Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Law Helps Few: Its Repeal Would Hurt Few

The House Education Committee is scheduled to meet on Friday 8:00AM to discuss HB0224, Repeal of Exemptions from Nonresident Tuition (G. Donnelson).

I've heard arguments that there are too few illegals in school to cause a financial strain on the government, and that changing the law would be cruel to those few people using the law.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that removing a flawed law, that hurts so few is a good thing.


Allie said...

Why is it a flawed law?

I made this comment on Education in Utah already, but when my husband moved to Utah with me, and applied for in-state tuition, he was never asked for any documents proving he was a citizen of the US.

To meet the requirements, students have to have lived in Utah for three years and have graduated from a Utah high school.

It seems like there shouldn't have to be a law. If a student meets the residency requirement, it shouldn't matter what their immigration status is.

Tyler Farrer said...


People think it sends the wrong message.

Besides, the people I've heard make the argument that it would be heartless to punish the few illegals agree that the law may be flawed.

They just don't think it warrants changing.

Let me say it this way. Currently, under U.S. Laws, an illegal immigrant is not a criminal, unless they go on to commit a criminal act. Attending a school while paying in-state tuition is also not a criminal act.

On the other side, denying in-state tuition is not a punishment for a crime. It is a standard which a majority of Utahn's probably want.

Enough people want the law changed, and opponents haven't offered a valid reason not to change it.

I would say that's a good reason to change the law.

Tyler Farrer said...


To respond you your request here, I'll try to explain why the law, as it is right now, is flawed.

People don't like to have a law on the books that appears to encourage illegal immigration--or, at least rewards illegal immigrants.

That's it. And, because it can't be shown to be harmful to a large group to modify the law. Because it can be justified, and closes a loophole in the law, let us act on it.

Allie said...

I still don't think that there ought to even be a law. If my Mr. wasn't asked for proof of citizenship to get in-state tuition, no one else should be

For that matter, I myself was never asked to prove anything related to residency when I went to college. I had my high school transcript, which showed that I had attended a Utah high school for the past three years, that high school transcript automatically gave me in-state tuition.

Why are we asking more of anyone else?

Tyler Farrer said...

I see.

However, it isn't really relevant whether we were asked for ID before. If the law changes, and ID is the way we need to prove we meet the requirement, then that will happen.