What I am trying to square is: Congress mandated that the localities educate children of illegals K-12, yet it’s illegal to offer in-state college tuition to those same students.
The costs for the K-12 education would be considerably higher for a kid who went thru 13 years of TX public school (assuming s/he was admitted at K) than the ‘savings’ of in-state college tuition. That factors in the special ESL and other special ed features that a child from an illegal alien background would logically require.
So Congress is mandating the localities pay out @ $150-200K over 13 years, but also mandating that they stop there.
This really is a state issue IMO. VA not only doesn’t offer in-state, but IIRC, prohibits admission to our state schools to “undocumented” students. That’s our choice. If TX wants to offer in-state tuition it seems it’s their choice. Its state legislature voted overwhelmingly for it. TX/AZ/NM/CA have been dealing with this issue a whole lot longer than VA/MN/PA/MA, and undoubtedly see a benefit to that continued educational investment.
If Congress had not mandated the K-12 education (not to mention health care/food/shelter) to begin with, this would not be an issue, but again Congress stepped in with an unfunded mandate.
No, they can offer in-state tuition, but my take on the intention of the federal law is that if in-state tuition is offered to illegals, then it has to be offered to all US citizens, regardless of their residency.
But I also find the federal law to be ambiguous, and it can be read to require states to have uniform residency requirements for in-state tuition, where illegals don't have the benefit of a shortened residency period, to qualify for in-state tuition.
It was a 5-4 decision. BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J.,post, p. 457 U. S. 230, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 457 U. S. 231, and POWELL, J., post, p. 457 U. S. 236, filed concurring opinions. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined
It is interesting to read the Brennan decision, which was not based on a Constitutional right for the "undocumented," but rather the costs involved and social implications. Things have changed dramatically since them.
In considering this motion, the District Court made extensive findings of fact. The court found that neither § 21.031 nor the School District policy implementing it had "either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas." 458 F.Supp. 569, 575 (1978). Respecting defendants' further claim that § 21.031 was simply a financial measure designed to avoid a drain on the State's fisc, the court recognized that the increases in population resulting from the immigration of Mexican nationals into the United States had created problems for the public schools of the State, and that these problems were exacerbated by the special educational needs of immigrant Mexican children. The court noted, however, that the increase in school enrollment was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. Id. at 575-576.
It also found that, while the "exclusion of all undocumented children from the public schools in Texas would eventually result in economies at some level," id. at 576, funding from both the State and Federal Governments was based primarily on the number of children enrolled. In net effect, then, barring undocumented children from the schools would save money, but it would "not necessarily" improve "the quality of education." Id. at 577. The court further observed that the impact of § 21.031 was borne primarily by a very small subclass of illegal aliens, "entire families who have migrated illegally and -- for all practical purposes -- permanently to the United States." Id. at 578. [Footnote 3] Finally, the court noted that, under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," [Footnote 4] and that, without an education, these undocumented children,"[a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class."