It seems to me, one of the first requirements for in-state tuition when I was young enough to be filling out those forms was that I be a legal resident of that state. When did that change?
It wasn't just that I had to prove I'd lived in, say, Arizona for more than a year, and all that. I had to show I was lawfully there, and not on the lam from prosecution in Iowa or New Jersey or the FBI... shouldn't that particular standard be maintained? I mean, the point to higher education isn't just to let anybody who wants to be there, be there. It's about those who are qualified, getting in.
Of course, recent news articles indicate that playing by the rules is not exactly high on the list of requirements for a number of schools, so why should this be any different?
I'm sorry. Sympathetic feelings notwithstanding, there are reasons for establishing rules and laws, and for not making accommodations for those who break said rules and laws. Through no fault of my own, I was born in Illinois, and lived lawfully in (many) other states. Call me heartless, Mr. Perry, but I see no reason for putting somebody illegally in-country ahead of me and mine, when receiving taxpayer-supported education benefits from your state.
I don't have a problem with allowing in anybody who qualifies for admission. By all means, if a kid passes the exams and meets all the other standards, let him or her in. Just don't call it fair or right to give him a break that other, lawful residents of this country are not allowed.