now and agree with you 100%.

I got to get to work.


St said...

Bill wrote: "I just don't think non-citizens should be eligible for any benefits."

The Supreme Court does not agree with you.

See Graham v. Richardson

Steve Foley said...

Last comment was mine - pressed enter to soon.

Jahn said...

Brendan Melican said... (in a prior thread re: the Illegals tuition topic). I pasted it forward to this thread b/c the other thread is getting stale fast.

" To demonstrably false claims, the one that jumped out was a burden on mass taxpayers. potentially relive a burden. While I agree higher ed, especially in it's current diploma mill form, is not for everyone. Education overall is, and for the life of me I can't see the long term benefits of denying someone who wants to better themselves, the opportunity.

Brendan, with all due respect, you think it is not an additional burden on taxpayers when Illegals get the in-state tuition rate? At WCS (Univ?) the in state tuition rate is 7,000 (no room & board). What do you suppose it costs per year to educate a student at WSC? I would say if WPI and Clark are in the mid 30,000's (no room board), that WSC cant be too far behind that , if not possibly even more given the state bennies package the WCS employees get.

Now where do you suppose the money comes from at WSC to cover the student costs that are in excess of the 7,000 the student pays?

BINGO..........Mass taxpayers.......yet above you state: THIS IS AN ADD'L BURDEN IN MASS TAXPAYERS.

"We're not talking free college ed here, just the same discounted rate you or I would receive. Framing this as a burden is disingenuous at best, if anything it would ....."

Also Brendan, btw where are illegals who traditionaly if not always come from poor familes going to get $7,000 to attend WSC. ANswer........they aint really all that poor after you count all the freebie beenies we give em now plus all teh under table jobs that many of them work.

Suppose we give em free tuition, but then they need transportation to get to we give em a car too b/c of the long term benefits that accrue form a college education?

Paulie's Point of View said...

I have a tenant who I am finally evicting..should have a lot sooner..skated thru masters degree never working..always late on rent..always able to get free money from state agencies to pay her rent..Masters Degree now that she brags about but still doesn't work..I finally got sick of her and her sense of entitlement...going going..hopefully gone next week!