Did you just change the "problem" from instate tuition for invaders, to invaders crossing federally unenforced borders?
Of course, I believe the latter is substantial and significant, rising to the level of a failure of a Constitutional duty by the Executive branch.
By its definition, the hardship caused by that failure has no place in an argument that tries to justify instate tuition for the invaders; i.e., it isn't relevant.
There are a good number of states where students get in state tuition, and this attack on Perry is wildly overblown. These are people who already went through three years minimum of taxpayer funded high school. Kids of people who come here illegally are different than the adults who made the decision to come here. I see merits on both sides of this issue. If a kid comes here with their parents illegally, gets a high school degree, want to get higher education paying tuition and seeking citizenship, that is not the worst thing in the world. Better than just sucking off the welfare state. I can definitely argue against the instate tuition, but this policy has the 3 year rule which is the same as the requirements for a student coming from another state. No special privledges as other candidates are claiming. Only about 25000 participate, so it is a small percentage of the overall illegal population. These individuals seem to have ambition and desire to live here legally, so lumping these 18 years olds in with welfare leaches just taking from the system is not accurate, IMO