2008 Woodie Awards
Massachusetts Immigrant Students Seek Equal Access to Higher Education
Abraham Wise
Issue date: 11/10/05 Section: Opinion
Even as federal immigration reform is heating up on the national political stage, the state of Massachusetts is debating its own laws regarding immigrants. This month, the Massachusetts House of Representatives is considering an "in-state tuition" bill, which is similar to bills passed in ten other states. In Massachusetts, immigrant students without permanent legal status must pay out-of-state tuition to attend state colleges and universities even if they have attended Massachusetts schools since kindergarten. Because of the high cost of out-of-state tuition, hundreds of bright, qualified immigrant students who have earned the right to higher education must forego college every year. The "In-State Tuition" bill would allow these students to pay the same in-state tuition rates as their peers. In order to qualify for in-state tuition, students must have attended a Massachusetts high school for three years, have graduated or received the equivalent of a diploma, and must sign an affidavit stating that they will file an application to become a legal permanent resident as soon as they are eligible
In its 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that immigrant children cannot be denied access to public K-12 education on the basis of their undocumented immigration status. While acknowledging that undocumented status "is not irrelevant" to legislative goals, the Court emphasized that children should not be punished for decisions made by their parents, and that denying an education to undocumented immigrant children undermines our nation's interest in ensuring a literate and educated populace. These ideals should continue to inform our decisions at the intersection of immigration and education. A look at the goals of the current legislation shows that the in-state tuition bill will: 1) benefit the state of Massachusetts as a whole, and 2) offer greater educational equality for youth in this state.
1) Offering in-state tuition benefits to all high-school graduates is a beneficial choice for citizens of Massachusetts because it is a sound investment in the state's future. By the time these students graduate from high school the state has already expended significant resources on their education. If a student is sufficiently motivated to seek a college degree, then they clearly have a lot to offer the state of Massachusetts. In denying their dream to go to college with their classmates, the current law forces such non-resident students into alternative paths that are likely to be much less beneficial to society.
In its 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that immigrant children cannot be denied access to public K-12 education on the basis of their undocumented immigration status. While acknowledging that undocumented status "is not irrelevant" to legislative goals, the Court emphasized that children should not be punished for decisions made by their parents, and that denying an education to undocumented immigrant children undermines our nation's interest in ensuring a literate and educated populace. These ideals should continue to inform our decisions at the intersection of immigration and education. A look at the goals of the current legislation shows that the in-state tuition bill will: 1) benefit the state of Massachusetts as a whole, and 2) offer greater educational equality for youth in this state.
1) Offering in-state tuition benefits to all high-school graduates is a beneficial choice for citizens of Massachusetts because it is a sound investment in the state's future. By the time these students graduate from high school the state has already expended significant resources on their education. If a student is sufficiently motivated to seek a college degree, then they clearly have a lot to offer the state of Massachusetts. In denying their dream to go to college with their classmates, the current law forces such non-resident students into alternative paths that are likely to be much less beneficial to society.