"Instead, California is one of only 10 states that provides in-state college and university tuition to illegal immigrants. That's grossly unfair to a legal high school student who moves out of California for a year, then returns to attend college"
About this Quote
Elton Gallegly, a longtime Republican congressman from California, draws on a fairness argument that has shaped immigration debates for decades. He contrasts undocumented students receiving in-state tuition with a citizen who leaves California for a year and then faces higher nonresident rates. The rhetorical force lies in the juxtaposition of legal status and perceived reward, implying a perverse incentive structure that favors those who broke the rules over those who followed them.
The policy he attacks stems from California’s AB 540, enacted in 2001, which allows in-state tuition for students who attended a California high school for at least three years and graduated, regardless of immigration status. That design was intentional. A 1996 federal law discouraged states from granting residency-based tuition to undocumented students unless they offered the same to out-of-state citizens, so states like California tied the benefit to high school attendance rather than legal residency. As a result, the benefit is not exclusive to undocumented students; any student, citizen or not, who meets the high school criteria can qualify. Gallegly’s hypothetical returning citizen would often qualify if they completed those years in-state, complicating his fairness claim.
Courts later validated this approach. In 2010, the California Supreme Court upheld AB 540, emphasizing that the criterion was schooling, not immigration status, and thus was available to a broad swath of students. Supporters argue the law recognizes young people raised and educated in California, many brought to the United States as children, and prevents the waste of K-12 investments by pricing them out of college. They also point to long-run fiscal gains from higher earnings and tax contributions.
Gallegly’s framing reflects a wider clash between rule-of-law principles and pragmatic inclusion. By focusing on a seemingly disadvantaged citizen, he highlights residency rules that can penalize mobility, while critics of his position note that the statute’s neutral criteria and human capital rationale undercut the charge of gross unfairness. The tension reveals how definitions of fairness shift with the lens applied.
The policy he attacks stems from California’s AB 540, enacted in 2001, which allows in-state tuition for students who attended a California high school for at least three years and graduated, regardless of immigration status. That design was intentional. A 1996 federal law discouraged states from granting residency-based tuition to undocumented students unless they offered the same to out-of-state citizens, so states like California tied the benefit to high school attendance rather than legal residency. As a result, the benefit is not exclusive to undocumented students; any student, citizen or not, who meets the high school criteria can qualify. Gallegly’s hypothetical returning citizen would often qualify if they completed those years in-state, complicating his fairness claim.
Courts later validated this approach. In 2010, the California Supreme Court upheld AB 540, emphasizing that the criterion was schooling, not immigration status, and thus was available to a broad swath of students. Supporters argue the law recognizes young people raised and educated in California, many brought to the United States as children, and prevents the waste of K-12 investments by pricing them out of college. They also point to long-run fiscal gains from higher earnings and tax contributions.
Gallegly’s framing reflects a wider clash between rule-of-law principles and pragmatic inclusion. By focusing on a seemingly disadvantaged citizen, he highlights residency rules that can penalize mobility, while critics of his position note that the statute’s neutral criteria and human capital rationale undercut the charge of gross unfairness. The tension reveals how definitions of fairness shift with the lens applied.
Quote Details
| Topic | Equality |
|---|
More Quotes by Elton
Add to List
