Font ResizeT his week, CU Regent and Colorado Senate candidate Cindy Carlisle dropped a small bombshell in the midst of an otherwise bland Senate District 18 campaign: if elected, she said, she would introduce a bill allowing undocumented students the opportunity to attend college -- with conditions attached -- at in-state tuition rates.
It's just the sort of thing that, with any amount of thought at all, will get the gears smoking in even the most bleeding-heart liberal's brain. Wouldn't it be great to be the kind of community with enough compassion for the human condition that even people who came to the United States and remain here illegally can get a world-class education for just a fraction of what it would cost someone from, say, Kansas?
Then again, what about that hard-working kid from Kansas who has done everything right, never broken the law, studied hard with the singular purpose of getting the opportunity to attend the University of Colorado after high school? She's still going to have to pay out-of-state rates, which could mean staying home and attending KU (God forbid). Is it fair to make our own law-abiding citizens pay full price for something an illegal immigrant can get on sale?
Carlisle's decision to make a statement about such a controversial issue has to be chalked up, at least in part, to pandering to the quintessential Boulderite who at times has more compassion than common sense. She talked in the pages of the Daily about a young Salvadoran woman from an impoverished, war-torn, earthquake-stricken village who befriended Carlisle's daughter. The young woman was valedictorian of her high school class, but had few opportunities back home, so Carlisle and her family sponsored the girl's education in Colorado, where she enrolled at CU's International English Center.
Carlisle says the woman did very well there, and soon enrolled in college, but not at CU or any of the state's premier institutions. She couldn't afford the tuition, so instead had to attend Front Range Community College. She got an associate's degree and was later accepted to Regis University in Denver.
It's a heartwarming story to be sure, but it doesn't reflect the real challenges of the bill Carlisle said she will propose. Not only would any such legislation be unfair to U.S. citizens, but also to legal immigrants who have to jump through all sorts of hoops to enter this country and stay here for any length of time. Why allow undocumented immigrants the opportunity to jump ahead in line?
So why would Carlisle bring such a hot-button issue into the campaign? While her opponent, Rollie Heath, has been talking about TABOR reform, the economy and other nuts and bolts issues facing the legislature, Carlisle is trying to appeal to the liberal base of Boulder with what amounts to a fringe issue.
Maybe it's because talking about such an issue just might get her elected here in Boulder. Carlisle's proposal would give the undocumented children of undocumented workers the same tuition rate granted to citizen children of undocumented workers. Such laws are already on the books in ten other states.
Carlisle says she'd also like to make available scholarships to attend Colorado schools for qualified non-citizens and to undocumented high school graduates. Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico do this today.
On her Web site, Carlisle goes even further, saying "Colorado political leaders must keep the pressure on Washington to still the xenophobic hysteria, suppress the nativist bigotry, and fulfill the federal responsibility to enact comprehensive immigration reform." It's not the kind of thing that would fly in most parts of the state, but here in Boulder it just might give Carlisle the edge.
The difference between the person from Kansas and the person who is undocumented is that the person from Kansas has never paid a dime in property tax in Colorado.
Education in the US is funded by property tax. Anyone living here for the required amount of time, whether they rent or own, has paid property tax. That's why it's called "in-state tuition", because you've lived in the state and either you or your parents have been paying property tax.
The author here makes a false scarcity argument that tries to convince you that somehow the undocumented person is getting something for free. The undocumented person has paid into the system, the student from Kansas has not.
People with VISAS and Green Cards have also paid those taxes. If anything, this points out that the bill should include those folks, not that both documented and undocumented immigrants should be excluded.
I would add one final argument. This country was started because people thought taxation without representation was pretty ludicrous. They were taxed to benefit the British Empire, not to benefit themselves and their community. Immigrants of all types pay property tax by virtue of being here. They have met their obligation and should be able to access the program they paid into.
PiperJM
6/13/2008 11:22:49 AM
Exactly right,Piper JM.
Further, why should someone who 'works hard' but is dumb as a post get accepted to a University at the expense of a sharp kid on the make WANTING establishment cred? Which benefits Colorado?
The great unfairness here is the current stroking of the egos of unaccomplished, not unoften spoiled rotten, students and their parents because they live in Colorado or another state and are legal citizens. It's a waste of time, money, and resources to accept them, but it happens.They paid taxes.
But it's to CU's benefit, and Colorado's, and everyone's, that the most qualified attend. They tend to succeed.They tend to support. They tend to be grateful.
And they tend to be good citizens.
If the declining fortunes of the Colorado Daily atop that of most newspapers needs attention, you might study this ill-informed, reactionary, and prejudicial editorial for the reason. Carlisle is again presented as an airheaded yet somehow cynical Boulder politico clawing by somehow.In reality, no politician of the last quarter century has more accurately reflected Boulder's feelings, been more aggressive in promoting them, done more to see them accomplished and defended. She's nearly always correct.
That's why she never loses, why Heath never wins, and why she deserves FAR more appreciation for her competence if not her goals than she ever gets, especially by the Olde local media, whose support, somehow, is never hers or reluctantly given.
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
6/13/2008 11:42:02 AM
Exactly wrong to both Piper JM and Darkcloud.Cindy Carlisle's idea for offering in-state tuition to illegals has no basis in reality."Somehow," the media and everyone else except hard left Boulderites can see that.
Both posters would love to pretend that legal citizens, from Kansas or otherwise, are spoiled, privileged people and it would be a "waste of time, money and resources to accept them."How absurd.The difference between illegals and citizens is that ILLEGALS ARE HERE ILLEGALLY!!How hard is that to understand?How twisted is that to turn yourself into a pretzel to rationalize giving government benefits to people who are here illegally?
If Piper thinks that property tax is the only source of funding for education in this state, then no wonder the rest of the assumptions are off.Do not compare the patriots of the Revolution to these people who come here and fly under the radar illegally.Taxation without representation, indeed.Whose choice was it to come here illegally?Parents put their kids in that position, which is irresponsible.
If illegals want to pay tuition at the out-of-state rate, it is only accurate; after all, they are far from in-state--they are INTERNATIONAL students.
Megfoot
6/23/2008 9:28:27 AM
Carlisle would only offer the opportunity, not the guarantee, and those are some scary caveats attached. Because of them, this would apply only to a small number of potential students.
If they're highly motivated and qualified, why shouldn't they be accepted over a citizen who is neither? Shouldn't the University of Colorado accept only the worthy? Or at least, the best of the applicants?
It's not Carlisle who is pandering.The people who'd vote for her still would if she'd never mentioned it. It's those who pander to the xenophobes who are against her proposed bill and her.
It's not like the state of Colorado is giving a lot of money to CU, and in any case it's CU who brings in far more to the state, so the Colorado citizens - or as the right pretends, the "taxpayers" - would benefit overall with a better level of student (even if their C student son doesn't get in) and an elevation in CU's student body.
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
6/26/2008 9:06:24 PM
Where would political discourse be without epithets to substitute for substance?
If you oppose Gay Marriage you're by definition a 'Homophobe'-no other explanation could suffice.
If you recognize a distinction between legal and Il-legal presence within the country then you MUST be a 'Xenophobe'-respecting the law, this country and the actualities of citizenship couldn't possibly be a factor.
Indeed some jurisdictions have even pressed for a form of voting from ILLEGAL Invaders and of course the Democratic/Progressive/ACLU line is even verifying citizenship is somehow 'unfair' and 'unconstitutional'.
So what's the point of even being a citizen? What does it mean? What benefits does it convey?
Or is it just for chumps and those accidentally born here and for whom lies the responsibilities to provide the 'rights' for those wise enough to NOT be U.S. citizens.
After all, uf they get every right and benefit and suffer no onus whatsoever only a fool would accept the burdens and responsibilities of citizenship-as minor as they might be.
As for the argument which seems to imply that just to purchase or consume something by necessity in the U.S. should confer equivalence to citizenship I'd hold for a higher standard. ("You rent an Apartment? THAT'S enough!")
Indeed, for all the concern about 'no taxation without representation' I'd offer the example of cigarette smokers.
They are taxed, don't get 'represented', their taxes don't benefit THEM at all (Going to parks, prisons and the other pet projects of puink-lingers) AND they get banned, villified, excluded and insulted.
And many of them are citizens as well-not that you could tell and certainly not as protected and proclaimed as those Illegal Invaders Cindy's so concerned about. (Except they can't vote-yet-and I can!)
jeffm@peoplepc.com
7/22/2008 9:07:39 AM
