President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 04, 2013 09:15 AM UTC

Where's the truth behind the nice-sounding gobbledygook about tuition rates for undocumented kids?

  • 14 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Reporters should be on the lookout for Republicans who try to make themselves sound like they support reducing college tuition rates for undocumented college students, but when it comes to specifics, they actually say nothing but gobbledygook.

Here’s an example of what not to do, from Rocky Mountain Community Radio reporter Bente Birkeland’s Dec. 31 interview with Colorado Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman about the upcoming legislative session:

Birkeland: One of the contentious bills that will be coming back is a bill that offers this lower tuition rate to students who graduate from Colorado high schools. In the past, the GOP in both chambers has not supported that measure. Do you see any movement on the issue?

Cadman: Sure. I think what we’re looking for is tuition equity [editor’s note: gobbledygook]. We’re looking for a solid formula that allows people affordable access to quality higher ed [editor’s note: gobbledygook]. What we need to do systemically is put something forward that shows an equitable access for everybody, not based on some specific criteria [editor’s note: gobbledygook].

Three things could be going on here, in light of the presence of the gobbledygook.

One, Cadman and fellow Republicans have opposed reduced tuition rates for so long that they can’t bring themselves to say they’ll support lowering the rates this year. They can’t get the words out of their mouths. (See Rep. Libby Szabo, “I don’t comment on anything I have not seen,” and CU Prez Bruce Benson, “I’m not going to tell you exactly how I feel.”)

Or more likely, Cadman still opposes helping undocumented students, but he doesn’t want to say it as directly as he used to (See below.), for fear of driving even more Hispanics away from the GOP, as seen in the last election. And he doesn’t think his indecision will further poison the Republican brand among Hispanics-because he doesn’t think reporters will call him out on it.

Or Cadman doesn’t know what to say.

Or maybe a combination?

In any case, Birkeland should have asked him, specifically, if he’d vote for the reduced-tuition bill, if it came up in exactly the same form as last year.

Would he even consider voting “yes” this time, when he opposed the measure just nine months ago, telling the Colorado Statesman’s Peter Marcus in April:

Cadman: “You’re providing a benefit to someone who doesn’t legally deserve it.” (All Republican state Senators voted against the bill last year. Also, no public funds would be provided.)

As it was, Birkeland let Cadman sound like he stands behind not only undocumented students but every single college student in the state of Colorado. That’s great, but what is he prepared to do about it? And, again, what about those pesky undocumented high-school graduates who grew up with our own kids? Should colleges have the option of offering them in-state tuition rates?

Tweet
Share

Comments

14 thoughts on “Where’s the truth behind the nice-sounding gobbledygook about tuition rates for undocumented kids?”

  1. Cadman supports tuition equity — regardless of class.  So he supports in-state students, out-of-state students and undocumented immigrants all paying the same tuition rate.

    Cadman also supports affordable access to education.  So the class-less tuition rate he appears to support would be in-state rates, right?

    But Cadman supports quality education, which can only happen if we increase school funding, either through state/federal support, or higher tuition — the unsubsidized rates for undocumented kids, or more likely, the out-of-state rates which actually cover a significant portion of college budgets.

    And the likelihood of Cadman supporting any college tuition bill?  Hahahahaha!

  2. depending on whether the colleges decide to grant in-state tuition to those students granted deferred action under the Obama Administration’s program for last year. Many, though not all, of the students who would benefit from the ASSET bill also qualify for deferred action and once approved would be better off just accepting in-state tuition (again, assuming that the universities decide to allow them to pay in-state tuition.  I believe they may be requesting an legal opinion from the AG’s office on this issue).

  3. distinguish the instate tuition portion of the immigration debate from other parts of the same.

    However, the problem for the GOP is that it is difficult to get hispanics to listen to those arguments when (a) they aren’t raised that often (instead its the stupid illegal is illegal type arguments that get brought up; and (b) there is a lack of trust in any event (seen by the 23% or lower percent of the hispanic vote Romney got in Colorado this November.

    Couple both of these with the fact that education is a huge issue to hispanics and it is really difficult to see how the GOP can take a principled yet nonsuicidal path on this issue.

    Which is exactly why the Dems are pushing it.  

      1. a) What part of “illegal” is hard to understand?

        Illegal immigrants should pay out of state, international tuition the same as those students from their countries who followed the rules.  Hell- they should pay a penalty to make up for the allt he free school they already got.

        b) They are here already, perhaps through no fault of their own. They may not even know the circumstanc eof their birth or immigration until they apply for college.  So what?  (see a))  

      2. 1) Immigrants are supposed to be a benefit to the country they arrive in and thus shouldn’t receive the subsidy of instate tuition.

        2) The state subsidized higher education at great cost for the purpose of having a more educated workforce.  Undocumented immigrants cannot legally work (DACA undermines this point to a large degree) and thus the state receives little benefit by subsidizing their education.

        3) With high unemployment for college grads it makes little sense to subsidize the education of noncitizens who are not in specializing in in demand majors.

        4) Immigrants who go the path of higher education are just buying into the higher ed bubble and ruining their family’s economic prospects.

        Like I indicated with #2, DACA has done a lot to take the strength out of these arguments.  Now that many undocumented immigrants can receive an EAD (work permit), the cost/benefit analysis has shifted a bit in the direction in favor of the in-state tuition vis-a-vis where it was before.  

        1. 1. Immigrants are supposed to be a benefit to the country they arrive in — feel free to screw them over big time.  There’s money to be made in cheap labor that can’t complain to their union steward or the authorities.

          2. The state subsidized higher education at great cost for the purpose of having a more educated workforce.  We prevent illegal immigrants from taking high paying jobs so that we can fill all those low paying shit jobs that citizens won’t take.

          3. With high unemployment for college grads it makes little sense to subsidize the education of noncitizens who are not in specializing in in demand majors.  It would be a tragic waste  if a non-citizen with a creative genius for art, literature or social justice affected millions of lives in a positive way, foregoing that $50k programming job with Google.

          4. Immigrants who go the path of higher education are just buying into the higher ed bubble and ruining their family’s economic prospects.  Because dropping out of school is so much better. The future lies in lawn care!!!!

            1. However, the problem for the GOP is that it is difficult to get hispanics to listen to those arguments when (a) they aren’t raised that often (instead its the stupid illegal is illegal type arguments that get brought up; and (b) there is a lack of trust in any event (seen by the 23% or lower percent of the hispanic vote Romney got in Colorado this November.

              Just helpin’ present those winning arguments that Hispanics are eagerly waiting to hear from the GOP.

              With principled arguments like these, I expect Ryan Call to hire Elliot as the GOP Director of  Hispanic outreach.  Heck, they might even send him to Washington D.C.!

        2. 1) Immigrants are supposed to be a benefit to the country they arrive in and thus shouldn’t receive the subsidy of instate tuition.

          I agree with Harry’s response.  I don’t understand the argument. Those who are not born in this country are supposed to be a benefit to this country and should not receive the subsidy of instate tuition?  Why not.  They become more of a benefit to the country by becoming educated and becoming entrepreneurs and professionals than the opposite.

          2) The state subsidized higher education at great cost for the purpose of having a more educated workforce.  Undocumented immigrants cannot legally work (DACA undermines this point to a large degree) and thus the state receives little benefit by subsidizing their education.

          I agree that this argument loses any force it had with DACA.

          3) With high unemployment for college grads it makes little sense to subsidize the education of noncitizens who are not in specializing in in demand majors

          Agreed with Harry’s response.  Also, these arguments always assume that employment is a zero sum game which is not true.

          4) Immigrants who go the path of higher education are just buying into the higher ed bubble and ruining their family’s economic prospects.

          This argument is truly bizarre.  Like saying, “we know what’s best for you and your immigrant family’s future, just stay uneducated.”  

          Thanks for taking the time to spell these out but for me they leave a lot lacking when compared to your original statement.

          There are some really powerful arguments that

          distinguish the instate tuition portion of the immigration debate from other parts of the same.

          However, the problem for the GOP is that it is difficult to get hispanics to listen to those arguments when (a) they aren’t raised that often (instead its the stupid illegal is illegal type arguments that get brought up; and (b) there is a lack of trust in any event (seen by the 23% or lower percent of the hispanic vote Romney got in Colorado this November.

          For me they are not really powerful arguments at all.  And as Harry pointed out, I highly doubt that the GOP’s problem is that Hispanics don’t listen to these arguments because they are not raised enough and because there is no trust.  On the contrary, I would say that arguments like this are actually part of the reason that the GOP is getting trounced with the Hispanic vote.

  6. of a common problem afflicting journalists who cover politics.

    Too many of them are so concerned about protecting access to sources that they won’t ask hard questions.

    Birkeland should have followed up and, if that wasn’t feasible due to the time or circumstances of the interview, she should have pointed out in her report that Cadman, specifically, opposed the tuition measure last year and reminded her listeners of what he said then.

    With fewer reporters at the Capitol these days, the burden on each of those there to not be “buddy-buddy” with legislators is greater. I’m not saying that is what Birkeland did here, because I don’t know and don’t think it’s fair to presume that, but I think, generally speaking, that there is a risk of that phenomenon happening with political journalists.

    Experience matters, too. Perhaps Birkeland should ask the Sentinel’s Ashby or the Biz Journal’s Sealover or even the Post’s doyenne  of lege coverage how she should have followed up.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

79 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!