Don't Punish the Children

Every tax is a pay cut. Every tax cut is a pay raise.
Citizens for Limited Taxation

Don't punish the children Sunday, December 12, 2004

Rick Holmes Metrowest Daily News

State legislators have reintroduced a bill that would allow illegal immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition at state colleges and you can hear the cries already: "They are illegal," opponents shout. "What part of illegal don't you understand?"
But consider Cesar, who spoke in favor of the proposal at a State House press conference this week. Cesar was 7 years old when his parents brought him to this country. He grew up in Boston, passed all the MCAS tests and graduated from high school last year with a 3.7 grade point average.
Cesar would like to study at UMass-Boston, where tuition and fees run to just over $8,000 for in-state students, and well over $18,000 for students from out of state. That extra ten grand a year is enough to put college out of reach.
Those who aren't blinded by rage at our porous borders and our flawed immigration laws must have some sympathy for Cesar. For more than a decade, he and his parents have paid state taxes -- sales taxes certainly, and probably income taxes as well -- that underwrite the budget of the state public higher education system. Is it fair to treat him differently from the children of other tax-paying residents?
A few years ago, the valedictorian at Keefe Tech in Framingham was in a similar situation. He had everything he needed to continue his education at a public university except the birth certificate that would make it affordable.
The same can be said for hundreds of other students here in MetroWest. They met the attendance requirements, passed the MCAS tests, did their homework and strode proudly across the stage on a June day to receive their high school diplomas. Is it fair to charge them an extra $10,000 a year to attend the same college as their classmates?
But they are illegal, you say.
An act is illegal, not a person, and the crime in Cesar's case was committed by his parents when he was only 7 years old.
So think about this: If the mom or dad of a native-born classmate of Cesar's had committed some other crime -- robbing a liquor store, embezzling money or even murder -- when he was 7 years old, would he have to pay extra to attend UMass? If the law said as much, would we accept it, or would we agree that it's simply wrong to punish the children for the crimes of the parents?
Legislators behind the tuition bill estimate that 400 students across the state would qualify, but it's hard to say how many would take advantage of it. Determining the fiscal impact is even tougher. If you assume most of the eligible students would skip college or attend elsewhere rather than pay the out-of-state tuition, and further assume they would attend public colleges at the in-state rate without displacing other students, their tuition and fees would add to state coffers. The Board of Higher Education estimates the bill would bring $1 million or more to the cash-strapped state college system, says Rep. Debby Blumer, D-Framingham.
Other assumptions generate different results. What if the immigrant students displace students paying out-of-state rates? What if they deny a spot in the freshman class some native-born American would otherwise get?
Blumer says the legislation's intent is that these students would only be enrolled on a "space available basis," and that UMass, the state colleges and community colleges have seats available for those who meet academic requirements.
But this isn't about money and it isn't about education. This is about attitudes, in particular the attitude that says illegal immigration is so awful that any punishment of illegal immigrants -- or their children -- is justified.
A mean-spirited attitude is the enemy of reason, and reason is what's lacking in the debate over illegal immigration. Yes, we should illegal immigration, but does harassing kids years after their parents brought them to this country really accomplish that? Do you really think that people in Mexico or Brazil are sneaking over the border so that years down the road their children will qualify for a discount on state college tuition?
The same illogic infects the perennial drivers license debate. Denying drivers licenses to illegals won't discourage immigration because they don't come here to drive any more than they come here to qualify for in-state tuition.
Immigrants come here illegally because they can work and earn money. If you want to get serious about discouraging illegal immigration, arrest the people who hire them. After all, what is it about the law against hiring illegals that they don't understand?

Don't punish the children	Sunday, December 12, 2004
Rick Holmes	Metrowest Daily News
State legislators have reintroduced a bill that would allow illegal immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition at state colleges and you can hear the cries already: "They are illegal," opponents shout. "What part of illegal don't you understand?" But consider Cesar, who spoke in favor of the proposal at a State House press conference this week. Cesar was 7 years old when his parents brought him to this country. He grew up in Boston, passed all the MCAS tests and graduated from high school last year with a 3.7 grade point average. Cesar would like to study at UMass-Boston, where tuition and fees run to just over $8,000 for in-state students, and well over $18,000 for students from out of state. That extra ten grand a year is enough to put college out of reach. Those who aren't blinded by rage at our porous borders and our flawed immigration laws must have some sympathy for Cesar. For more than a decade, he and his parents have paid state taxes -- sales taxes certainly, and probably income taxes as well -- that underwrite the budget of the state public higher education system. Is it fair to treat him differently from the children of other tax-paying residents? A few years ago, the valedictorian at Keefe Tech in Framingham was in a similar situation. He had everything he needed to continue his education at a public university except the birth certificate that would make it affordable. The same can be said for hundreds of other students here in MetroWest. They met the attendance requirements, passed the MCAS tests, did their homework and strode proudly across the stage on a June day to receive their high school diplomas. Is it fair to charge them an extra $10,000 a year to attend the same college as their classmates? But they are illegal, you say. An act is illegal, not a person, and the crime in Cesar's case was committed by his parents when he was only 7 years old. So think about this: If the mom or dad of a native-born classmate of Cesar's had committed some other crime -- robbing a liquor store, embezzling money or even murder -- when he was 7 years old, would he have to pay extra to attend UMass? If the law said as much, would we accept it, or would we agree that it's simply wrong to punish the children for the crimes of the parents? Legislators behind the tuition bill estimate that 400 students across the state would qualify, but it's hard to say how many would take advantage of it. Determining the fiscal impact is even tougher. If you assume most of the eligible students would skip college or attend elsewhere rather than pay the out-of-state tuition, and further assume they would attend public colleges at the in-state rate without displacing other students, their tuition and fees would add to state coffers. The Board of Higher Education estimates the bill would bring $1 million or more to the cash-strapped state college system, says Rep. Debby Blumer, D-Framingham. Other assumptions generate different results. What if the immigrant students displace students paying out-of-state rates? What if they deny a spot in the freshman class some native-born American would otherwise get? Blumer says the legislation's intent is that these students would only be enrolled on a "space available basis," and that UMass, the state colleges and community colleges have seats available for those who meet academic requirements. But this isn't about money and it isn't about education. This is about attitudes, in particular the attitude that says illegal immigration is so awful that any punishment of illegal immigrants -- or their children -- is justified. A mean-spirited attitude is the enemy of reason, and reason is what's lacking in the debate over illegal immigration. Yes, we should illegal immigration, but does harassing kids years after their parents brought them to this country really accomplish that? Do you really think that people in Mexico or Brazil are sneaking over the border so that years down the road their children will qualify for a discount on state college tuition? The same illogic infects the perennial drivers license debate. Denying drivers licenses to illegals won't discourage immigration because they don't come here to drive any more than they come here to qualify for in-state tuition. Immigrants come here illegally because they can work and earn money. If you want to get serious about discouraging illegal immigration, arrest the people who hire them. After all, what is it about the law against hiring illegals that they don't understand?

Send comments to: hjw2001@gmail.com