As I understand it the issue is that in-state residents pay a lower, state-subsidized tuition for state schools.
What this means is that as a US citizen and New Jersey resident, if I drive my kid down to Virginia to go to a state school I will pay a higher tuition than if we were both llegal citizens of Mexico and I had snuck her in to the country. As an illegal alien I would have the taxpayers of Virginia subsidizing my child’s education, but as a NJ resident I’m S.O.L.
Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
That means NJ rates lower than Mexico, right?
I say they should get in-state tuition IF they first pay the per pupil state avg cost times the number of years they were enrolled illegally in K-12.
Pretty unsatisfying analysis to me - Virginia is free to extend in-state tuition to Virginia residents however it likes.
The subset of Va. illegal immigrants who pay income taxes, and who necessarily pay property taxes (either directly or via rent) and sales taxes, are more entitled to in-state tuition than a New Jersey resident would be.
People who have entered the united states illegally could still meet other statutorily-defined residence requirements for in-state tuition.
State’s policy regarding immigrants can differ from federal rules for student loans, etc. Recall that most of AZ’s SB 1070 was found constitutional.
You don’t get a different result here just because you don’t like the policy at issue. We rely on federalism to sort these things out. If VA’s policy is bad for VA it will suffer and push productive people elsewhere.