AZ Board of Regents: Double talk on tuition

In-state tuition for illegals another costly incentive for law breakers

The Arizona Board of Regents known for its propensity for ever-increasing tuition and fee hikes for state university students, is back to its old trickery.

On April 10, Regent Chairman Mark Killian, released this statement that included a condemnation of the “reality of $100 million in budget cuts that went far beyond expectations has made it considerably harder to balance university budgets. While we will focus on efficiency and realigning our strategic plan for long-term sustainability, these cuts have real impact on our students, and result in $1,000 less per student from the state. We must take into account the harsh reality of the magnitude of these cuts that may result in reductions in positions, programming and services as well as increased costs for students.”

The former Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, familiar with budget realities, paints a grim picture.

So if money is tight and educational calamity lurks behind the ivied walls, why is providing in-state tuition to illegal alien students a front burner issue? The so-called Dreamers —- brought to the United States illegally by their illegal parents must be between the age of 15 and 31 and have come to the U.S. before the age of 16. Obviously, there is no way to substantiate such claims, which is why forged and counterfeit birth certificates constitute a big business.

In 2006, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 300, 71 to 29 percent. Among its provisions was the prohibition of those without proof of legal residency being classified as in-state students and receiving state and federal financial aid or in-state tuition.

This is the posted cost of attendance for all categories of ASU students.

Providing in-state tuition to illegals not only encourages more illegal immigration while enhancing our status as a magnet-state  —- it is fundamentally unfair to U.S. citizen out-of-state students. Such a policy also forces taxpayers to subsidize the education of illegal aliens while exposing the state to legitimate lawsuits on the part of out-of-state students required to pay the higher rates.

The Arizona Board of Regents is expected to release its final tuition and fee proposal for the 2015-2016 academic year on May 4, at 2 p.m.

ABOR is required by state statute to hold a public tuition hearing to provide notice of any proposed increased tuition or fees prior to setting rates for the upcoming academic year.


16 Responses to AZ Board of Regents: Double talk on tuition

  1. SmallGovt says:

    Very few want to touch the real reason the cost of college is so high. Extravagant wage/benefit packages are given to a few administrators and teachers and those not tenured get little. Based on poor results, Arizona public education needs to be overhauled from top to bottom with an opportunity to attend for those who are qualified without taking on huge debt. This should include most in Community Colleges for two years. The idea of in state tuition for illegals is totally foolish even though several other states do it.

  2. MacBeth says:

    Good article on a problem that shouldn’t exist. Our state budget has to be addressed. There is not an endless supply of money dropping like manna from heaven and our citizens must be the prime consideration. As pointed out here, illegals continue to come to Arizona encouraged by the endless perks and benefits. I did a Google search and found other informative articles on monetarily luring illegal students right here on Seeing Red AZ that have me seeing red.
    This one “ASU’s Crow backs lower tuition for illegals — again,” is particularly telling.

  3. Ellsworth says:

    Regent Chair Mark Killian is on record saying he will support the proposal giving in-state tuition to illegals. That’s not much of a surprise. He’s promoting his own religion’s bias in favor of Hispanics who are the object of massive proselytizing efforts by the LDS Church.

    Hispanics are now the fastest growing ethnic group in the denomination. That’s why the LDS Church has issued a statement that calls on members not to be judgmental on those who have what is coyly referred to as “undocumented status.”

    But the LDS Doctrine and Covenants (134.6) which take precedence to politically correct babble calls upon the faithful to respect the governmental authority of the land in which they live. Regent Killian should review the law and his Church teachings. What he supports is ILLEGAL

  4. Orion says:

    Thanks for this post, SRAZ. You’re right on the money once again. We are being screwed by those with agendas that are not in the best interests of either Arizona’s or the United State’s citizens. Political correctness is a con that we should unite against and fight while we are still able to do so.

  5. Maggie says:

    This is a couple of years old, but take a peek at what AZs three university presidents salaries and bonuses look like: Their bonuses are more than most Arizonans make a year! Maybe they can donate them to the sainted illegals?

  6. LEO IN TSN says:

    Thanks SRAZ, for putting the spotlight back on these bandits. They are creating their own private “black hole” for money. The incredibly extravagant wage & benefit packages have been mentioned, but there is another plan in place. That is to create jobs for university employees where none are needed.

    The AZ universities, like other gov’t schools, are creating classes and majors and courses of study in garbage. For every garbage course of study, they have to build a new garbage college building and staff it with high paid professors of garbage along with sufficient staff and faculty to kept the garbage moving. These garbage courses are to implement their leftist politically motivated agendas, and to give cover to recruited university “students” who could never survive in a true university environment.

    For a real student pursuing a real degree with real citizen parents and tax payers to boot, the UofA tuition is nearing $6,000 per semester. The other “students” and the garbage faculty and staff get a free ride out of the already skyrocketing tuition.

    When the budget for the universities is being considered, let’s have the legislators just read through the course catalogues for shock value. Then let’s fund the programs that deserve “university” status and get rid of the garbage.

    The regents don’t need no stinkin’ masks and guns – they’ve got tuition and the legislature.

    God bless America.

  7. jon jensen says:

    E.j. dionne in a column today in the paper interviews jim bruite the california republican party chairman on what happened in california after prop.187 passed. If you are a businessman like I am and are not planning to move to idaho (they will follow us there) you should read this to see what is coming for you.

    • Hometown Guy says:

      Bank robbers should be allowed to plunder also, eh? If there are enough of them, well, we just throw up our hands and concede? Let them have their way, they’ll just come after us anyway—even in Idaho. I’ve got to hand it to you, you’ve sure got the right idea, especially for a “businessman.” I imagine you’re very successful.

      • jon jensen says:

        Yes I am very successful business man because I keep politics out of my business. One of my smaller competitors had a picture of obama as the joker in white face paint as you walked in to his small business. He recently asked me If I knew anybody who would buy his business as the white people who thought it was funny were becoming less in the neighborhood and people of color who didn’t find it funny were moving in around his business.

      • Hometown Guy says:

        You might delude yourself into thinking you keep politics out of your business, but politics actually has you and unfortunately, the rest of us, in a death grip. Restrictive governmental regulations and ever increasing taxes should have opened your eyes, but apparently not.
        Your illustration of the Obama picture is of no consequence other than being puerile.

  8. azgary says:

    the only way to deal with illegals is they leave the country.

    anything else harms the republican party and American citizens

    amnesty aka legalization of any sort only helps the democrat party to create a permanent voting majority and chambers of commerce types, unless you consider bribes to republican politicians as to create a permanent democrat majority and give jobs to slave wage illegals instead of Americans as beneficial.

    • Hometown Guy says:

      Most of us agree with you, but rounding up and deporting 30 million people would be an impossible task. Try to envision kicking millions of families out of their homes. Pandemonium would result. .Self deportation hasn’t worked out.

      • azgary says:

        baloney, just laraza, chamber of commerce, gop/rnc talking points,and self deportation would work very well if we just implemented things like crippling fines and prison for those who employ illegals.
        we can and have deported mass numbers of illegals with far from the technology and manpower we have today, and guess what, deportation will cut down on the influx, and cause even more to leave on their own:
        Operation Wetback was a 1954 operation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about one million illegal immigrants from the southwestern United States, focusing on Mexican nationals.

        The operation was modeled after a program that came to be termed the Mexican Repatriation, which put pressure on citizens of Mexico to return home during the Great Depression, due to the economic crisis in the United States.

        The effort began in California and Arizona, and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown. … By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their accord.

        To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory, prior to releasing them.

        Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles.

        Now of course the Wikipedia article – and indeed most portrayals of Operation Wetback – note the “abuses” which took place during enforcement.

        (I mean, think about it… other than FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during WW-2 and pre-civil-war slavery or post-civil-war Jim Crow, what could possibly be more “politically incorrect” than Eisenhower’s mass deportations…???)

        Taking it as a given that any government program of this scope would give rise to mistakes and abuses, the question remains… was Operation Wetback effective…???

        A few years back, July 6, 2006 to be exact, the Christian Science Monitor ran a story by John Dillin titled, “How Eisenhower Solved Illegal Border Crossings from Mexico.”


        Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America’s southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

        President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today’s force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

        [T]he late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower’s first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office. America “was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale,” Mr. Brownell said. “When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico every year without restraint.”

        Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.

        According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President’s Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were “approximately half” the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.

        Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike’s official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

        General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said “Amen” to Senator Fulbright’s proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”

        Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower.

        Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement “had friends among the ranchers,” and agents “did not dare” arrest their illegal workers.

        Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: “When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now.”

        During the 1950s, however, this “Good Old Boy” system changed under Eisenhower – if only for about 10 years.

        In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph “Jumpin’ Joe” Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.

        Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing’s close connections to the president shielded him – and the Border Patrol – from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

        [O]n June 17, 1954, what was called “Operation Wetback” began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. … By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

        General Swing’s fast-moving campaign soon secured America’s borders – an accomplishment no other president has since equaled.

        Illegal migration had dropped 95% by the late 1950s.

        Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.

        “Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!” Edwards says.

        Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, “they’d be on top of this in a minute.”

        William Chambers, another ’50s veteran, agrees. “They could do a pretty good job” sealing the border.

        Edwards says: “When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce.”

        Well, folks… there ya go.

        I agree with the officials Dillin interviewed back in 2006. Contrary to the naysayers, it seems clear to me that what was once accomplished successfully – with none of the technology we possess today, 56 years later – could be re-achieved today. (At the very least we’d be moving in the right direct… we’d be moving forwards, not backwards!)

        It seems to me that if President Obama had an interest in enforcing the Rule of Law and protecting our borders, our territory, and our citizens… well… he could do so.

        Folks… they’re lying to you when they tell you we can’t deport illegal aliens. We’ve done it in the past – we could do so now… if only we had the will!

        Yes, we can debate whether we should control our border, whether we should deport illegals. I understand and acknowledge this.

        But folks… what can’t be seriously or sincerely debated is our capacity to do so should a future Congress and future President decide to reverse current policies which leave us vulnerable not just to terrorism and crime, but to the economic losses caused by downward pressure on native American wages – particularly the wages (not to mention the very job opportunities!) of our most vulnerable citizens attempting to secure their own share of the American Dream.

  9. ZOO says:

    “Rounding up” (as in cattle) and “mass deportations” are hysteria-inducing terms created by leftists – then echoed by the big business pigs in the Republican party. I think “pandemonium” is a nice addition to the collection and “kicking millions of families out” makes me want to cry. It’s campy jargon and paves the way for excuses for Republicans to fold like a beaten wife and vote for Jeb Bush when he gets the nomination.

    How convenient it is to forget. Interior (and border) enforcement of immigration laws were intentionally wound down by the GWB administration and the 2001-2006 Republican-controlled Congress did nothing more than wave pom poms daily as Bush stumped for amnesty at every turn – and millions of Mexican illegals poured into the country. Who in their right mind would believe Obama would come to power and NOT continue this gangster/racketeer method of cheap labor / cheap votes conveniently labled “prosecutorial discretion” and “priorities.”

    In the months following the signing of Arizona SB 1070 it was estimated over 200,000 invaders fled the state. The terrorist organization Gannett Group featured one such case of an illegal alien man and wife who hopped the border in the mid 1990’s, came to Phoenix, and had 10 children (anchor babies) on the taxpayer dime. The boo-hoo feature by Gannett was a true tear-jerker showing them having a yard sale to lighten their load while they planned to leave Arizona for Colorado over SB 1070.

    Of course the Bush administration’s “civil rights” investigation against Sheriff Joe Arpaio that began in 2007 didn’t start paying dividends until recently while the Obama cartel shredded SB 1070 making it virtually worthless. ‘O.K. invaders, it’s safe for you to come back.’

    The ******* immigration laws have not been enforced for over 15 years and sadly “self deportation hasn’t worked out.” Just ask the Bush crime family, Obama, McCain, Romney, or any card-carrying Chamber of Commerce gang member. The oligarchy has worked 24/7 to break up and wear down resistance to the auction of America to Mexico. It appears to be working like a charm.

    Let’s just see how this ‘atmosphere of acceptance’ works out for the Republican party in future elections. It’s certainly been a God-send in Mexifornia.

  10. Tyler Bowyer says:

    I served with Mark on the Arizona Board of Regents and many times, I witnessed his lack of ability to recognize the conservative position on important issues– including he being the only republican to vote against removing the largest boondoggle of a union at the universities (that was stealing students money and using it for liberal purposes.)

    I will do everything I can to testify and lobby ABOR to not give special breaks to those who came here illegally– as there are many more deserving groups who deserve tuition cuts, including the middle class citizens of Arizona who have incurred a huge tuition and fee burden in the past 10 years.

    It’s this type of shortsighted move that leaves lasting damages with relationships at the legislature. Who suffers most from this unnecessary drama? The majority of our Arizona students.


%d bloggers like this: