WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
In last week's Republican debate, Mitt Romney assailed Rick Perry over the Texas Dream Act, which Gov. Perry signed into law in 2001.
ROMNEY: I got to be honest with you. I...don't see how it is that a state like Texas --- to go to the University of Texas, if you're an illegal alien, you get an in-state tuition discount. You know how much that is? It's $22,000 a year. Four years of college, you're -- almost a $100,000 discount, if you're an illegal alien, to go to University of Texas.
If you're a United -- United States citizen from any one of the other 49 states, you have to pay $100,000 more. That doesn't make sense to me. And...that kind of magnet draws people into this country to get that education, to get the $100,000 break. It makes no sense.
We have to have a...fence...And we have to turn off the magnet of extraordinary government benefits like a $100,000 tax credit or -- excuse me -- discount for going to University of Texas.That shouldn't be allowed. It makes no sense at all.
Other candidates, notably Rick Santorum, quickly piled on, and Rick Perry did an atrocious job at defending his actions and explaining his rationale, instead resorting to a lame emotional appeal in which he called his fellow candidates "heartless."
The editors of the Wall Street Journal today pick up where Perry left off, and provide the explanation for the Texas Dream Act that Perry failed to communicate.
...In 2001, Texas passed the nation's first state law that allowed undocumented high school graduates to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. To qualify, students have to attend school in the state for at least three years and file an affidavit saying that they plan to seek permanent residency.
...Lower in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities aren't akin to welfare for the indigent; they're not means-tested. They're a discount for residency. The same logic applies to hunting or fishing licenses.
Immigration status aside, state residents are thought to be deserving of a subsidy because they pay sales taxes, property taxes and other fees to support state institutions that nonstate residents don't pay. Especially in a state like Texas that has no income tax, illegal aliens are more likely to bear a larger share of the tax burden than their counterparts in most other states.
...as of 2008 there were 1.5 million children in the U.S. who are illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled that these children are entitled to a K-12 education. Lawmakers in Texas, which is home to the nation's second-largest illegal population after California, determined that tuition breaks for these residents made economic sense. So did the state's business community, which lobbied for the measure on the grounds that a better educated population would translate into stronger economic growth.
The Journal goes on to argue that modest tuition subsidies for illegal immigrants makes good economic sense for the state in the long run too, because a college graduate's lifetime earnings far exceed those of someone with just a high school diploma. The higher an individual's earnings, presumably the more tax payments that end up in state coffers.
- Comment (68)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
May '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Okay....but shouldn't Gov. Perry be making these points?
Sep '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Oh, okay. So what are we arguing then?
Aug '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
States should have the right to determine what criteria allow individuals to become "residents" of that state that are broader than the Federal Government's granting of American citizenship. States have the authority, and should, to give benefits to non-American citizen Texas residents. It is their prerogative as a state. If they want to benefit a student who has gone through grades 9-12 in Texas with In-state tuition, they can. It is for the people of Texas to decide if they like the policy or not, and to create the requirements.
Texans aren't required to subsidize Oklahomans, and they are allowed to determine what constitutes a state resident.
It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with Texas' decision regarding who they consider residents who receive benefits, and national voters are free to judge Perry as they wish on this issue.
Perry's attempt to pull the heartstrings on the issue was a big fumble. There are economic reasons to advocate such a policy, and there are justice reasons for doing so.
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Yes. It's disappointing that he's not. I'm dismayed that he can't seem to articulate under pressure.
Dec '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
A man named Bruno Gutierrez worked for my grandfather on his farm for over thirty years. He was sitting in my grandfather's house the last time I saw Poppy Juil alive. Bruno was with my grandfather when he died and wept more bitterly than did many family members at the funeral. He was my grandfather's best friend. I have no idea whether he was here legally or not. I do know that when his sweet wife (who I grew up calling Mrs. G.) made tamales it was a feast at my house as well as hers. Their daughter Esmeralda was one of my baby sitters and grew to be a stunningly beautiful woman.
It's easy to talk of immigration (illegal or legal) with nothing but numbers and statistics. Sometimes it's helpful to remember that real people are caught in the gears of our very broken system.
Aug '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Sadly, I think it would be very difficult for any candidate to effectively defend such a policy within the time-limited confines of a televised debate.
How would one condense the WSJ's nuanced explanation of the policy to a 30-second sound bite?
With the benefit of hindsight and time to think about it, I can come up with something like this: "The Supreme Court has ruled that these children are entitled to a K-12 education. Determining what criteria allow individuals to become "residents" of a state is the sole responsibility of that state's government. As president, I would never dictate to any state government how it must allocate its education funding in the way that Mr. Romneys seems to suggest."
But I really doubt I'd be able to come up with something like that off the top of my head.
Jul '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
I wonder why the WSJ is so excited about tuition subsidies of any kind. They didn't seem so keen on them last year.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with creating incentives for an influx of under-the-table inexpensive labor. Right?
Nov '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Palaeologus:
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with creating incentives for an influx of under-the-table inexpensive labor. Right? · Sep 27 at 10:37am
No, Palaeologus, perish the thought.
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Misthiocracy:
But I really doubt I'd be able to come up with something like that off the top of my head. · Sep 27 at 10:36am
It's a rare pol that's able to come up with a well-reasoned argument off the top of his or her head. Newt Gingrich is one such example of this rare politician.
But Perry has all the time in the world to prepare for these debates. Surely he can anticipate that this topic will be one of the issues raised by the other candidates?
This race was Perry's to lose, and he seems to be losing it for no other reason that he can't handle himself on stage. I wish the man would do his homework and think his answers through before showing up to one of these things.
Apr '11
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
The King Prawn: ...
It's easy to talk of immigration (illegal or legal) with nothing but numbers and statistics. Sometimes it's helpful to remember that real people are caught in the gears of our very broken system. · Sep 27 at 10:18am
And once again we see why our "debates" aren't conducive to presenting solutions, only soundbites. Immigration is a complex problem beyond just "open/close the spigot." Most of those I know who are against illegal immigration are more than welcoming towards immigrants as a whole, they just want the law to be followed.
Perry has to find solutions in his state to a problem the Federal government refuses to even admit exists. In fact, I suspect that Texas deals with the issue far better than my present home state of California does.
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Palaeologus: I wonder why the WSJ is so excited about tuition subsidies of any kind. They didn't seem so keen on them last year.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with creating incentives for an influx of under-the-table inexpensive labor. Right? · Sep 27 at 10:37am
I see no inconsistency with defending a state's right to subsidize the tuition of that state's residents on account of the economic sense it makes for that state, while at the same time criticizing a foreign country's whingy student population.
But I'm curious in hearing how you figure that in-state tuition for illegal kids who've attended high school in Texas creates incentive for an influx of under-the-table cheap labor.
Jul '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Palaeologus: I wonder why the WSJ is so excited about tuition subsidies of any kind. They didn't seem so keen on them last year.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with creating incentives for an influx of under-the-table inexpensive labor. Right? · Sep 27 at 10:37am
I see no inconsistency with defending a state's right to subsidize the tuition of that state's residents on account of the economic sense it makes for that state, while at the same time criticizing a foreign country's whingy student population.
But I'm curious in hearing how you figure that in-state tuition for illegal kids who've attended high school in Texas creates incentive for an influx of under-the-table cheap labor. · Sep 27 at 10:50am
The WSJ isn't defending a right that no one is challenging, Diane. The WSJ is claiming that these tuition subsidies make "economic sense." Though it usually isn't so inclined to favor separating the actual costs of a product from its purchasers.
A potential immigrant (illegal or otherwise) might consider what future educational opportunities are available for his children, no?
Edited on Sep 27, 2011 at 11:06amSep '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Yes. It's disappointing that he's not. I'm dismayed that he can't seem to articulate under pressure. · Sep 27 at 9:54am
His prepared "heartless" reply is what has angered. He has used it in the past and says a great deal about Perry, none of it good. He is reinforcing an image of being a political opportunist.
Oct '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
My feelings about this issue are mixed, but Mark Steyn has some pointed comments here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278405/undocumented-investments-mark-steyn
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Our current immigration laws may be unwise, but I do find it remarkable that executives (such as Governor Perry and President Obama) think it is fine for them to refuse to enforce the laws passed by the people's representatives.
The appropriate remedy is to make the case for revising the laws through the constitutional process. The executive has that authority. Instead the law is simply ignored.
Feb '11
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
There are six combinations (Texas-legal stays after graduation, Texas-legal moves out of state after graduation, Texas-illegal stays, Texas-illegal moves, non-Texas stays, non-Texas moves). To say whether Texas does or does not benefit needs some analysis and far more than the WSJ provides. As usual on immigration and foreign policy matters, I find the WSJ editorial page superficial at best
A Texas illegal who moves provides none of those benefits to the state of Texas while a non-Texan who stays will. Yet the Texas illegal has received a benefit on the order of $100,000 from the taxpayers of Texas. Who Texas gives its benefits to is Texan's business. I just have no desire to see as President someone who prefers foreign nationals to American citizens. And frankly I won't vote for someone like that. Perry has shown himself to be just another George W. Bush. Totally unacceptable.
Dec '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
John Grant: Our current immigration laws may be unwise, but I do find it remarkable that executives (such as Governor Perry and President Obama) think it is fine for them to refuse to enforce the laws passed by the people's representatives.
The appropriate remedy is to make the case for revising the laws through the constitutional process. The executive has that authority. Instead the law is simply ignored. · Sep 27 at 11:28am
I don't love the argument, but many of the kids who receive the subsidies where brought across the boarder by their parents and of no will or volition of their own. While they are living in breach of the law, they did not themselves break it.
May '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
I don't really see this as a bid for more cheap labor. If I'm understanding the excerpt Diana quoted, the whole point is to increase the revenue of lower income illegal immigrants.
That doesn't make it any better in my opinion. For some reason, many politicians still believe that procuring a college degree for every citizen will mean that every citizen will have a better job. Everyone will benefit, including the state.
Or maybe the value of a college degree will simply diminish and thousands of graduates will be loaded with thousands in debt and a low paying job. And as Hang On already pointed out, many of these workers may move somewhere else at some point. So how much economic sense does it make?
I don't really think it's the 'just' thing to do either, as Nathaniel Wright suggested. Why should illegals benefit from being a resident of Texas when they circumvented the law in order to be there in the first place?
Last, there's still the very real dilemma of this law acting like a magnet, exacerbating the illegal problem even more.
Edited on Sep 27, 2011 at 12:35pmMay '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
The WSJ article gives a complicated explanation that may cloud the issue rather than clarify it. Perhaps Perry's poor debate skills are a blessing here, not a curse. I continue to be unimpressed by him--and not only because of his lackluster performance in the spotlight.
Edited on Sep 27, 2011 at 12:36pmDec '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
You may call the WSJ's account of illegal immigration superficial, but your rebuttal argument should be a bit more water-tight.
Those illegals do not receive anything near a $100,000 benefit from taxpayers. While the cost of education is not the nominal amount paid by Texas residents, the true cost falls somewhere in between $10,000 and $22,000 per year. Colleges often inflate out-of-state tuition for the purpose of raising revenue beyond the cost of the individual student's education.
Republicans should spar vigorously over the issues, but using inflated numbers to demagogue one another is just doing the job of Obama's re-election committee for them.
Edited on Sep 27, 2011 at 12:36pm