However, there is a slim possibility that some good will emerge from the ongoing political battles in the many states that are considering some version of the "Dream Act" that Texas implemented over a decade ago.
Here is why I say that.
Leaving aside the emotional, racially-tinged question of illegals getting a free ride through public schools (as if that's something everyone wants -- NOT!), let's look at the logic of having two or more tuition schedules at state-supported institutions of higher learning.
Is it because it costs, say, Kansas State more money to teach underachieving students from Oklahoma or Arkansas or Texas, and it's only right that these dummies should be paying more for the remedial education that's needed?
Of course not. IF you don't qualify for admission, you don't qualify, period. No matter where your live.
Well, then how do state colleges and universities justify charging double or triple tuition rates for qualified students from another state?
I believe the answer is politics: it looks good to be giving a break to residents (and presumably taxpayers) of the state from which the college derives much of its funding. That break can be substantial--over $50,000 by graduation time, and much more if the student continues on for an advanced degree.
At one time, before Americans were as mobile and usually settled in the same state and even the same town as their parents, kids would go to a state university, get their sheepskin (literally!) and go home to find a job or set up a professional practice. It made sense to subsidize their education if you bought the line that having more college-educated, native-born residents was a "public good" that makes everyone better off.
But times have changed. College graduates are no longer limited to starting their careers in the city where they grew up. They can be recruited for jobs anywhere in the country, indeed anywhere in the world. And many (especially in these difficult times) would prefer to go where the jobs are, even if it takes them away from family. (An aside: there's no such thing as long distance phone calls when you have a cellular phone! Those calls used to be a major expense for kids living some distance from their parents, even those in the same state. I speak from experience.)
So if the concept of in-state tuition is outmoded, which I believe it is, why all the fuss about legal vs. illegal, American citizens vs. foreign-born, Texan vs. Ohioan?
Set the tuition to what it costs and let's be done with it. Quit trying to social-engineer who goes to college and who doesn't based on where they live. Let test scores and the admissions office sort out the slackers and I suspect the result will be better for all concerned.
Oh, and eliminate "affirmative action" in admissions. But that's another subject.
If the Texas in-state tuition is lower than California's (and other expensive states') in state rate, I would expect an increase in applications from those states to Texas schools, and a big budget problem.
I also do not believe that illegal aliens should be attending colleges here at all, unless they have some extraordindary abilities, but that's a different debate.