This week, the Arizona Supreme Court decided that Arizona-resident DACA students
no longer have in-state/in-district tuition status for colleges and universities. In their decision, the court agreed that DACA students have been granted "lawful status" by the federal government, but not "legal status" for state law to qualify for state resident rates. In other words, though these students live in the state, apparently the court does not see them legal but illegal. Wrap your head that one around for a while.
This decision affects over 2,000 students in Arizona and, without appeal to circuit court, these thousands of students will see immediate tuition increases or simply withdraw from college. The out-of-state rate will
triple the tuition for these students, and of course, many cannot afford that tuition. For example, in-state students at Arizona State University will pay $9,834 for tuition next school year, while non-resident students pay $27,618.
This court decision is exactly why the federal DREAM Act is needed (and the Congress has no interest --
neither Republicans nor Democrats have the willpower to make this happen). The original federal DREAM Act was proposed in 2001, and nearly two decades later, the nation has failed these hundreds of thousands of young people. Because of this state's decision, thousands over another generation will not be able to afford higher education, promising more poverty in the state for another generation. We should notice that the Arizona Board of Regents Chair Bill Ridenour
had been supportive of DACA students
and stated:
"The board continues to hope that soon, a congressional enactment will establish the lawful status and presence of those who were brought to this country unlawfully as children and have remained here as law-abiding members of our communities," Ridenour said.
 |
| Source: Wikimedia Commons |
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich's response was merely that this was "his job," arguing that all along that colleges and universities were violating state and federal laws by granting in-state tuition to DACA recipients. “It’s about time someone held them accountable, and that’s my job. My role as AG is to make sure you’re following the law,” he said. As we
argue elsewhere, this kind of response that mimics others' excuses for their own impotence endangers all justice.
The Arizona AG's response -- "That's my job" -- is parallels to Texas Attorney General Paxton, who has lead the charge to sue the federal government to cancel all DACA protection of youth: “Indeed, if the injunction is maintained through June 2018, amici States will be forced to consider filing a lawsuit challenging the original 2012 memorandum creating DACA,”
said Paxton in January 2018.
Why Arizona Predicts Texas's Threats to Undocumented Students
We need to appreciate that, though the federal government has continuously failed to do what functional governments should, the State of Texas was the first state with a DREAM Act, in 2001. In 2001, a Republican-majority House of Representatives and Republican-majority Senate passed
HB 1403 to qualify migrants -- including some undocumented -- as residents of Texas for purposes of tuition at the rate provided to residents of this state ... and was signed by Republican Governor Rick Perry. In 2001, the people of Texas had the moral motivation to both recognize the economic and social capital of state residents, regardless of their national document status. This Texas DREAM Act has permitted tens of thousands of students who live in the state to attend the state's colleges and universities with the economic privilege of residency. This is sensible, since undocumented families pay taxes in Texas and should have the advantage of those taxes. Specifically, the current Texas DREAM Act allows in-state tuition for students who have lived in Texas for three years and either have obtained a GED or graduated from the state's public or accredited private schools. Before this act, Texas colleges treated undocumented students as international, requiring them to pay international tuition, even though most had lived in Texas for most of their lives, paying Texas taxes.
Now, if Texas AG Paxton follows Arizona's lead to further attack our undocumented students, again tens of thousands of future college students will not afford tuition.
For example, the following table demonstrates the gross disparity of in-district tuition vs international tuition.
| Credit Hours | In-District | International |
| 1 | $96 | $252 |
| 2 | $160 | $360 |
| 3 | $224 | $524 |
| 4 | $288 | $688 |
| 5 | $352 | $852 |
| 6 | $416 | $1,016 |
| 7 | $480 | $1,180 |
| 8 | $544 | $1,344 |
| 9 | $608 | $1,508 |
| 10 | $672 | $1,672 |
| 11 | $736 | $1,836 |
| 12 | $800 | $2,000 |
See Lone Star College.
In future blog posts, we will address real problems of working- and poverty-class students, how their poverty affects college success, and both college support and college failures to support our community members.
For now, we need to reach out to our current legislators and start a very aggressive campaign to a) oppose the Abbott-Patrick-Paxton axis attack against our students, and b) demand stronger legislation to expand protection of our undocumented students. This is a core value of the college and -- importantly -- must be a core value for the union.
