Search News


Browse Archives

News

'Hollow Victory' for Undocumented Students

September 21, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

After flip-flopping on its admissions policy for nearly a decade, the North Carolina State Community College Board voted Friday to admit undocumented immigrants with one major catch: They must pay out-of-state tuition.

The 21-member board, consisting of a mixture of gubernatorially appointed members and state legislators, overwhelmingly approved the measure, effectively reversing a May 2008 decision to ban undocumented immigrants from the country’s third-largest community college system. This is the fourth time the North Carolina Community College System has changed its admissions policy for undocumented immigrants in nine years. Still, for formal approval, this measure must be voted on by the General Assembly, which does not meet again until next spring.

Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton, a Democrat, was the only member to vote against the policy change. Though he did not publicly debate the matter before the board Friday, he did release a statement following the vote.

"These are extremely difficult economic times that require tough choices," Dalton wrote. "People are losing their jobs. Unemployment is at its highest since the Great Depression. These are the times when North Carolinians are turning to their community colleges for work force retraining. Yet, in order to balance the budget, we have already had to raise tuition, cut programs, and reduce access. Now is not the time to increase the demands on our already overburdened community college system."

The revised admissions policy says that the state’s community colleges may only admit undocumented immigrants if they have graduated from a public or private high school in the United States. They must also pay out-of-state tuition -- more than $7,000 a year for a full load of 16 credits per semester. This is nearly five times the in-state tuition. Furthermore, undocumented students admitted to a community college may not receive state or federal financial aid.

Some critics find that, as undocumented immigrants still cannot claim state residency, this latest policy change is insignificant.

“This is a hollow victory,” said Michael Olivas, a law professor at the University of Houston and expert on immigration and higher education law. “If students can attend but not establish in-state residency, then it’s just the status quo. These kids cannot afford to pay out-of-state tuition. The board has acted foolishly, and this is just bad policy. There are a number of kids who are otherwise residing in states like North Carolina who pay taxes and put into the system that are still not able to buy and take out of the system at the postsecondary level.”

There are only nine states that have approved legislation explicitly allowing undocumented immigrants to claim residency so that they may pay in-state tuition at their public colleges and universities. On the other end of the spectrum, South Carolina is the only state to explicitly ban immigrants who do not have legal residency from attending its public institutions.

North Carolina Community College System officials acknowledge that, even with the latest policy change, there is a still a cost barrier that could keep many undocumented immigrants from the classroom.

“Part of what the board was trying to do was have a consistent admissions policy across all of public higher education in North Carolina,” said Linda Weiner, the system’s vice president of engagement and strategic innovation. “The [University of North Carolina] system recently decided to let in undocumented students at the out-of-state rate. This was done to sync with them. We know the out-of-state cost is an additional barrier to undocumented students, so you have to have students who are very dedicated to make it work.”

A few years ago, when undocumented immigrants were allowed to attend two-year colleges in North Carolina, Weiner said the system used to enroll as many as 110 per semester. If the latest policy revision is accepted by the General Assembly, she said the system could see about that number in the future.

Despite the policy’s firm stance that “students lawfully present in the United States shall have priority over any undocumented immigrant in any class or program of study when capacity limitations exist,” there are a number of critics who still oppose the board’s decision.

The News & Observer, a Raleigh newspaper, reported that about 50 protesters were on hand for the board’s vote Friday, waving flags and shouting through bullhorns. Many argued that “admission to community college was another way illegal immigrants are sponging public resources and taking opportunities from native-born residents.”

Olivas, however, countered that these protesters simply do not understand the statute -- confirmed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in a letter to the North Carolina Community College System last year -- that defers to the states the issue of allowing undocumented students to enroll in college.

“They can’t read the statute and think that it’s some vast left-wing conspiracy," Olivas said. "Still, they need not worry too much because virtually no [undocumented immigrants] will attend, because of the cost barrier. Those who complain about this and say this didn’t go far enough need to ask themselves whether there is anything shy of forced removal that they would be pleased with. I think we know their answer to that.”

The North Carolina General Assembly will take up the matter when it meets again next May. Weiner said she has no indication on what its response to the board’s decision will be. Still, Gov. Beverly Purdue, a Democrat, has expressed her disapproval of the policy change.

"In all honesty and with due respect to the Board of Community Colleges, it's hard for me to understand why we would give an education to those who can't work legally in the country," Perdue said to WRAL, a Raleigh television station. "Either way, it's a hard choice. Kids need an education, but if they can't work [because of their undocumented status], why do it?"

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on 'Hollow Victory' for Undocumented Students

  • Out-of-State Tuition
  • Posted by Cora B. on September 21, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Why is this a "hollow" victory? These students are here illegally.

    Why should they pay less than a legal out-of-state student who wants to attend?

    Let's get back to basics. Enough of this protecting lawbreakers.

    If this new policy cannot be enacted until next spring, why not have these illegal students get to work on getting legal?

     

     

  • Posted by Irene (legal immigrant) on September 21, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • even those who pay out-of state costs don't cover the full cost of their education at community colleges. There are still many things that tuition doesn't pay for - they are covered by taxpayers (through federal and state moneys allocated to community colleges). the pay should be international student pay.

  • shooting self in the foot
  • Posted by Bradley Bleck , English Instructor at Spokane Falls CC on September 21, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • It's pretty clear we do nothing more than shoot ourselves (as states, a nation or region of the country) when we deny college to those who want and need it. I'd like to see the children of illegal immigrants not only pay in-state tuition but be eligible for federal and state financial aid. When we push these kids out of the education marketplace, their options are grim, and countless thousands (maybe millions) of them are here because their parents brought them in as children. Why punish them when they have done what is right be getting a high school education and desiring to do more? Legal or not, they pay taxes (sales when they buy products, income when they work and have it deducted) that subsidize the educations of others and they deserve an opportunity to better themselves and, by extension, the world. If rights are truly inalienable, they belong to all, not just documented immigrants and citizens.

  • Posted by nm mom on September 21, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • This kind of rule seems like a prime opportunity for immigrant-rights activists to put their money where their mouths are -- literally! -- by providing scholarships for high-performing undocumented students. After all, who is a better role model for their (okay, our) cause?

  • Why should illegals have any victory?
  • Posted by wordsprite on September 21, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • And we wonder why we are a financially declining nation .... hmmm. I am not an economist, but does it make any sense at all to allow illegals to attend our colleges even if they do pay out-of-state tuition? Even the additional funds do not cover the total cost of tuition. Our state budgets are severely over extended. Professors and staff are being cut. At a time when we are doing more with less and more of our own CITIZENS are returning to school because they've lost their jobs, we should NOT enroll these students who should not be in this country in the first place. Additionally, has anyone thought about the problems these students will bring with them? Just the language barrier issue, which will require additional personnel to accommodate them, will require more funds. Everyone should cast an eye at the economic condition of California to see what can happen to states that try to provide education (without out-of-state tuition, by the way) and other social services to all illegals.

  • Community Colleges pay tuition for illegal immigrants
  • Posted by MadMommy , Parent, Taxpayer, Citizen, Voter on September 21, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Am I the only person who thinks that the cost of educating an illegal immigrant is an unfair use of taxpayer dollars? How about the fact that an illegal immigrant with a college degree still can't work in this country without a legal identity or legal resident status? What are we paying for? An illegal immigrant to get a degree and break our laws to work here under the table or with falsified documents? Am I missing something? Why not deport them and let them get their degree in their country of origin? Then at least they can get a job there and contribute to the community they have recieved the benefits from. America can't benefit from that investment unless or until illelal immgrants become legal. So is this encouraging illegal immgration when we allow them to continue breaking the laws here and subsidize their education while doing that? Doesn't make any sense.

  • Subsidizing lawbreakers
  • Posted by rightwingprofessor on September 21, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • How is this even controversial? Are the taxpayers of NC really expected to work hard, abide by the law, and then pay taxes to subsidize the college education of criminals? Yes criminals is the accurate way to describe "undocumented immigrants." They violate our laws and then hold out their hands for subsidies. Despicable!

  • we already benefit from "illegals"
  • Posted by Bradley Bleck , English Instructor at Spokane Falls CC on September 21, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • America and Americans already benefit to a great degree from legal and illegal immigration. Who do you think picks the fruit you eat? The vegetables? Immigrants, mostly hispanic and many illegal, are working the fields that bring us the foods we eat. They work in slaughterhouses, picking crops, processing picked crops, you name. Their willingness to work for low wages, their need to work for low wages, keeps prices down. Those savings may be pocketed by those who hire then rather than getting passed on to us, but as a nation, we exploit immigrants. Have done since the beginning, when they were indentured servants and now that they are undocumented. To say they provide no benefits to those of us who are legal is to lack understanding. Our economy relies on immigrants, legal and illegal, and they deserved to reap some of what they sow.

  • More ridiculous framing
  • Posted by ACF on September 21, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • The title of this article should read: "College still refusing to deport illegal aliens."

  • Bradley Bleck
  • Posted by DFS on September 21, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Right, dude. This means that we should just go ahead and construct a new plantation: we must let illegals reside here so that we can exploit them!

    After all, we'll just grab some additional FTE. This must be great news for us 'massahs.'

    Get a grip, dude.

  • a new plantation?
  • Posted by Bradley Bleck , English Instructor at Spokane Falls CC on September 21, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • I'm not sure why encouraging students who don't have documentation into school means we are constructing a new plantation. Can you spell out how letting them have the same educational opportunities, one their tax dollars are supporting and providing to others, makes this a new plantation and exploitative? This dude ain't seeing the connection. I don't care about FTEs, just enabling those who want an education to get one so they can both take advantage of what's being offered and by having a better shot at getting on in the world.

  • Outlaws are Outlaws
  • Posted by Dr. Anonymous on September 21, 2009 at 9:00pm EDT
  • We read so often the sentimental nonsense about all the hard work that illegals do or that why penalize children for the sins of their parents. The truth is the enormous, unacceptable drain of resources especially in the border states to "accommodate" illegals; and the tens of billions of dollars illegals send back to Mexico each year, thereby helping to ruin our economy. Outlaws are outlaws. They should be rounded up and deported. And let them know that we the American people despise them. Perhaps the shame will cause a few to return to their country of origin.

  • Illegal aliens in college
  • Posted by Delaware Bob on September 22, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • This is just unbelievable! They are in this Country ILLEGALLY and you are letting them use our schools? You have to be kidding! What you should be doing is passing a State Illegal Immigration Law and getting rid of the illegal aliens. It seems to me there, North Carolina, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution in getting the illegal aliens out of this Country. Shame, shame, shame!

  • Bradley Bleck
  • Posted by Wordsprite on September 22, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Business says that Americans won't do the jobs that illegals do. They are right that Americans will not do these jobs for the pay that illegals receive. In a recent raid of a chicken farm near where I live, the management was forced to hire Americans at a higher wage after their cheap workforce disappeared overnight. Guess what? The chicken farm was forced to pay higher wages, and workers left the wonderful workplace of Wal-Mart to fill those jobs. Not only do businesses exploit these illegals, they exploit the American taxpayer who pays the bill for the education, healthcare, foodstamps, and other services these people receive. You are right that the business keeps the money saved by hiring illegals. Apparently, businesses are not fined for hiring illegals--at least, the fines are never reported in the newspapers.

    An additional aspect that no one mentions is the abuse suffered by illegals at the hands of the government when their homes are raided. The agents burst in the door, grab the husband/father, and terrorize--yes, terrorize--the household. Can you imagine what psychological effects this must have on a small child, who watches as his or her father is hauled away as a criminal? Do you think that child will grow up to think that the USA is a great place with caring people? No--this engenders more hatred toward Americans. As Americans, who supposedly place a high value on civil rights, we should be ashamed to allow people to be treated in this manner. We need to address this issue.

  • the real shame
  • Posted by Bradley Bleck , English Instructor at Spokane Falls CC on September 22, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Perhaps the real shame is thinking that we should despise people who are trying for a better life than they can get at home. Maybe we should despise a system that enables their exploitation. Maybe we should despise people who don't hold to the spirit of our nation, the notions of inalienable rights (which means borders are irrelevant), that we should be taking in the poor, the tired, the huddled masses, rather than trying to protect ourselves selfishly. Maybe we should despise those who play fast and loose with psudo-facts (immigrants are hardly ruining our nation). The only shame is that we persecute people because in an age of globalization we don't allow people, the so-called human capital, to move as freely as we do consumer goods. That's what the shame of it all is.

  • Bradley
  • Posted by DFS on September 22, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • I don't despise them. In fact, I respect them and their desires by wanting to require them to do their immigration legally. That way, they have full rights I will defend.

    Further, they -- and us -- would no longer be exploited by the current underground plantation.

  • The pragmatic, sensible and compassionate approach
  • Posted by William Perez, Ph.D. on September 22, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • As I follow the comments posted on articles or news featuring that discuss the merits of providing access to higher education to undocumented students or providing a path to legalization to bright students through the DREAM Act I’m struck by the complete disregard of the evidence presented. Rather, these critics rely on their own misconceptions, misinformation, and animosity and disdain for decent human beings who are often exploited by American society. In complete disregard of the economic push/pull factors that bring them to the U.S. along with unscrupulous practices of American companies that often lure them here, their sole view of undocumented individuals is that of “lawbreakers” who don’t deserve the same opportunities as the rest of us despite their social and economic contributions to American society. By that logic, the 11 million Americans with a misdemeanor record or the 50 million Americans with a criminal record should also be treated as “lawbreakers” with curtailed civil and legal rights regardless of their contributions to society. Individuals with a criminal record are more than just a crime statistic. They are husbands, wives, sons, daughters, and contributing members of society, and as such they are not judged solely by their encounter with the legal justice system. Clearly this is an absurd logic, and the Constitution ensures that we are protected from this flawed way of thinking.

     

    Another theme in the negative comments posted here is that immigrants should be sent back to their country of origin. What these individuals fail to recognize, in addition to the gross violation of constitutional and human rights, is that such efforts, even if they were feasible, would bear a tremendous cost on all of us. The cost of deporting the 12 million undocumented persons living in the United States is estimated to range between 206-230 billion dollars. Building a 700 mile border fence would cost an additional 6-8 billion dollars. To those of you who articulate this position I pose to you? Are you willing to have your taxes raised to pay for this? Is your disdain for decent human beings greater than your disdain for higher taxes? Are you willing to cut your nose to spite your face?

     

    We must not forget that these extreme voices of hate and ignorance are in the minority. Even if they have ambivalent attitudes about undocumented persons, most Americans favor providing a path to legalization. As recent as April 2009, A CBS/New York Times Poll indicated that 65% of Americans favor providing legal status to the undocumented population, while an ABC News/Washington Post poll also conducted in April 2009 finds that 61% support legalization. In 2006, A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll similarly reports 63% of Americans favoring legalization for the undocumented population. We must not allow these extreme hateful minority voices to hijack democracy. The majority of Americans agree on the best course of action and politicians must be responsive to the views of the majority instead the extremist minority. The vast body of research and social science evidence which I describe in my recent book, “We ARE Americans: Undocumented Students Pursuing the American Dream,” (Stylus, 2009), makes the compelling point that it is in all of our best interest to provide a path to legalization to undocumented students through the DREAM Act as soon as possible and to address the legal situation of undocumented workers through comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

     

    In closing, I would like to address the short-sighted concerns of those that fear that providing access to higher education to undocumented students will displace U.S. citizens. First of all, in terms of their civic contributions to American society there are no differences between citizen and non-citizen college-going youth. In fact, my research suggests that the civic contributions of undocumented youth may be higher than their citizen-counterparts. Secondly, data available in the states that have provided access to higher education to college-eligible undocumented students indicate that they have not displaced citizen-students and only represent a tiny fraction of the overall student population. Finally, in developing our views about the merits of providing access to higher education and citizenship to college-eligible undocumented, we must think beyond our own immediate needs and consider the greater good. For example, the United States has a policy of granting citizenship to foreign nationals who can demonstrate that they will invest in the united states economy and provide jobs to American citizens. Many high achieving undocumented students, like the ones I profile in my book, “We ARE Americans,” demonstrate that they are fully capable of excelling academically and developing into successful entrepreneurs that will create jobs for countless American citizens. They exhibit the same level of drive and determination that led famous immigrants to the united states such as Jerry Yang, the co-founder of Yahoo or Sergei Brin, the co-founder of Google to create fortune 500 companies that employ thousands of American workers and donate millions of dollars to social causes. In the face of overwhelming social science evidence and public support for providing access to higher education and a path to legalization to the undocumented, we must take the pragmatic approach and not continue with our current policies of exclusion based on irrational fears.

  • William Perez, Ph.D.
  • Posted by DFS on September 22, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Then let's continue your 'logic.'

    If "economic push/pull factors" excuse people breaking our laws by intruding on U.S. property and taking up our oxygen and imposing emergency-health related expenses on us, then the same 'push/pull' factors should excuse us, as a nation, when deciding that it's just sound judgment to go ahead and invade Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, and anyone else with oil to use for our wishes. We'll just subjugate those peoples for ourselves, because we 'must.'

    Couch it as you may, but breaking a law is still breaking a law. Note to the public: any time someone uses the word "undocumented," they take the position that the law-breaker is just some kind of unfortunate victim swept up in the tornado of life.

  • breakin' the law
  • Posted by Bradley Bleck , English Instructor at Spokane Falls CC on September 22, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

    Mr Bumble, of Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, when informed that "the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction," replies "If the law supposes that… the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience." (thanks to wikipedia).

    Now, not all laws are such, but the laws on immigration are all about keeping a scarce (purportedly) resource for ourselves, Americans. We want to make sure others don't take our jobs, land, etc. While illegal immigrants, and legal immigrants, are generally coming here for jobs, for the most part, illegal immigrants aren't taking jobs other will take or want. In that respect, the law serves no useful purpose and has no relation to what is going on in the world. It becomes a mere cudgel.

  • Bradley,
  • Posted by DFS on September 24, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • Rich and poor who? Citizens? (false premise; vacuuous argument)

    You are responsible for the actions of your wife? (false premise; vacuuous argument)

    ". . . for the most part, illegal immigrants aren't taking jobs other[s] will take or want." (false premise; vacuuous argument)

    Anything else to offer?

  • Posted by Cheryl , ESL Teacher on September 28, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • This whole arguement is ridiculous! Children do not break the law and these children were minors when their parents did. If we had a law on the books that convicted children of lawbreakers as accessories when they turned 18, everyone would call that unfair. If your father murdered someone, then you would go to jail when you are 18 or sent to another country. In this case justice is not what is fair or equitable. Allow the ones that seriously want to have an education have one. Remember the Holocaust started with just excluding Jews from certain places, I believe that we are a better society than that.