DREAMers in California are FAR from Giving Up!

It is with tenacity and this same passion written by fellow DREAMer that things will continue to change for us and our families.

As a DREAMer, i believe that after experiencing a lot of rejection and discrimination in the system our current struggles are deeper that what they seem. I believe that the rejecting and attempting to kill in-state tuition bills for immigrant students, is not because of fiscal issues in the state, but rather an attempt to keep a group of individuals oppressed.

Students don’t give up on Dream Act
Lizbeth Mateo / Contributing Reporter
Published: Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Updated: Monday, October 13, 2008

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made history on Tuesday, Sept. 30, when he vetoed a record 35 percent of the nearly 1, 200 bills the California Legislature put on his desk this year.

Among those bills returned by the governor without his signature was Sen. Cedillo’s SB 1301, the California Dream Act, which has been vetoed by Schwarzenegger for the fourth time.

This bill would have allowed U.S. citizens and undocumented AB 540 students to apply for institutional financial aid – aid that is awarded based on academic achievement and financial need, and that is administered by the attending college or university in the forms of scholarships, loans and work-study programs.

It is estimated that AB 540 students compromise less than one percent of the student body in the University of California system. Approximately 1,200 of the 1,600 AB 540 students enrolled during the 2006 -2007 school year were U.S. citizens or legal residents, and in total AB 540 students contribute $64 millions each year in tuition to the UC system, of which 30 percent is used to create this institutional aid.

The CSU does not track the number of AB 540 students due to a confidentiality agreement and it is unclear how the UC system is able to do it.

One of Schwarzenegger’s spokesmen, Aaron McLear, said that the governor “reviewed each and every bill, but he wasn’t going to spend a lot of time and energy on bills that didn’t mean much to the state.”

Didn’t mean much to the state? Wouldn’t spend much time on them?

Tell that to the approximately 25,000 AB 540 students who could have benefited from the California Dream Act. Tell that to the hundreds of students, activists, educators, professionals, faith-based leaders, union members, community and business members of the Power and Unity Coalition and CHIRLA’s California Dream Network who spent months collecting over 20,00 signatures in support of this bill.

Members of CSUN’s Dreams to be Heard, an AB 540 support group, worked hard in collecting pens and signatures, and traveled to Sacramento on Sept. 17 to remind the governor of his promise of making California’s future a priority.

The governor, however, seems to care very little about California’s future, despite his claim that he would make this a year of education. So far, Schwarzenegger has only terminated the dreams of thousands of students.

I have to admit that I’ve never been a big fan of the governor, but I was hopeful he would sign it, as were over 100 students from Los Angeles and Orange County who traveled to the state’s capital to urge Schwarzenegger to sign the bill. That hope came in part from the governor’s own words, when in 2005 during my commencement ceremony at Santa Monica City College, he said:

“And make sure that you understand one thing; that you are the only obstacle. There is no other obstacle for you than you yourself, your own mind, because America and California is already the land of opportunity.”

I beg to disagree with Schwarzenegger. Our mind is not the biggest obstacle here. During the last hour of Sept. 30, while thousands of students were glued to the TV, searching the Internet, waiting for a call, a text message or an e-mail with news about the California Dream Act, the governor became the obstacle.

Once again, he has ignored legislators who have supported, have approved and have put this bill on his desk. He has ignored studies from institutions such as the Public Policy Institute of California, which predicts that 41 percent of jobs in California in 2025 will require a college education, but at the current rate the state will only produce 32 percent of the workers needed.

AB 540 students are a key component of the state’s future because these students can help fill the gap. They are an untapped resource that given the right opportunity and support will bring about great changes and benefits to California.

If the solution seems to be a signature away and everyone understands this, including our very own Associated Student Senate, which passed a resolution last spring expressing its support for SB 1301, what in the world is wrong with the governor?

Perhaps we’ll never know, but there is one thing we know for sure: AB 540 students are not giving up. If the “Governator” was able to hear the more than one hundred students chanting in front of the state capitol, myself among them, then he knows that “We’ll be Back!”

Schwarzenegger’s veto was only a small setback, since the students behind this movement for equal access to education will continue their efforts on bringing about legislation, at the state and national level, that will give undocumented students a chance for a better future and the honor of giving back to the country they know as home.

California court ruling on in-state tuition is not the last word

From The National Immigration Law Center, this is the latest news:

On Monday, September 15, a California Court of Appeal panel overturned the Superior Court's decision dismissing a challenge to AB 540, California's in-state tuition law. Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, No. C054124 (CA3 Sept. 15, 2008). The Court of Appeal's ruling, if allowed to stand, would return the case to the Superior Court for trial. The court did not enjoin or block AB 540. The law remains in effect. Similar laws in others states were not affected by the ruling. The decision will likely be appealed and any final decision is likely to come from the California Supreme Court.

AB 540 provides that students who have attended at least 3 years of high school in California, graduated from a California school and meet certain other conditions may attend state colleges and universities at the same rate that is charged to state residents. Some students who qualify for AB 540 are undocumented immigrants who live in California. Others are U.S. citizens who attended school in California in the past but are now unable to establish state residence, such as those who live in a neighboring state or those who recently returned to California after living elsewhere. In fact, about 70 percent of AB 540 students attending the University of California are U.S. citizens who do not meet the state residency requirements for in-state tuition purposes.

Despite these facts, the Martinez Court found that AB 540 confers a benefit "based on residence" and therefore conflicts with a federal law that precludes such a benefit for undocumented immigrants unless the same benefit is available under the same conditions to U.S. citizens who are not residents of the state. The opinion is internally inconsistent, and conflicts with other court decisions that have addressed the in-state tuition issue.

It would be extremely unfortunate if this intermediate court decision were upheld. The affected students are talented high achievers, who grew up in California and persevered against the odds to graduate from high school and meet the qualifications for higher education. They include valedictorians, class presidents, and student prizewinners, among others. California can ill afford to deny these students the opportunity to complete their education. The elected representatives and governor of California as well as those of nine other states - where the majority of undocumented immigrants live - have determined that it is a wise policy to charge these students an affordable tuition.

Monday's decision is only one step in the process of resolving the legality of AB 540. The decision is based on a flawed legal analysis and we are hopeful that it will be reversed.

The Martinez case adds urgency to efforts to pass the federal DREAM Act and thereby address the status of undocumented immigrant students who have grown up in this country. The federal DREAM Act would provide immigration relief to those who entered the U.S. more than 5 years ago if and when they graduate from high school. It would allow them to become permanent residents and eventually citizens if they go to college or serve in the military.

For more information, please contact Josh Bernstein at bernstein@nilc.org

Image

Effects of AB540 (in-state tuition) in California

I received this long-term study done by a graduate student in UCLA regarding DREAMers in California. The author focuses on the effects that in-state tuition in California brought to DREAMers; more specifically, it focuses on the search for identity that AB540 (HB1403 in Texas) gave students. That is, a sort of stigma was removed once we were relatively accepted into the system.

Although it comes from a sociology perpective and it is an academic paper, i believe that policy can begin to change if work like this continues to flourish.

Abrego Effects of AB540 LSI - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: Abrego Effects of AB540 LSI

DREAMer Benefits Unfair to Foreign Students Here on Visas?

A couple of years ago, in one of my Hispanic literature classes, the students had a discussion about in-state tuition for DREAMers.  A few students who were in the country on visas were very angry that they should pay such high tuition while undocumented students were allowed in-state tuition rates.

It is logical that foreign students who get stuck with 250% increases in tuition would be angry.  Yet it is important to remember that DREAMers have been living in the U.S. since they were young children - moving through the educational system as if they were born here -- many no even knowing they are undocumented.

There is assumption that foreign students here on visas are all very wealthy...  There is some truth to this in that oftentimes, it costs a great deal of money to obtain passports - which is especially difficult in Mexico since 70% of the population lives in poverty -  Many DREAMer's families could not have afforded to send their child to the U.S. to college using the route of a passport and visa.

Just about every DREAMer I have ever met has been in the U.S. for at least 10 years, speaks fluent English, and sees themselves as American.  It would be great if this would be enough to make them citizens.  

When foreign students get angry about the high tuition rates they pay, maybe it would be helpful to remember that they don't have to experience a panic attack every time there is word that an ICE raid is about to occur.  That in itself is worth paying the higher tuition.

----

Utah: In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants Unfair to Foreign Students?
KCPW News, Aug 27, 2008
By Elizabeth Ziegler

(KCPW News) The debate about the state's controversial law granting in-state tuition for illegal immigrants will surface again at the Immigration Interim Committee meeting tonight in Park City. An Indonesian student and a University of Utah instructor will testify that the law is unfair to foreign students who are charged more expensive out-of-state tuition. Adjunct professor Rebecca Cowden says she's worked for years with people from developing countries, and we should give those here on student visas tuition breaks, too.

"I just don't think the label that I don't like foreigners applies. I'm just saying: It just feels like we're held hostage and this is nutty," Cowden says. "If they have enough money to do this, then please, could we expand it to the legal students and could we expand it to the other American citizens. And the ugly truth, I suspect, is that we don't have the money and we just don't know what to do."

Advocates, such as Utahan's for the American Dream Co-Chairwoman Karen Crompton, are wary of efforts to outlaw the tuition break. Crompton, who is also the executive director of Voices for Utah Children, says many have grown up as Americans. Under the current law, illegal immigrants who graduate after attending at least three years of high school in Utah qualify for in-state tuition. The law initially passed the Legislature in anticipation of the federal Dream Act, sponsored by Utah's U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch. But the bill failed to pass Congress.

Crompton agrees a college education is too expensive for many students, but she feels the financial challenges unique to illegal immigrants warrant giving them cheaper tuition.

"Getting an education is tougher for everyone these days because of the financial cost and fewer loans being available. And in fact, students of undocumented parents have very few financial options. They're not eligible for federal grants or loans, nor grants from universities," Crompton says. "So they really have a tough job ahead of them. And so I think we should really reward and encourage their effort, which is really to achieve the American dream."

An attempt to reverse the law failed to gain Legislative support earlier this year. However, a sweeping immigration reform bill, S.B. 81, was approved.

thanks to nilc.org for passing this on

North Carolina keeps denying immigrant students

Colleges to bar illegal immigrants
By Lynn Bonner and Kristin Collins
(Raleigh) News & Observer
Posted: Friday, Aug. 15, 2008

Leaders of the state's community colleges voted today to close their doors to illegal immigrants until they complete a study and come up with a permanent policy.

The decision today by the State Board of Community Colleges marks a reversal from Thursday, when officials indicated they were inclined to admit illegal immigrants pending the outcome of the study.

Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue, the Democratic candidate for governor, made the motion to ban illegal immigrants from community colleges while the study is ongoing. Eleven board members voted in favor of the motion. The board's chairman did not ask for "no" votes, noting that the 11 in favor were a majority of the 16 members eligible to vote.

The study represents the colleges' attempt to navigate a charged political atmosphere.

Several state politicians have already promised to try to pass laws this year that would deny admission to illegal immigrants, effectively nullifying any decision the board makes. Both candidates for governor have come out against college education for illegal immigrants.

And this week, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, a Charlotte Republican, said she plans to introduce a bill in September that would withhold federal funding from colleges and universities that knowingly admit illegal immigrants.

During a committee meeting Thursday, some board members said they had gotten heated messages from constituents on both sides of the issue.

In that environment, they said, there is no sense in making a hasty decision. Some said a well-researched policy could dissuade lawmakers from getting involved.

Bad News in Massachusetts

It's not just that Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer. It is also that the state of MA has decided (again) not to allow instate college tuition for DREAMERS.

These two events do not bode well for DREAMERS. Kennedy has always been one of the DREAMERS greatest champions. The latest denial of instate tuition will keep hundreds of graduating high school seniors from attending college.

Tuition aid to illegal immigrants falters

Patrick declines to act on behalf of graduates

By Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff | May 22, 2008

Governor Deval Patrick has decided against taking action to allow illegal immigrants to pay resident tuition and fees at state colleges and universities this fall, an administration official said yesterday, crushing advocates who were counting on the governor to deliver on a pledge to support the students.

Earlier this year, Patrick said he was considering ways to offer illegal immigrants in-state rates, such as issuing a regulation, adding that it would be "the right thing to do."

The governor declined to comment yesterday, but an administration source who spoke on condition of anonymity said Patrick decided that there were "significant legal impediments" to that approach. The governor will still support legislation on the matter, but on Beacon Hill the issue is widely viewed as dead this session.

The decision is a blow to church pastors, school counselors, and advocates from Lawrence to Springfield, who had pressured Patrick to act before high school graduations in the next few weeks. Now several hundred seniors are again facing college tuition and fees that are more than double the resident rates, as high as $21,900 a year.

"This would be slamming the door on hundreds of students who are graduating this year," said Loren McArthur, staff director of the Merrimack Valley Project, a group of churches, labor unions, and others who sent Patrick 300 letters this month urging him to act now. "If this is his decision, it's unfortunate. But we will be urging him to reconsider."

Advocates had hoped that Patrick, who often touts his own background as a civil rights advocate whose life was transformed by education, would build support for a relatively small group of students. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimated that if students could pay in-state rates, as many as 600 illegal immigrants would enroll in college a year, out of 160,000 in the public system, bringing in about $2.5 million in tuition and fees. The group estimated that only about 100 such students were enrolled in 2006.

"We had hoped that the governor would honor his commitments and his promises to make education access fair for all Massachusetts students," said Shuya Ohno, spokesman for the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "He understood that it was a question of fairness. What he couldn't articulate is that it actually makes money for the state."

In recent weeks, hundreds of supporters were intensifying pressure on Patrick, peppering him with calls and letters on behalf of the students. Some wanted Patrick to sign an executive order allowing students to pay in-state rates. Others urged the Board of Higher Education to change its regulations to allow it. Patrick considered that option, but the board said it did not have that authority, said Eileen O'Connor, a board spokeswoman....

for complete Boston Globe article click here

thanks to citizenorange.com for alerting us to this article

The 10% Rule and In-State Tuition for DREAMERS

A lawsuit has been filed that claims the Texas 10% rule (top 10% of all Texas high school graduates get admitted to University of Texas or Texas A&M) uses "racial preferences" - ruling out successful students who rank in the 11% of their class or higher.

In what sounds almost comical, the Houston Chronicle reporter states at the end of the article that the student and attorney are concerned that she will not get her application fee back from the University of Texas if she enrolls in another college but is later admitted to UT.

How much is this fee? $100?

Of course this is a lot of money, but not for most of our suburban high school students, many of whom have cars, cell phone, x-boxes and lots of tutoring for their academic needs.

Either way, the bottom line was: The 10% rule that Texas lawmakers were thinking about when they tried to take away In-State tuition for DREAMERS las April (2007) *-- the talk was that the less than 100 DREAMERS at UT were taking away precious spots among the students who missed that 10% by a hair.

At the committee hearings in Austin last spring, lawmakers were telling DREAMERS (to their face) that life is not fair. For the 11 percenters, perhaps the legislators can tell them the same thing?


*Just a reminder that Representative Rick Noriega was instrumental in helping DREAMERS keep in-state tuition in Texas. Noriega is running for U.S. Senator this year.

April 8, 2008, 6:47AM
White teen sues UT over admissions policy
Sugar Land student, in top of class, challenges racial preferences

By JEANNIE KEVER
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

An 18-year-old Sugar Land student sued the University of Texas at Austin on Monday, challenging the school's use of racial preferences in its admissions policy.

Abigail Noel Fisher, a senior at Stephen F. Austin High School in Sugar Land, was named in the lawsuit filed on her behalf by the Project on Fair Representation.

Project director Edward Blum, an activist against race preferences in Houston before he moved to Washington, D.C., said Fisher, who is white, will graduate in the top 12 percent of her class next month but learned in late March that she was not accepted at UT-Austin.

The lawsuit doesn't challenge the top 10 percent law, which guarantees admission to those who finish in the top 10 percent of a Texas high school's graduating class. Instead, it contends that UT-Austin unlawfully uses racial and ethnic criteria to select other students.

Blum and Fisher's lawyer, Bert W. Rein, said Fisher did not want to talk to reporters.

"She's still in high school," said Rein, who practices in Washington. "She isn't looking to become a national symbol. She just wants to go to the University of Texas."

Patti Ohlendorf, vice president for legal affairs at UT-Austin, noted in a statement that "every year, we ... receive applications from thousands of very able high school seniors, but as with many universities around the country, we are limited in the number of applicants we can admit."

She said the university believes its admissions policies comply with U.S. Supreme Court guidelines.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Austin, and by mid-afternoon, Blum said he had heard from several other students who wanted to join as plaintiffs. His organization has a Web site, www.utnotfair.org, to draw interested students.

The top 10 percent law was adopted after a 1996 court ruling stopped Texas colleges and universities from considering race and ethnicity in deciding admissions; UT-Austin's minority enrollment is higher now than at any time since the law passed.

A 2003 Supreme Court ruling said colleges and universities may consider race and ethnicity in order to create a diverse student population only if race-neutral methods haven't worked.

Blum argues that the top 10 percent law has worked, making it illegal to use race-conscious considerations for students who do not graduate within the top 10 percent of their class.

Ohlendorf didn't address that specifically but said: "we believe that our undergraduate admissions policies are ... in compliance with Supreme Court precedent and all other applicable law."

Fisher, meanwhile, will soon have to decide her future, perhaps before the case is settled.

UT-Austin has 20 days to respond. The lawsuit asks that she be re-evaluated by UT-Austin in a "race-neutral" manner and admitted if she qualifies. It also asks that the school be stopped from using race-conscious criteria for students who fall outside the top 10 percent law.

Fisher, who plays cello in her high school orchestra, has been accepted at Louisiana State University and Baylor University, according to the lawsuit. But accepting one of those schools, or a spot at another UT system campus, would require a deposit that wouldn't be refunded if she were later accepted at UT-Austin, Rein said.

jeannie.kever.chron.com

for link to Chronicle article click the title of this post

image: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41lAHQq7BdL._AA280_.jpg

It cost more to keep DREAMERS out of college than to keep them in

Inside an article on how many anti-immigration laws have come up recently is a brief statement about the University of Arizona and it's DREAMERS. As the reporter states, the university saved $70,000 but the "startup cost" to get the project going amounted to more than $140,000.

How is that for good logic?

It seems to be a pattern. The U.S. hurts itself more with passing one the laws than it helps itself... As in the issue of driver's licenses for the undocumented.... better not to allow them licenses even though that means the rest of the population is constantly at risk for being in an accident with someone who does not have insurance.

Interesting how disdain can be much stronger than the desire for self-preservation.

---

Immigration Bills Up but Will They Pass?

By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ

The Associated Press - Washington Post
Friday, March 7, 2008; 7:09 PM


...[T]he University of Arizona saved roughly $70,000 last year by identifying illegal immigrants who are ineligible for in-state tuition under a new law, the startup cost of the program was more than double that. The school estimates the annual cost of identifying such students will be equal if not greater than the savings...

for link to complete AP article, click the title of this post

Reduce tuition for Out-of-State students, but not for DREAMERS

In a move that shows the real intention of taking away "in-state tuition" from DREAMERS, a number of universities are reducing tuition from nearby states. DREAMERS cannot have in-state tuition because it is too hard on their state's budgets... but the university need students and reduce the costs for other non-resident students. Yes, you can tell me the other out-of-state students are Americans and they are legal - and that DREAMERS don't have rights because they are undocumented.

Remember, however, that DREAMERS are Americans - go to McDonald's as much as any other American kid that ignores nutrition information - sends text messages all the time - and basically drives his/her parents crazy - the normal role these days for adolescents in American society ( I can say this from personal experience, I had two of them).

The move to reduce out of state tuition for out of stater's is a sadistic decision - painful and unfair to DREAMERS.
-

----
By JONATHAN D. GLATER

Published: March 8, 2008

HAYWARD, Calif. — California State University, East Bay, has never had the cachet of nearby Berkeley. But it has a great location overlooking the San Francisco Bay and aspires to raise its profile and grow.

So starting this year it is trying something different to lure applicants: participating in a regional program resulting in lower tuition for students from Washington, Oregon, Montana and a dozen other Western states.

“With the changing world, a lot of these national borders or state borders, to what extent are they still relevant?” said East Bay’s president, Mohammad H. Qayoumi, brushing aside questions about whether a regional public campus supported by California taxpayers should be soliciting out-of-state students.

“You should not get into protectionism in this,” Mr. Qayoumi added, explaining his goal to create a university that is “really a microcosm of the world.”

Flagship public universities have long sought a national student body in their quest for the best students and a reputation for excellence. Public campuses in states with shrinking populations have also looked to out-of state students. But now more state universities appear to be doing so — and reducing the differential between in-state and out-of-state tuition to be more appealing.

In part, they are motivated by the desire to raise more money as state support for higher education has languished. Even at universities that are cutting their prices for out-of-state students, which can be triple tuition for state residents, nonresidents still generally pay 50 percent more.

Still, some see the trend as a worrisome shift in the mission of the public university.

“We should be watching it, particularly if it involves any diminishing opportunity to go to a state university for in-state students,” said Patrick M. Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education in San Jose, Calif.

Mr. Callan added that it might be difficult to tell when such crowding out had occurred, because an institution could simply raise admission standards. “It’s what all campuses will do, public or private, to raise revenue, raise prestige,” he said.

Some universities look just across the border for students. The University of Nebraska at Omaha will discount out-of-state tuition this fall to students from nearby Iowa counties. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga last year began allowing most college juniors and seniors from Alabama and Georgia to pay in-state tuition plus just 25 percent of the higher, nonresident rate, or $3,776.25 per semester instead of $7,512.

In several states, including Arkansas, Kentucky and Missouri, public universities have tried to attract nonresidents by charging them lower tuition if they meet minimum scores on tests like the SAT or ACT. Such tactics can help a college raise its academic standing.

In some states, cuts in tuition for out-of-state students have led to political battles. After the University of Wisconsin system in 2006 reduced out-of-state tuition by an average of nearly $2,000 at all its campuses except the Madison flagship — a move that followed years of tuition increases — the issue became a hot topic in the governor’s race. The debate still percolates.

“We should tip the scales toward home-grown resources, rather than cutting tuition for out-of-staters,” State Senator Ted Kanavas, a Republican, said in a telephone interview. “A student who may have grown up on a family farm who attends the University of Wisconsin and gets an advanced degree from the University of Wisconsin is more likely to stay here, more likely to build a company, more likely to build value for our state.”

College officials counter that a more diverse student body is a benefit and that nonresident students, because they still pay more than residents, actually subsidize home-state students.

“The tuition that a nonresident student pays not only covers the cost of that student’s education but it actually produces a profit, if you want to call it that,” said Mark Bradley, president of the Wisconsin system’s board of regents. “We’re able to use the profit that we make on the out-of-state students to have more state funds to educate more Wisconsin students.”

In the five years before the regents cut tuition, Mr. Bradley said, Wisconsin lost about 900 nonresident students, which cost the system $13 million a year in revenue...

Some reduced tuition arrangements have existed for years, either through bilateral arrangements between states or through regional compacts.

California, for example, has long belonged to the Western Undergraduate Exchange, in which 15 states participate. But recently more public college campuses, like Cal State East Bay, are participating. For the coming year, nonresident tuition at the university is $11,481 a year, while California residents pay $3,345, and students in the exchange program will pay $4,731...

for complete NYT article click the title of this post

ASU lets down its DREAMER students

----

AZ: After Just One Year, ASU Junked Its Scholarship Program For Illegal Immigrants. Sarah Fenske Wonders Who Will Step Up For Them Now
Phoenix New Times, February 14, 2008
By Sarah Fenske

Last year, when Proposition 300 went into effect and undocumented students were barred from getting in-state tuition rates at Arizona universities, Arizona State University did a brave thing: It enlisted private donors to do what taxpayers would not.

If students graduated from an Arizona high school but couldn't prove they were in this country legally, ASU awarded them a privately funded $12,000 grant called the "Sunburst Scholarship." The goal was to bridge the gap between in-state and out-of-state tuition - and keep a few hundred kids from dropping out of school.

Naturally, the plan drew fierce criticism from the usual suspects, not to mention threats of an audit from legislators who wanted to ensure that not one dime of taxpayer dough was going to Mexican-born kids.

Well, the legislators can stop worrying. Last week, ASU officials confirmed to me that they're discontinuing the scholarships.

The funding ran out, they said. Then they declined my request for specifics.

I suppose we should just be grateful that they did the right thing for a year. It cost an estimated $3 million to provide scholarships to 207 undocumented students, after all, and that doesn't factor in the blowback from the angry xenophobes who may have decided to take their bequests elsewhere.

In any normal universe, the Sunburst Scholarship would hardly be controversial. The students in question have done nothing wrong: Surely, Lou Dobbs wouldn't suggest that they should have defied Mom and Dad as 3-year-olds, or even third-graders, and vowed to stay in Mexico unless their parents obtained valid visas. (Well, okay, maybe Lou Dobbs would suggest that. Sigh.) In the loony anti-Mexican climate in Arizona today, though, the scholarships were truly an act of courage, and ASU President Michael Crow should be applauded for them.

But the demise of the Sunburst Scholarship raises real questions.

For one: When ASU realized the funding had run dry, why did it not contact leaders in the Hispanic community to come up with a transition plan? The activists I've talked to said they'd heard that the scholarships were being terminated only after getting calls from frightened students. Turns out the students learned they were being cut off in a letter from the school telling them to look for alternate financing for next fall. Clearly, this could have been handled with a bit more grace.

Here's another question: Just how hard did ASU work on getting donations for this scholarship? I haven't heard any direct requests for support. Granted, I'm not rich and not an ASU alum; I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving me off their fundraising list. But with an issue like this, you'd think a public plea would be in order - if nothing else, a story in the newspaper urging people to give. I can't find any evidence that ever happened. When we last heard about this issue, President Crow made it sound as though the matter was taken care of. ASU had found private funds. Period.

Which makes me wonder this.

Did ASU really run out of money? Or was it just easier not to raise it?

With legislators breathing hot air and an angry mob at the gate, it surely would be easier for ASU to cut 207 Mexican-born students adrift than to keep fighting.

"The fact that they're stopping these scholarships makes me feel like the pressure was greater than they could take," says Luis Avila, a local Latino activist and recent ASU grad.

I hope Avila is wrong about that. But I have to admit he may be on to something.

For seven years now, Congress has debated doing something about the students who come here, illegally, as little kids. Just about everybody agrees there should be a way for those kids to earn citizenship. Just about everybody agrees that society benefits if they're able to afford college.

The bipartisan plan to make it happen is called the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act. It's been discussed, it's been filibustered, and it was even slipped into the immigration reform bills of 2006 and 2007. It just can't seem to get approved.

So the kids are stuck in limbo. Born in Mexico but educated through high school in the United States, they're in No Man's Land.

These days in Arizona, their situation is even more tenuous. They can't get tuition breaks to go to any state-funded university, but they also can't get hired for any job without their employer's risking his business license. But they can't just pack up their bags for Mexico, either - for many of them, this country is all they know.

Congress has screwed these kids because of its inability to do something, and Arizona voters have done their best to twist the knife. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that ASU, despite a noble $3 million investment, is dropping the ball.

But as easy as it is to blame ASU, and blame the government, there's another side to this story. And it has to do with individual responsibility.

Conservatives like me have always argued that if the public sector were forced to shrink, the private sector would step up. Before Social Security, for example, people took in elderly relatives. Today, we complain instead about the poor quality of government-financed nursing homes.

Before the welfare state, if you knew someone who was out of work, you'd slip them some cash. Today, we think jealously about them sitting on the couch watching TV and collecting government checks while we slave away at the office.

We need to admit it: In Arizona, at least, the anti-immigration crew is winning, bigtime. Mexicans without the right papers can't hold jobs. They can't post bail. They can't get payouts from a lawsuit. They can't get the in-state tuition reduction.

And what are we in the private sector doing about it?

I grouse because ASU never bothered to ask for donations for undocumented students. But there's no reason I should have waited for an invitation; ASU President Michael Crow was quoted in the newspaper talking about the scholarship plan four months ago. I could have written my check then.

The good news is this: As lazy as I've been about kicking in money, it's not too late. Alfredo Gutierrez, the former state senator and political consultant, tells me that a plan is under way to channel donations through Chicanos Por La Causa. That nonprofit already has the staff in place to funnel money to students without taking a penny for overhead. They'll call it the "American Dream Fund."

"We want to get at least 100 Hispanic individuals to give $1,000 to the fund," Gutierrez says. "Step two will be talking to the corporate and philanthropic community."

Step three, I hope, will be enlisting the rest of us - those of us who don't have $1,000 but who are dismayed that voters denied a bunch of good kids the opportunity to pay for their education. It's time we stop grousing and start pulling out our checkbooks.

Gutierrez admits he wishes ASU would have given community leaders a little more warning. But that's in the past. Now, he says, it's time to step up.

"This really lit a fire under us," he says. "There's hundreds of these youngsters that we've got some obligation and responsibility to. This really triggered a lot of energy."

Now that ASU is out of the picture, the American Dream Fund is these students' last hope. I don't want to believe that we, too, are going to let them down.

from the NILC listserve

California in-state tuition for DREAMER's at risk?

Twist in tuition credit battle Legislator wants to end benefit for illegal immigrants, shift aid to National Guard vets

By Aurelio Rojas - arojas@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, February 10, 2008

A Republican lawmaker has introduced legislation that would provide members of the California National Guard with free tuition at state colleges and universities and save money at the time.

How? By repealing a law that allows illegal immigrants who meet certain conditions to pay subsidized in-state tuition, said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine.

Critics call DeVore's bill a cynical ploy. They say that by allowing students who attended a California high school for three years and received a diploma or equivalent to qualify for in-state tuition, the state is investing in its future.

But DeVore said California, which has 20,000 Guard members, is the only state in the nation that does not offer its members free college tuition.

DeVore estimates it would cost California, which is facing a $14.5 billion budget deficit, only about $3 million annually to do so.

That's far less, he noted, than the $117 million the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates in-state waivers, granted largely to illegal immigrants, cost California in 2005-06.

DeVore's bill – Assembly Bill 1758 – is scheduled to be heard March 4 in the Assembly Higher Education Committee. Although the legislation faces long odds in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, it will likely reignite a perennial debate in the Capitol.

"The argument we always hear is, 'Let's not punish these kids because their parents broke the law,' " DeVore said. "But the fact of the matter is that some people do come here to take advantage of benefits."

In recent years, the California Guard has been faced with retention and recruitment declines that DeVore blames on the state's lack of benefits.

His bill would provide a much-needed inducement for a group that's called on more than any Guard in the nation, he said.

DeVore said not only are members of the California Guard asked to provide assistance during floods, fires and earthquakes – they also put their lives on the line to quell riots and fight wars.

Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, agrees with DeVore's intent, but not his method.

"People who offer themselves for military service should be supported by the state of California," Cedillo said. "But we shouldn't hurt the state's future with divisive, political games."

Cedillo is once again carrying legislation that would allow illegal immigrants who are eligible for in-state tuition to apply for financial aid.

His legislation – which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has previously vetoed – builds on Assembly Bill 540, the 2001 measure by the late Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh that DeVore wants to repeal.

That law requires students to sign an affidavit stating they have applied to become legal residents or will do so if they become eligible.

But DeVore, who spent 24 years in the California National Guard and retired as a lieutenant colonel, said many of these students are still "subject to deportation at a moment's notice."

In the California State University system, out-of-state fees run about $10,000 more than in-state fees per year.

At the University of California, there is a $15,000 surcharge. At California's community colleges, in-state fees run about $78 per course, while out-of-state students pay $500.

"Is that really a good use of taxpayer money?" he asked.

Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, has previously sponsored unsuccessful legislation to grant tuition benefits to Guard members and plans to do so again this year.

"This is not as much a budget issue as a political issue," Correa said.

Democratic opponents of Correa last year argued the costs should be borne by the federal government, which largely funds the National Guard.

But Correa does not support DeVore's effort to repeal AB 540.

"Absolutely not," Correa said. "You know why? Jose Angel Garibay."

The U.S. Marine Corps lance corporal from Orange County was killed in 2003 while fighting in Iraq. Garibay, whose parents entered the country illegally, was granted citizenship posthumously.

Correa said other members of the military whose parents entered the country illegally have also "made the ultimate sacrifice."

The Legislature, he said, does not need to repeal AB 540 to provide tuition benefits for members of the California National Guard.

"The solution is to come up with a (financing) vehicle and move it through the legislative process as soon as possible," Correa said.

For full link, click on title of this post

Great News on the Minnesota Flat Rate Tuition Bill

A Dreamer sent me this today. It is amazing how Minnesota can move forward while so many other states (including Texas) are going the other direction.

-----

Youth Leadership

Victory with the Flat Rate Tuition Bill

For the past few years we-immigrants and allies-have been fighting for equal access to higher education for all students regardless of their immigration status. And during the last legislative session we made history! Although we still have to keep fighting for the MN Dream Act, we won a huge victory with the passage of the Flat-Rate Tuition Bill.

Undocumented students have won the right to attend 18 Minnesota colleges for in-state tuition.

for link to list of Minnesota colleges where in-state tuition is available click the title to this post

Previously posted on the Minnesota Immigrant Freedom Network
http://immigrantfreedomnetwork.wordpress.com/

Dreamers finding it hard with Arizona's new laws

January 27, 2008

Arizona Law Takes a Toll on Nonresident Students

New York Times

By JESSE McKINLEY

PHOENIX — When Marco Carrillo, a naturalized American and a high school valedictorian, went to meet with his college counselor, her major worry about his future had little to do with his SAT scores or essay or extracurricular activities.

It had to do with his citizenship.

“The very first question she asked me was whether I was a legal resident here,” said Mr. Carrillo, 20, now an electrical engineering student at Arizona State University in Tempe. “And I said, ‘Yeah, I am.’ And she said, ‘Oh good, that makes things easier.’ ”

Such questions have become commonplace in Arizona, where voters passed a 2006 referendum, Proposition 300, that forbids college students who cannot prove they are legal residents from receiving state financial assistance.

One of several recent immigration statutes passed by Arizona voters and legislators frustrated by federal inaction, the law also prohibits in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Administrators at several campuses fear that the provision has priced some out of their classes, particularly at the state’s popular community colleges.

“When we look at the fall semester that just ended, we saw significant drops in enrollment in English acquisition classes,” said Steven R. Helfgot, vice chancellor for student and community affairs at Maricopa Community Colleges. “And we think that some of that at least is due to Prop 300.”

A report to the Legislature in December found that about 1,700 students had been denied in-state tuition at the Maricopa colleges because they were not able to prove their legal status, though it was unclear how many had dropped out.

Officials at the University of Arizona in Tucson said that some of the 200 to 300 dropouts from last fall were also illegal immigrants. Pima Community College, estimated that as many as 1,000 students may have been affected by the law.

More than enrollment declines, however, what worries some educators here is that nonlegal residents — some of whom have lived in the United States since infancy and attended American high schools — will be afraid to pursue any form of higher education.

“The most frightening thing about the policy in place isn’t necessarily its measurable effect, it’s the immeasurable effect,” said Paul R. Kohn, the vice provost for enrollment management and dean of admission at the University of Arizona.

“It’s likely that there are hundreds of high school senior or college-age students whose plans for college have been compromised,” Dr. Kohn said. “And it’s likely there are thousands in K-12 who will no longer make those plans because the cost of university is now out of reach or they fear deportation if they attempt to attend school.”

The law does not forbid nonlegal residents from attending college or require colleges to report them to the authorities, something the colleges have worked hard to convey. Still, supporters said the law would save the state millions of dollars and provide a powerful disincentive to prospective border-jumpers.

“Arizona has been overwhelmed with illegal immigration and all the negative things that follow — crime, increased public service costs, especially education, and depression of our wages — and the federal government seems barely capable of doing much,” said State Representative John Kavanagh, a Republican from Fountain Hills, east of Phoenix. “Denying the in-state tuition, besides being fair to residents, also deters illegal immigrants from coming here.”

Arizona lawmakers have been increasingly active on the issue of immigration, moving National Guard troops to the border and passing a law that threatens businesses with the loss of licenses if they hire illegal immigrants.

The moves have disappointed many college-age Mexican-Americans.

“I see it as a very cruel law,” said Teresa Guerra, 26, a fourth-generation Mexican-American who is studying history at Phoenix College, a part of the Maricopa system. “A lot of people I’ve grown up with have gone through that whole thing. They’re raised in the American educational system, and now they have no future. These are people who have basically lived in America their whole lives, know nothing else, and now their shot at the American dream is gone.”

For students who cannot prove legal residency, the difference in cost can be stark. At Phoenix College, for example, a part of the Maricopa system, in-state tuition runs $65 a credit hour. For out-of-state students taking a full course load, the cost is $280.

The difference can be even more jarring at the state’s four-year institutions. Maria Elena Coronado, a student counselor at Arizona State, said out-of-state students could expect to pay $4,000 to $5,000 more a semester than those who proved legal residency.

“I had a girl come in yesterday, who doesn’t have papers, but did really well and carried good grades into college,” Ms. Coronado said. “But now she could only afford to take one class.”

Representative Kavanagh said the law’s intent was not to rob young, assimilated Mexicans of the opportunity to go to college, but merely to try to tame a problem Washington had not solved.

“I would be more than happy to take care of those kids who came here at a young age — they are as American as my kids and would be totally lost if they were deported,” he said, challenging Democrats in Arizona to draft a bill that “doesn’t have amnesty attached to it.”

Mr. Carrillo, the Arizona State student, said he knew of several nonlegal residents considering returning to Mexico for college.

“It’s expensive going to school in Mexico over there because there’s no such thing as financial aid,” he said. “You pretty much have to scrape it. But at least you’re not worried that you’re going to get deported.”

Who Says In-State Tuition For DREAMERS Is Wasted: How About Paying Al Gonzalez $40K to Give a Speech?

Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez - a great role model for university students.


One of the complaints that comes up constantly when people argue about immigration is that in-state tuition for undocumented students is not fair to citizens or legal residents - That it is depriving U.S. citizens of money for their education. Besides the fact that education should be available to everyone (if we want to keep this country functioning) - the complaints about where the money is going need to be focused on other expenses that are indeed frivolous - like the University of Florida paying former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez $40,000 for a speaking engagement.

By the way, Florida does not have in-state tuition for DREAM ACT students.

-----

Former AG Gonzales Speaks at U. of Fla.
By RON WORD
The Associated Press
Washington Post
Tuesday, November 20, 2007; 12:40 AM

GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endured screams of "criminal" and "liar" during a speech at the University of Florida on Monday evening.

About 730 students and community members listened to Gonzales defend his career as White House counsel and head of the Justice Department. He also spoke about immigration and terrorism.

"No one is perfect. What is important is that we identify our mistakes and correct them," he said.

...Gonzales' appearance was the first by a high-profile speaker at the university since a student was Tasered on Sept. 17 at a speech by Sen. John Kerry. An investigation found that campus police acted appropriately, and charges were dropped against the student.

"[University [of Florida] officials said it was Gonzales' first appearance at a university since he left office in late August. He was paid $40,000 for his speech..."

for complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112000052.html

cartoon: http://www.ajc.com/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/luckovich.gif

The Small Print in the DREAM ACT

At the end of NILC's announcement that the DREAM ACT may come up on 10 24 2007, there is a statement about in-state tuition:
---
"The most important differences from the earlier version are that S. 2205 would not apply to individuals who, on the date of enactment, are over 30 years old, and it would not delete a provision of federal law that places conditions on states that provide in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants. "
---

What this means in plain language is that the DREAM ACT cut off is 30 years of age.

AND

that this bill will NOT force individual states to provide in-state tuition for undocumented students... if a student is not in one of the 10 states that has in-state tuition, then the options are to pay international tuition rates (more than 4 times) OR enlist in the military.

As I have written numerous times, I think the bill will pass because the military desperately needs thousands of recruits. But the bottom line is that unless the IRAQ War stops tomorrow, many DREAM ACT kids will die so that a few can get their degrees and work as professionals. This is not a good ending to the story, but right now it is the only ending.

Who Will Lose an Election Due to the Immigration Debate?

This article almost looks like a threat. Gubenatorial candidate Osborne in Nebraska lost the primary because he supported in-state tuition for undocumented students? It this really what is at the "forefrunt of Nebraskans' minds?"

Personally I don't think the loss was caused by Osborne's immigration stance. It had to be a much more complex situation.

The minority who are against immigration are cursing and insulting on the blogs and newspaper commentaries scream very loudly. Seems like our lawmakers think they have to listen.

Seems to me that a much higher percentage are just silent on the subject...which is even more unfortunate.
-----
llegal immigration could be firecracker for Senate candidates
By ANNA JO BRATTON
Beatrice Daily Sun
Sunday, October 21, 2007 3:41 PM CDT
AP

GRAND ISLAND, Neb. - After watching Nebraska icon Tom Osborne get scorched in the GOP gubernatorial primary last year, candidates are choosing their words carefully when it comes to illegal immigration.

"There's no question, this is an issue at the forefront of Nebraskans' minds," said Republican Jon Bruning, the state attorney general, who has declared his U.S. Senate intentions.

The wrong position "can drag a politician down real quick," said John Rolfsmeyer, 56, a Democratic voter from Ravenna.

Osborne learned that the hard way when Gov. Dave Heineman stunned the state by beating Osborne and winning the primary.

Many voters said they chose Heineman over Osborne, a sitting U.S. representative and wildly popular former Nebraska football coach, because Osborne supported a bill in the Legislature to give in-state tuition to children who don't have legal status.




from Huffington Post - http://www.beatricedailysun.com/articles/2007/10/20/ap-state-ne/d8sdq1h00.txt

Debicella y Negatividad Sobre Estudiantes Inmigrantes Indocumentados

As I was looking at some articles on ICE Raids in New England, I found this one in Spanish - about how Dan Dubicella blocked in-state tuition for undocumented students. This article is several months old, but well worth reading..


____


Maniobra del senador Dan Debicella bloquearía proyecto de educación para inmigrantes indocumentados
El Canillita Newspaper

Hartford, CT - Una maniobra republicana ejecutada el pasado lunes 12 de marzo antes de que se reuniera el Comité de Educación Superior podría haber bloqueado cualquier posibilidad para que los inmigrantes indocumentados reciban los descuentos que Connecticut otorga a los residentes legales para educación superior en las universidades estatales.

De acuerdo a algunos testimonios, durante el pasado lunes, el senador estatal republicano Dan Debicella, habló en repetidas ocasiones durante más de 5 horas con el propósito de retardar el desarrollo de la agenda de la legislación que tenía para ese día como último punto la votación que definiría el futuro de la propuesta que haría posible el acceso de una educación universitaria para los inmigrantes indocumentados a un menor costo.

Al parecer, Debicella en complicidad con el resto de los 8 miembros republicanos que hacen parte del Comité de Educación Superior, habrían planeado retardar el desarrollo normal de la agenda para ese día con el objetivo de agotar el tiempo y dejar por fuera la votación de el proyecto, como al final sucedió.

De esta manera, la suerte de una propuesta de gran importancia para la capacitación y por lo tanto el porvenir y el desarrollo de la comunidad inmigrante, tiene en este momento un destino completamente incierto, que al parecer y según expertos en el tema de legislación, podría hacerla desaparecer de la agenda por lo menos en un futuro cercano.

De acuerdo a las declaraciones de los asistentes en el recinto al finalizar la tarde del lunes, Debicella declaró abiertamente su satisfacción por haber conseguido “impedir” que se votara la iniciativa, pues según él, conoce los intereses y la opinión de la mayoría del pueblo que representa y esta prevalece sobre las de las minorías y agregó que estaba en contra de esta propuesta por que en caso de aprobarla, se estaría aceptando a los indocumentados como ciudadanos legales.

Desde el mismo lunes pasado, un grupo de ciudadanos inconformes con los hechos sucedidos durante ese día en la Asamblea General y por sobre todo, con la actitud demostrada por el senador Debicella está planeando hacer una manifestación frente a la casa del senador en Shelton en horas de la tarde del próximo domingo 18 de marzo, con el propósito según ellos, de detener este tipo de ataques que afectan a la comunidad inmigrante.


for link to article click title to this post

Details of the DREAM ACT - Part III

No In-State Tuition in list below:


Undocumented students in the following states, you cannot obtain in-state tuition. Now that in-state tuition has been taken out of the DREAM ACT, the states themselves have to decide if they will offer this.


Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee

Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

New Mexico & Colorado Work Together on In-State Tuition

NM: 9 Immigrants Are Paying In-State Tuition at UNM
Albuquerque Journal, September 27, 2007
By Martin Salazar

The University of New Mexico has determined that the number of undocumented immigrants from Colorado attending this fall and paying in-state tuition is nine.

The students are attending UNM through a reciprocal agreement with Colorado. The agreement allows 100 Colorado students a year to pay New Mexico in-state tuition, and vice versa.

UNM spokeswoman Karen Wentworth said she doesn't think any of the Colorado students is receiving a UNM scholarship. She said a couple of undocumented students received competitive academic scholarships last year.

The issue arose in July after The Associated Press reported that an unknown number of undocumented students from Poudre High School in Fort Collins would attend UNM and pay in-state tuition.

A new Colorado law prohibits state colleges there from providing in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants, even if they graduated from a Colorado high school.

That isn't the case in New Mexico. A 2005 state law prohibits educational institutions from discriminating against undocumented students.

That law makes undocumented students in New Mexico eligible for instate tuition rates and state financial aid if they attended a secondary school in New Mexico for at least one year, graduated from a New Mexico high school or received a general education development certificate in the state.

The DREAM ACT and Sofie's Choice

"conditional residency status" does not automatically mean in-state tuition. That option was negotiated out of the senate bill.

----

In the film "Sofie's Choice" a young mother is forced to decide which of her two children will live and which wil die. She and the children have arrived at Auschwitz. A sadistic German officer forces her to make a decision. Ultimately it is her daughter that dies and her son that lives. The guilt destroys her life. She survives the death camp and immigrates to the United States, but the guilt overtakes her.

The current state of the DREAM ACT has a strong semblance to Sophie's Choice. U.S. Senators have decided who will live and who will die. I mean this literally. The DREAM ACT students who have already completed their 2 years of college (and other requirements like no criminal record etc) will not only live, but will flourish with their new residency status, their education and their tremendous drive. The undocumented youth who have not completed the education requirement may have no other choice than to join the military. The only chance they have is if they live in a state that already has in-state tuition for undocumented students - then they can continue their schooling. If they reside in one of the other 40 states they will have to come up with thousands of dollars to pay international student rates. Remember that undocumented students rarely qualify for financial aide.

To regularize they join the Army, or the Marines, or another branch of the military. Since the U.S. Congress has not made any kind of committment regarding our withdraw of American troops, it is likely these young recruits will be sent to Iraq. We all know the consequences of that assignment. Military deaths in Iraq and Afganistan do not match the Vietnam War, but if you include injuries causing disabilities, the numbers are the same.

it is important for me to clarify that I'm not totally against the military. What I do not agree with is thousands of soldiers being sent to a conflict that should have been ended long ago. Otherwise, the military is great for most young people. By enlisting they mature, leave their home region, meet people from all over, and then take with them benefits that will help them continue their education.

So its one for the other. I'm sure the DREAM ACT is seriously being considered now because of the military option. Otherwise it would have passed a long time ago. When Durbin took out the in-state tuition clause he and his colleagues decided to greatly reduce the accessibility of the education option in order to get the bill passed.

The consequences are this:

in one family there are two DREAM ACT students. One that just completed college and one finishing high school. The college graduate will automatically qualify. The high school student faces dismal prospects if the state in which he lives does not have in-state tuition.

He may have "conditional residency status" - but this will not automatically allow him in-state tuition. He will not qualify for in-state tuition in the other 40 states until he obtains his "permanent residency."

What does he do now if he can't afford international student tuition rates?