It's not about the Federal meddling in a tuition law. One of the key places where there should be unanimity of policy in the country should be about what benefits are reserved for citizens and lawfully present aliens.
Unfortunately, we now have an Administration in Washington which wants a unanimity of policy resulting in open borders and benefits. Ideally, the Federal government would act in the interests of its existing citizens by having a sane border control and immigration policy. In the absence of that, the states go their way in all sorts of different ways, from sanctuary cities to in-state tuition programs for illegal aliens to Sheriff Joe Arpaio's round-em-up policies.
So, I was stating what the policy should be on in-state/out of state tuition in my ideal world. If states can redefine the benefits of citizenship as they wish, we're going to get all sorts of crazy things happening--as we are.
Generally, my policy is that he who pays for it decides how it is spent. So, I'd ordinarily be against Federal meddling if the State made the expense. But, treatment of illegals should be uniform across the oountry in my opinion, so this is a place where Federal input is appropriate (if it is sane, and it hasn't been).
Federal or state shouldn’t have their fingers in education at all. They should not be in the education business. They should not be providing loans, they should not have any say in what colleges and schools charge or who they choose to educate.
That changes the instate tuition rate discussion doesn’t it?
If you believe in government schools, you’re just a RINO who is not pure enough to be president. (Kidding just to get a point made)
In our past it used to be against the law to teach slaves to read. This was a law passed by South Carolina 270 years ago. Was this the right or wrong thing for the state to do?