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:
Dec '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Robert Lux
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. · Sep 27 at 10:40am
The only problem with "creating incentives" is that it is one of the few responses U.S. employers have to half a- Century of Union dictated labor law that has made it unprofitable for many companies to produce inside the U.S.
What's wrong with cheap labor?
Nov '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Was just reading an article by Edward Erler on immigration. This paragraph more or less encapsulates the odd confluence of the WSJ editorial board (including Diane, it seems) and the Left:
"[S]hould [immigrants] be expected to adapt to an American way of life, including exclusive allegiance to the Constitution and its principles? Liberal opinion, of course, maintains that the idea of sovereignty is anachronistic in an increasingly globalized world; human dignity inheres in the individual, and should not require the mediation of the nation-state. In fact, multiculturalism, we are told, is a necessary consequence of the respect for human dignity, and any demands made on behalf of the nation-state for exclusive allegiance or for assimilation are contrary to respect for 'universal personhood.' By this logic, liberal democracy's worldwide advance will soon render citizenship, itself, superfluous."
Dec '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Brandon Zaffini:(....)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.
First off, where will they be moving, and for what jobs. I don't think Texas has a huge problem with folks leaving for employment opportunities.
Second... I have trouble with an ambiguous term like "the illegal problem." It seems to me that protectionist labor law, and an ever-expansive welfare state that causes immense waste while helping few, are the problems.
Why are we not trying to address those instead of attacking people who desire so badly to work that they will walk across the desert and live like fugitives? They seem like the productive individuals that would make a great addition to the U.S. economy.
Jul '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Nothing per se.
There are tons of stupid labor laws. We should change them.
But I'm not about to start cheerleading for folks when they break those laws.
May '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Beasley
Why are we not trying to address those instead of attacking people who desire so badly to work that they will walk across the desert and live like fugitives? They seem like the productive individuals that would make a great addition to the U.S. economy. · Sep 27 at 12:55pm
Who said anything about attacking people? And you are confusing legal immigration with illegal immigration. That is the real issue here here, and regardless of how many people are eager to enter the country, it would be unwise to let in so many, so quickly that proper assimilation cannot take place.
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
The key fact is that the parents of these kids are Texas taxpayers and have been so for at least three years before their children entered college. The parents of out-of-state students can make no such claim. Whether the policy is appropriate may still be in question, but at least there is a rationale for it -- and a pretty good one.
The thing that is worrisome, however, is Perry's inability to articulate this rationale. How much faith can we have in a guy who cannot handle cheap shots from the likes of Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney?
Aug '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Professor Rahe has hit the nail on the head and more succinctly stated my position. I would only add that the criteria for state residency and national citizenship are different, and that states have the right to set their own residency rules -- so long as those rules do not violate the guarantees of the Constitution.
The Federal Government is a government of limited powers, and states have general powers. The Federal Government determines "national citizenship," but has little to no say regarding state residency.
May '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Yes, but these parents were not paying more than parents out-of-state were they? From what I understand, they were just paying the same amount. Yes, they paid state taxes (for a mere three years on average?), but they also are in the country illegally. The parents of out-of-state students can make no such claim.
I really don't think this argument holds much weight, especially when measured against the opposing reasons for such a policy.
Nov '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
The idea that this is in the "economic interest" of the state of Texas is exceedingly daft, should it be that Texas public schools/universities resemble anything like California public schools (i.e., hotbeds of multiculturalism). Yes, I can foresee all these Mexicans going on to vote in huge, overwhelming numbers for staunchly limited government Republican politicians. (Perry received 38% of Hispanic vote in his last re-election campaign).
The whole upshot of all this: Only giving preference to foreign nationals (but who, you see, are really citizens because they pay Texas taxes) over-and-against citizens' sovereign ability to form the character of its own future citizens is consistent with non-bigotry.
Interesting vicious circle.
Edited on September 27, 2011 at 10:24pmMay '10
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Robert Lux: The idea that this is in the "economic interest" of the state of Texas is exceedingly daft, should it be that Texas public schools/universities resemble anything like California public schools (i.e., hotbeds of multiculturalism). Yes, I can foresee all these Mexicans going on to vote in huge, overwhelming numbers for staunchly limited government Republican politicians. (Perry received 38% of Hispanic vote in his last re-election campaign).
The whole upshot of all this: Only giving preference to foreign nationals (but who, you see, are really citizens because they pay Texas taxes) over-and-against citizens' sovereign ability to form the character of its own future citizens is consistent with non-bigotry.
Interesting vicious circle. · Sep 27 at 1:24pm
Edited on Sep 27 at 01:24 pm
Exactly. The real motivation for the policy seems (and yes, I'm italicizing 'seems') to be for state officials to avoid charges of bigotry. The economic argument has holes.
Perhaps that's why Perry threw out his comment about 'having a heart.' He could have been sharing his real motivations (i.e. appearing to care for immigrants). The economic explanation may just be subterfuge here
Jan '11
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Paul, et al,
About 6% of illegals/undocumented file tax returns -- apologies that I can't get to the source right now (in the middle of working), but I believe it's the Mexican Migration Project from Princeton.
Either way, the 'parents of these kids are good, solid, tax-paying folks! Bring on the revenue!" argument doesn't hold up.
Apr '11
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Paul A. Rahe: The key fact is that the parents of these kids are Texas taxpayers and have been so for at least three years before their children entered college. The parents of out-of-state students can make no such claim. Whether the policy is appropriate may still be in question, but at least there is a rationale for it -- and a pretty good one.
The thing that is worrisome, however, is Perry's inability to articulate this rationale. How much faith can we have in a guy who cannot handle cheap shots from the likes of Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney? · Sep 27 at 1:10pm
I agree here. There have been questions about Perry's policies, and his response has been generally dismissive. Calling people who have concerns about this policy "heartless" smacks of tactics we see on the Progressive side of the aisle.
Saying, "The Federal government refuses to enforce its own laws, so we here in Texas have to make the best of a less-than-ideal situation" is far more preferable to "Heartless."
Jan '11
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
C. U. Douglas,
Good point -- Thomas Sowell wrote something similar the other day when he said that while he didn't agree with Perry's position, he understood how a decent, humane man could reach the conclusion based on the circumstances.
Feb '11
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Paul A. Rahe: The key fact is that the parents of these kids are Texas taxpayers and have been so for at least three years before their children entered college. The parents of out-of-state students can make no such claim. Whether the policy is appropriate may still be in question, but at least there is a rationale for it -- and a pretty good one.
The thing that is worrisome, however, is Perry's inability to articulate this rationale. How much faith can we have in a guy who cannot handle cheap shots from the likes of Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney? · Sep 27 at 1:10pm
The same can be said of Mexican nationals who come legally across the border at Laredo, El Paso and other points to shop paying Texas sales tax. Should they receive the benefit as well? At what point do you draw the line?
Feb '11
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Beasley
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. · Sep 27 at 12:34pm
Edited on Sep 27 at 12:36 pm
The amount may not be $100,000, but it is certainly greater than zero. Why should there be ANY benefit for being here illegally?
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Brandon Zaffini
Yes, but these parents were not paying more than parents out-of-state were they? From what I understand, they were just paying the same amount. Yes, they paid state taxes (for a mere three years on average?), but they also are in the country illegally. The parents of out-of-state students can make no such claim.
I really don't think this argument holds much weight, especially when measured against the opposing reasons for such a policy. · Sep 27 at 1:23pm
The parents of these students paid state taxes for three years at least. They were in the country illegally, but the federal government winked at that. And the parents of the out-of-state students paid no state taxes at all.
Moreover, these kids are not going back to Mexico. They speak English, and they are settled here. If you do not propose to round them up and ship them back, you will have to accommodate them one way or another.
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Hang On
Beasley
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. · Sep 27 at 12:34pm
Edited on Sep 27 at 12:36 pm
The amount may not be $100,000, but it is certainly greater than zero. Why should there be ANY benefit for being here illegally? · Sep 27 at 2:43pm
There is no such benefit. But there is a benefit for having worked here and paid taxes here.
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
C. U. Douglas
Paul A. Rahe: The key fact is that the parents of these kids are Texas taxpayers and have been so for at least three years before their children entered college. The parents of out-of-state students can make no such claim. Whether the policy is appropriate may still be in question, but at least there is a rationale for it -- and a pretty good one.
The thing that is worrisome, however, is Perry's inability to articulate this rationale. How much faith can we have in a guy who cannot handle cheap shots from the likes of Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney? · Sep 27 at 1:10pm
I agree here. There have been questions about Perry's policies, and his response has been generally dismissive. Calling people who have concerns about this policy "heartless" smacks of tactics we see on the Progressive side of the aisle.
Saying, "The Federal government refuses to enforce its own laws, so we here in Texas have to make the best of a less-than-ideal situation" is far more preferable to "Heartless." · Sep 27 at 1:58pm
Precisely.
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Hang On
Paul A. Rahe: The key fact is that the parents of these kids are Texas taxpayers and have been so for at least three years before their children entered college. The parents of out-of-state students can make no such claim. Whether the policy is appropriate may still be in question, but at least there is a rationale for it -- and a pretty good one.
The thing that is worrisome, however, is Perry's inability to articulate this rationale. How much faith can we have in a guy who cannot handle cheap shots from the likes of Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney? · Sep 27 at 1:10pm
The same can be said of Mexican nationals who come legally across the border at Laredo, El Paso and other points to shop paying Texas sales tax. Should they receive the benefit as well? At what point do you draw the line? · Sep 27 at 2:41pm
If they live here, work here, pay Social Security, and so forth and if the federal government does nothing to drive them out, it is wise to assimilate them.
Jan '11
Re: WSJ: Texas In-State Tution for Illegals Makes Economic Sense
Paul,
Please address the fact that so few illegals/undocumented pay taxes, as it's central to your argument.