Arguments opposing in-state tuition for undocumented students range from the well reasoned to the absurd. Many cite the unlawful presence of undocumented immigrants as justification for denying them rights. However, laws can be poor substitutes for what is just, as many who are in favor of same sex marriage and opposed to abortion would attest. Yet, I find it troubling that we have framed the entire illegal immigration issue as “us” vs. “them.” As a result, “they” have lost their humanity and have become objects — objects we rationalize any injustice against, objects we don’t hesitate to humiliate and discard.
In my estimation, the cruxes of Senate Bill 170 lie in economics, the purpose of education, and our values as Americans.
Too often in our society we understand life through the lens of economics. S.B. 170 has a positive fiscal note, meaning it won’t cost taxpayers an extra dime. If this is purely a matter of economics, S.B. 170 makes sense. However, since we are a data obsessed society, let’s examine the actual costs of attending a local college and the stark inequity that arises. If S.B. 170 were to pass, a full-time (12 credit hour per semester) undocumented student would pay tuition at a rate of $2724.44 per semester at Metro State. Without the legislation, she would pay $5974.64. If one assumes (or dreams rather) that tuition rates don’t go up over the next five years, she would pay $27,244.40 as opposed to $59,746.40. That’s more than double the cost and doesn’t consider the economic circumstances of her family. The Census bureau states the median household income of a four-person family in Colorado is $70,300. How many people in general can afford to pay $60,000 for one child’s education? Assuming the median income for undocumented families is significantly lower, how can they afford to help their children?
Senator Keith King believes S.B. 170 gives false hope to undocumented students because they will have difficulty finding jobs since they’re not citizens. The primary flaw with this reasoning assumes the value of education lies in the amount of money one could make as opposed to the growth one could experience. That paradigm is crippling our educational system. When one boils education down to the job one can get-and eventually the car one drives and the house one buys, the purpose of education is lost entirely. We end up with a large number of self-centered people making important decisions that affect the rest of us (e.g. Nacchio, Ley, Madoff). Education has the power to help us become independent thinkers. Education has the power to help us become more thoughtful and considerate. Education has the power to liberate us from our mindless biases. The thrust of education lies in the strengthening and eventual sharpening of one’s mind, not in what a person can do as a result of their education. Do we have the right to impede the intellectual pursuits of another human being?
The heart of this matter, however, lies in what is just. The Declaration of Independence states that all people are born with unalienable rights, including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is the ethic upon which our country was founded, but unfortunately it has become a phrase of expedience. It is used to justify and oftentimes rationalize particular stances, while it becomes irrelevant in other contexts. The Republican Study Committee of Colorado states in its declaration of principles that “the rights of American citizens proceed from The Creator, not from the government.” Didn’t the Creator extend those same rights to people born outside of the United States? Is it really so offensive that others come to the U.S. for a chance at a better life, a life that most of us have done nothing more to earn than to be born here?
I humbly ask you to reflect on this matter and ask yourself, what is just?
John Dumbleton is an English teacher at North High School in Denver.
This online-only guest commentary was not edited.
