Thread: On tuition issue, eyes turn to Kansas(opinion)

Link

On tuition issue, eyes turn to Kansas
May 10, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina's General Assembly is expected to decide during this session whether to extend in-state tuition benefits to North Carolina residents who are the children of illegal immigrants.

There's already plenty of debate on the subject within this state. Supporters believe it will help increase the education level and earnings power of such students, and in turn boost North Carolina's economy.

"To deny young people an opportunity to realize their potential on the basis of their national origin is certainly a civil rights concern," said Peter Roos, a lawyer on the side of the immigrant students. Roos in 1982 successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that undocumented immigrant children should be allowed to attend K-12 public schools. "The reality is that most of these kids one way or another will get their status legalized. They will be working in this country and paying taxes, and they're going to pay a lot more taxes if they're educated than if they're uneducated."

Detractors argue that illegal immigration shouldn't be rewarded by extending a citizen's benefits to undocumented individuals.

But North Carolina's debate - which mirrors those ongoing in several states - might be short-circuited by a court decision from Kansas. There, two dozen out-of-state students have sued in U.S. District Court, claiming it is unfair to make them pay higher tuition rates if the discounted in-state rate is also going to be offered to the children of illegal immigrants.

"If you don't have citizenship, then you shouldn't be allowed to pay in-state tuition," said Lashonda Montgomery, a University of Kansas biochemistry student who hails from Omaha, Neb. "I don't think someone who can't vote should have more rights than me."

It's an interesting point, and could be a difficult one for the courts to decide.

Kansas and other states have tried to limit the number of students who are eligible for in-state tuition - and to encourage citizenship - by requiring that the recipient of the in-state rate have attended Kansas high schools for the past three years and sign an affadavit stating they are or will be applying for citizenship. In North Carolina, that time-of-residency requirement would be expanded to four years.

There are valid arguments on both sides, and the forthcoming decision in Kansas will reverberate throughout the nation.

Every state - those who've already approved or denied such a tuition initiative, and those where the issue remains under debate - will probably be scrambling to comply with the standards set by the decision when it finally comes down.

Does anyone know what kind of Judges we have in Kansas?