Just read the article and look at how it uses the word "American" all over. It's poor reporting. No government agency would write policy that distinguishes between American and illegals. That doesn't even make sense, as there are many people here legally who live, work, pay taxes, and study here who aren't "American"

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:

I disagree with your interpretation.

I'm reading it as a cap on out of state students. Period, and nothing else.

The author's premise is that by limiting out of state students, it opens up more seats for California residents. California doesn't track the legal status of it's students. Therefore, the author supposes that some number of those seats given to California residents will be given to illegals.

It's trying to paint a picture that isn't there. Yes, the UC system is fucked up in many ways, but enforcing a rule to keep seats open for California residents doesn't mean they are favoring illegals over citizens. They don't even ask for legal status last I checked.

From the Daily Caller's report:

“The nonresident undergraduate enrollment percentages in the recently approved policy do not pertain to undocumented students,” The College Fix was informed by spokeswoman Claire Dian.

She made it even clearer when asked again: “The caps do not apply to undocumented students.”

I guess there are two ways to interpret this....first, you could simply say that they are considering undocumented students who qualify as California residents under state law as California residents.

Or you could interpret it to mean that once the 18% cap on OOS enrollment is hit, a kid from NY who indicates he is an American will not be considered while a kid from NY who writes an essay about his struggles as an undocumented kid in America still has the possibility of admission.

I don't know which is the correct interpretation at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:....

When they accept an out of state student, they clearly upcharge. Thus, there's a strong incentive for the school to accept out of state students.

But that's bad, because it takes up seats from California residents who have subsidized the schools through taxes over a period of many years.

So the rule is simply a cap on out of state residents. That's it.

Now, the school can fill up the seats with California residents. Whether they can pay for it, whether they are legal or not, is another subject altogether, but that discussion exceeds the premise of this rule, and the poor reporting of the article.

I understand, your reasoning and clarification seems accurate. The bottom line is that if the state accepts an illegal who may well pay nothing, vs an out of stater who pays $38K, the taxpayers are not better off with the illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
The article overstates the facts a bit.

The university policy is to limit out-of-state students. That's fair. The UC system is subsidized by California residents, and there should be a limit of out of state residents it enrolls. Enrolling out of state students beefs up the school's coffers, but doesn't result in any refund into the state's budget. So, the state says: stop double dipping in the tuition money, use the money we're already giving you to enroll California residents, or we're reducing your budget.

That's all fair.

The issue that's being over-stated is that so long as you are a California resident, you get the California tuition rate. Many California residents are illegal.

So, the article extrapolates (unfairly, in my opinion) a move to protect California residents from having their money spent to subsidize out of state students (illegal or not), into a move to favor illegal immigrants.

I think you are reading it incorrectly. Many state schools cap out-of-state enrollment, and that is perfectly fine and reasonable. But California is going a step further -maybe not be design but by effect. As I understand it, they are declining to apply the caps to illegal immigrants. The result is that once the cap is reached on out of state enrollment, out of state residents who are US citizens are categorically denied admissions while illegal aliens from other states still have a chance to be considered for admissions. That is blatant discrimination based on national origin which violates the US Constitution.

I disagree with your interpretation.

I'm reading it as a cap on out of state students. Period, and nothing else.

The author's premise is that by limiting out of state students, it opens up more seats for California residents. California doesn't track the legal status of it's students. Therefore, the author supposes that some number of those seats given to California residents will be given to illegals.

It's trying to paint a picture that isn't there. Yes, the UC system is fucked up in many ways, but enforcing a rule to keep seats open for California residents doesn't mean they are favoring illegals over citizens. They don't even ask for legal status last I checked.

I think the article tries to make the overall point that American citizens should take priority over illegals across the board. I understand the California Bill that essentially makes California illegals "residents", but that is only reflecting that California viewpoint. Much of the rest of the country (including the Education Action Group, apparently) doesn't agree with this view and would rather see "Americans" get more of the slots in the UC system, whether they be in state or out of state. The article fairly asks why illegals can't be counted as out of state. Maybe a better question is, again referring to the article, why is the number of illegals in the system not known? Maybe this shouldn't be the case and maybe there should be a cap on the number of illegals thus allowing American citizens the vast majority of the openings. Seems fair to this American citizen, but then again I'm not steeped in the nebulous world of California math, philosophy and policy.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
I guess there are two ways to interpret this....first, you could simply say that they are considering undocumented students who qualify as California residents under state law as California residents.

Or you could interpret it to mean that once the 18% cap on OOS enrollment is hit, a kid from NY who indicates he is an American will not be considered while a kid from NY who writes an essay about his struggles as an undocumented kid in America still has the possibility of admission.

I don't know which is the correct interpretation at this point.

You'd really have to be looking at it sideways and squinting pretty hard to read it the second way

If you just read it literally, the cap applies to anyone who isn't a resident of California.

Why would you even think that an illegal alien from out of state would be treated any differently than a legal resident from out of state?

The reason the UC System does not know how many illegal immigrants are enrolled is because the UC system does not ask about one's immigration status on the application.

Therefore, it's unlikely the university has a procedure in place that caps out of state residents, but allows out of state illegals. They wouldn't have any application data to distinguish between the two.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
The article overstates the facts a bit.

The university policy is to limit out-of-state students. That's fair. The UC system is subsidized by California residents, and there should be a limit of out of state residents it enrolls. Enrolling out of state students beefs up the school's coffers, but doesn't result in any refund into the state's budget. So, the state says: stop double dipping in the tuition money, use the money we're already giving you to enroll California residents, or we're reducing your budget.

That's all fair.

The issue that's being over-stated is that so long as you are a California resident, you get the California tuition rate. Many California residents are illegal.

So, the article extrapolates (unfairly, in my opinion) a move to protect California residents from having their money spent to subsidize out of state students (illegal or not), into a move to favor illegal immigrants.

I think you are reading it incorrectly. Many state schools cap out-of-state enrollment, and that is perfectly fine and reasonable. But California is going a step further -maybe not be design but by effect. As I understand it, they are declining to apply the caps to illegal immigrants. The result is that once the cap is reached on out of state enrollment, out of state residents who are US citizens are categorically denied admissions while illegal aliens from other states still have a chance to be considered for admissions. That is blatant discrimination based on national origin which violates the US Constitution.

I disagree with your interpretation.

I'm reading it as a cap on out of state students. Period, and nothing else.

The author's premise is that by limiting out of state students, it opens up more seats for California residents. California doesn't track the legal status of it's students. Therefore, the author supposes that some number of those seats given to California residents will be given to illegals.

It's trying to paint a picture that isn't there. Yes, the UC system is fucked up in many ways, but enforcing a rule to keep seats open for California residents doesn't mean they are favoring illegals over citizens. They don't even ask for legal status last I checked.

By not tracking US citizen applicants, they can (barely) state that they don't know the demographic mix of the student population: it's a case of eyes wide shut, or plausible deniability. If you show residency in the state, you get in-state treatment. If you are in the state illegally, they would not know that (choose not to know) hence the effect of subsidizing some percentage of non citizens.

I guess the answer would be to come into the state and claim residency in a tent city and apply for subsidies.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:....

When they accept an out of state student, they clearly upcharge. Thus, there's a strong incentive for the school to accept out of state students.

But that's bad, because it takes up seats from California residents who have subsidized the schools through taxes over a period of many years.

So the rule is simply a cap on out of state residents. That's it.

Now, the school can fill up the seats with California residents. Whether they can pay for it, whether they are legal or not, is another subject altogether, but that discussion exceeds the premise of this rule, and the poor reporting of the article.

I understand, your reasoning and clarification seems accurate. The bottom line is that if the state accepts an illegal who may well pays nothing, vs an out of stater who pays $38K, the taxpayers are not better off with the illegal.

A slight fix to reflect reality in most all cases. But that's only the tip of the iceberg. It has been proven time and time again that illegals consume far more in services than they generate in taxes, so that illegal 'kid' has already generated a huge loss for California before they ever get to college. and I'd love to see the percentage of these illegal college scholars that end up in medium to high paying private industry jobs. Twenty bucks says the percentage is really low.

So knowing all this, and also knowing the California university system is apparently facing funding challenges, the smart approach would be to admit the best and brightest 'Americans' that applied. But Cali is just too progressive and evolved to exercise such common sense. Reason 1,861 why the state is circling the bowl.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bigdeal,

[quote]By not tracking US citizen applicants, they can (barely) state that they don't know the demographic mix of the student population: it's a case of eyes wide shut, or plausible deniability. If you show residency in the state, you get in-state treatment. If you are in the state illegally, they would not know that (choose not to know) hence the effect of subsidizing some percentage of non citizens.



Exactly. It's a sham designed to give illegals a level of legitimacy so they can be "entitled" to rights and privileges of full citizens. Any claim of "unknown numbers" is merely a purposeful smokescreen to mask steps toward amnesty for these illegals.