The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

I am unsure what you mean by "far less forgiving requirements." My client may go to jail, or have something else taken from them with the force of law. The stakes are very serious.

I'm also unsure how one can calculate who accomplishes more, since the two professions accomplish very different things. Does your sentiment stem from a distaste for lawyers, or for our legal system more broadly?

>Your comment seems to convey your field is riddled with political bullshit.

I'm sorry that I gave that impression, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Participating in a system that imprisons people and forcefully takes away assets by court order is inherently political. I suppose if you took to studying law and our legal system, you would soon see that as much is it is "riddled with political bullshit," it is also riddled with people trying to make the right decisions.

Why should California have a special obligation to students from New Mexico? Note that New Mexico already gets 37% of its state budget from the federal government, and has among the highest per capita number of federal employees (both civilian and military). Californian tax payers are already heavily subsidizing New Mexico as it is.

Or if they’re being paid in cash under the table, as sometimes happens for both undocumented immigrants and for immigrants with visas or permanent residents, that’s 100% the responsibility of the employer.

Indeed, undocumented workers often end up paying more tax than they would if they had authentic papers, because they’re less likely to file for tax rebates at the end of the year.

They also pay sales tax, if they’re paying rent are ultimately contributing to property taxes paid by the landlord, etc. etc.

If you want to see some data about this w/r/t state and local taxes, here’s a recent summary: http://www.itep.org/immigration/

The famous Romney 47% was based on an analysis of net federal income taxes, which is completely irrelevant to whether they've paid into California's general fund taxes (which include, primarily, California's state income tax and California's sales and use taxes.)

And even less relevant to whether they've generally established roots in the State such that it is in the State's interest to serve them as part of its constituency.

Yes, wealth makes you able to afford things you could not afford without that wealth. That's true by definition.

I'm not sure how that makes it unfair that the State of California subsidizes tuition for residents (but not nonresidents) regardless, in either case, of visa status.

The State of California generally serves, in order of priority, citizens of the State of California, non-citizen residents of the State of California, and then, maybe, sometimes, non-citizen non-residents of the State of California.

I'm not seeing any unfairness in the State subsidizing UC education for the first two groups but not the third.

> Also at 17 18yoa you have not paid into the tax system

Yes, you probably have. You may not have paid income tax, but income tax isn't the only significant State of California general fund tax. You've probably paid a lot of sales tax.

(If you are financially independent at that age as a resident, you've probably paid state income tax, too; if you aren't, then you probably aren't paying the tuition yourself in any case, and the people who probably are probably the people that are paying your other expenses, who, if you are a resident, have probably paid plenty in both income and sales tax in the state.)

I don't think it's irrelevant actually. I don't know if it's the main reason for this policy, but I'd imagine you're far more likely to remain in the state if you have already lived here long enough for in state tuition. Because if you pick up your bags as soon as you're done with your education, you just drained the state some money.