Texas is funded by sales tax and property taxes, not income taxes. The Permanent University Fund only provides about 20% of the entire higher education budget. Illegal aliens pay their fair share in Texas, and few sneak across the border to gain access to the UT system. Denying in-state tuition to illegals who can show some semblance of Texas residency is an opportunistic ploy to appease the anti-liberal, anti-Mexican nativists.
How is denying an incentive based on someone's legal status, discriminating on the basis of one's race? On the other hand, is it not racist to presume that all illegal immigrants are hispanics?
Well, for starters, basically all of the illegal people in question are of a particular ethnic background.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to deny someone in-state university tuition for universities funded by all people residing in Texas (including US citizens, legal residents and illegal residents) on the basis of being in the United States illegally. People who contribute to the operation of these universities through sales and property taxes should be given in-state tuition. People who do not contribute to the operation of these universities through sales and property taxes because they haven't lived here (i.e. someone from Louisiana or New York) should pay a higher rate.
Who is denying that Texan's who contribute should be favored over non-Texans? The point is whether or not it is racist to refuse to offer that same benefit to illegal aliens. Whilst one might think it a bad policy one way or the other, the case has not been made here that mere opposition to such is racist. I am very dubious about the r word being thrown around in discussions about various aspects of immigration policy, particularly by those who tend to view all such restrictions as racist and whilst I am not saying either of you are, the argument you are making, "that taking a contrary position is racist simply because many of them are hispanic" facilitates the former, extreme argument.
Don't forget that little thing called "disparate impact."
When your party does something like, say, advocate voter ID laws that impose requirements that certain racial groups are far more likely not to meet than the dominant racial group, don't act all shocked and bothered when people question your motives.
Like Voter ID, ending in-state tuition for illegal immigrants is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. There aren't hoards of illegals streaming into UT Austin bleeding public education dry as they pay tuition at subsidized rates.
The problem is that arguement could be used to claim that all immigration restrictions are racist and should be abolished. Since the majority are minorities, such policies have a disparate impact on those groups and therefore must be abolished.
The problem is you have to have immigration restrictions and for the past three decades we have taken the approach of undermining them at every turn establishing that we frankly aren't serious about having any and encouraging more illegal immigration. You say that in terms of sheer tax contributions, the policy has no impact and no one is coming here illegally because of that. That is all true, but the problem is when it is taking together with cyclical amnesties and various other mal-incentives don't act all shocked and bothered when surprise surprise surprise, there is yet another ten million plus needing to be normalized in their status a decade or two from now. I call it like I see it, cyclical slavery and it is travesty that we keep subjecting one group after another to it because some people find it racist to do anything else but to keep playing the same game over and over again. But who cares about that big picture or that I might actually be just as "Compassionate" as John McCain and George Bush are just in a different way, because to the presumptuous and prejudicial mind a contrary thought has to be a product of stupidity, corruption or in this case, racism.
I am not a politician, at least not in real life. I have no one to pander to and no reason to embrace any policy for sake of pandering to racists or suppressing the black vote. The positions I advocate are such because I deem them to be the best from my experience and understanding. At the very least I expect you to respect me enough to not presume the worst just because you disagree with me. If you cannot, then how can you honestly claim to be any better than what you decry?
My friend, I severely doubt that your motivation, and probably millions of others, are motivated by bigotry. I do believe that one can support positions like yours without being a bigot and truly concerned about upholding the law. I do have qualms with that mentality that I will address later on, probably in another post (I might run out of room here). The suspect here is motivation. Not all people who oppose illegal immigration are racial bigots, but there is a strong argument to be made that there is a large number among the movement. I don't base this on ignorant stereotypes propagated by ignorant internet dwellers from Nowhere, Delaware, but from casual conversations I've had with family members, friends, casual acquaintances, random trolls, and even completely random people I'm likely to never see again.
While enforcing such a law, on the legal language, might not be racist/nativist, I think it's very naive to think that there was no intent to appeal to some of the uglier aspects of human nature. There is a large audience for anti-Mexican nativism in West Texas. I believe that's pretty undeniable.
Dewhurst himself might not be a racist or a bigot, but it's pretty clear that he and others are trying to market off of people who are. That I believe, is despicable. So yes I do agree with Aggregate Demand and IndyTx that it is indeed a very opportunistic ploy.
But since you are bringing up the whole amnesty debate, I do agree. What we have now is a deeply flawed system that does encourage what you called "cyclical slavery". However, at some point you've surely asked yourself why many people choose to come here illegally every year instead of going through the legal process. TO answer you shortly, it's because the process is broken. Perhaps there is more we can do than just beef up border security and go after employers who exploit workers from these communities. The entire entry process needs to be reformed. I mean we shouldn't throw up a sign that says "HEY WELCOME TO AMERICA JUST WALK RIGHT IN NOBODY IS WATCHING YOU!" but at the same time we definitely need significant immigration reform that
encourages people to go through the system and not around it. To me it seems that many Republicans are repeating the same mistake with Prohibition: assuming a one-size-fits all solution to a problem that in reality has about a dozen different actors.
Keep in mind though, I am not at all opposed to unlimited immigration. Which is where you and I fundamentally disagree. So take this post with a grain of salt.
Poll
