Over the last several years, illegal immigration has been an ardently disputed issue. Legislation on undocumented workers has been hyped up and defeated, protests have taken place across the country and each presidential candidate has an extensive platform on the issue.
One facet of this debate - the question of how to treat undocumented workers who have lived and worked in the United States for years - has been reignited here in Massachusetts.
Three years ago, a proposal to offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants was rejected by the Mass. House of Representatives. The bill, which would have benefited illegal immigrants who have lived in Massachusetts for three or more years, was also guaranteed a veto by former Gov. Mitt Romney.
Last month, Gov. Deval Patrick announced that he is looking to circumvent the state legislature in order to offer an in-state tuition price tag to children of undocumented workers at Massachusetts state universities.
At the University of Massachusetts at Boston, out-of-state tuition costs about $8,000 more per year than in-state tuition. Even at local community colleges, out-of-state students must pay upwards of 10 times the cost paid by Massachusetts residents. Currently, undocumented workers, even those who live in the state, must pay the out-of-state tuition.
These increased costs prevent even the highest-achieving high-school students from attending college, as they can not afford it.
Backers of Patrick's plan argue that immigrant students who have performed well in school should be able to pursue higher education, regardless of their immigrant status, while critics believe these financial benefits should only be available to state citizens who pay for them in tax money.
Patrick, along with his lawyers, is currently deliberating over whether the state could offer the lower tuition with approval from the state's Board of Higher Education instead of a passing a bill in the state Legislature.
The proposal is facing intense criticism from its opponents. In a BostonHerald.com poll, only 13 percent of readers supported offering illegal immigrants in-state tuition, while 87 percent opposed it.
Associate Professor of Political Science Deborah Schildkraut sees the opposition to this bill as indicative of the national mood towards undocumented workers.
"Immigrants are criticized for not achieving the American dream, but criticized when they try," she said.
Senior Daniel Becker, co-founder of Students at Tufts Acting for Immigrant Rights (STAIR), argued that U.S. foreign policy has indirectly invited immigrants into the country and that the education of these people is a right that should be guaranteed.
"The North American Free Trade Agreement increased trade ... and with increased trade comes increased migration," Becker said.
This migration has brought families from other countries into American society, where they have tried to assimilate by working and getting educated.
"[These students] have been a part of our society ... They've been expected to go to school and are expected to go onto high education," Becker said. "[We are] punishing children who had no choice in coming here."
Conversely, many argue that in-state tuition is a privilege that only law-abiding, tax-paying citizens should receive.
"In this case it is an insult to those students and families who are here legally and paying taxes," said Greg Casey, the chief of staff for Massachusetts State Sen. Scott Brown (R), in an e-mail to the Daily. "It is also an insult to those who are going through the legal process to American citizenship."
Junior Dan Hartman, president of the Tufts Republicans, agreed. "[These immigrants] are here illegally. They broke the law ... they should not receive benefits of taxpayers," he said.
Hartman said he believes that while legal immigrants should be able to pursue the American dream without barriers, illegal immigrants should not be entitled to the same benefits.
"Part of the American dream is following the law," he said.
Instead of offering aid to illegal immigrants, Hartman said he supports making legal immigration easier for those who want to move to the United States.
While initially it seems that the tuition support would become a tax burden on Massachusetts residents, studies have shown that offering in-state tuition to illegal immigrants would actually benefit the Massachusetts economy.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF), an independent, non-partisan group, conducted a study in early 2006 that estimated that Massachusetts would gain $2.5 million a year from tuition and fees by passing the proposal. The estimate was based off of the results in Texas after the state approved a similar bill.
MTF President Michael Widmer said that Massachusetts has a shortage of educated, skilled workers because younger people are leaving the state.
"The students will positively impact the Massachusetts economy," he said. "The Commonwealth will benefit because ... public university students are the ones who stay in [the state.]"
Still, Patrick's potential move to bypass the state legislature has spurred controversy across the Massachusetts from politicians and students alike. Last month, members from the Massachusetts Alliance of College Republicans staged a protest outside of the State House. Students from local universities picketed for over an hour to object to the proposal and Patrick's method of action.
Some state legislators are also angry with Patrick for trying to pass the proposal without their consent. If passed in the Board of Higher Education, the legislature has the ability to withhold funding.
"This is a hot-button issue that truly motivates people in all demographics," Casey said. "The fact that [the bill] would most likely fail in the Legislature is a good reason why the governor would prefer that it go through the Board of Higher Ed. This is another example of Gov. Patrick's priorities being way out of step with those of the people of Massachusetts."
