As you can see, the extent of Carl Wimmer’s formal education is Utah P.O.S.T. (Peace Officer Standards and Training) and Salt Lake Community College.
Here is a bill that seeks to repeal Utah Code §53B-8-106 (Resident tuition requirements)
Here is a chart showing the undergrad tuition and fees for a Utah resident, from two years ago. Such a full-time student paid $2642.34 in tuition and fees for the 2008-2009 school year. This represents $5,284.68 for the entire year.
Now, a full-time, in-state student would pay $3,136.82 in tuition and fees for the current semester – or $6,273.64 for the current academic year. That represents an 18.7% increase for in-state tuition, in two years. In-state tuition has increased enough, over the last two years.
Now let’s take a look at the undergrad tuition rate for non-resident students at the University of Utah.
A non-resident taking 15 course hours will pay $9,920.57 in tuition and fees for the current Spring semester. This translates into $19,841.14 for the 2010-2011 school year. Therefore, the out-of-state student pays 216% more in tuition and fees than a Utah resident attending this school.
I fully understand that states have an interest in subsidizing the tuition of those students who they believe will contribute to the state’s tax base for several years. However, this legislator wants to make the children of undocumented aliens pay out of state tuition to attend a state college or university. Listen, Carl. I’m sorry that you did not manage anything higher than some coursework at a community college. But why take this out on children of those who have contributed to the state’s tax base for several years – or, in some cases, decades?!
I recognize that you want the state to remain “business-friendly.” By the way, most of your corporate and small business friends love the endless supply of cheap, foreign labor. Why should the business owners and corporate class be allowed to exploit these workers and lower the overall wage structure of this state, while the children of non-legal permanent residents pay through the nose for a college education?!?!
Here is a sampling of what other decent people think of Wimmer’s bill:
“I ask Representative Wimmer to tell me why . . . we need to put these students in a different class – what makes them so different from other families who also pay their taxes and attend the same schools?”
This subsidy is not going to people who just entered the state, Wimmer!
“I ask Representative Wimmer to tell me why . . .we need to put these students in a different class – what makes them so different from other families who also pay their taxes and attend the same schools?”
Apparently, Carl is concerned that a child of non-citizens will obtain more education that he has attained.
Lastly, why should someone from this state be treated the same as a person from Washington State who has no intention of staying in Utah – just because their parents came here illegally, Carl?! Can you put your “extensive education” to use and answer that question?
Oh, but Carl’s bill includes the following language, on page 3, line 79:
“This section shall be enforced without regard to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or national origin.”
That settles it then, right?!
13 comments:
What distinguishes these students from other students is that they cannot legally reside in Utah because they cannot legally reside in the United States.
If you wish to be taken seriously, members of your board of directors shouldn't use a pseudonym.
Have you ever heard that song with the line that goes like this, "this land is your land, this land is my land?" Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I imagine that you are a NATIVE AMERICAN, right? Because surely your family didn't come on over here by boat way back whenever . . . nooooo. I'm sure that's wrong, Mr. Autochthonous.
@Anonymous 5:17 PM Nando isn't a pseudonym. It's a nickname. Or maybe I don't want to be taken seriously. Obviously that's the case. You know . . . that's quite funny. If you don't take me seriously, why are you commenting?
I understand that premise. The point remains that these families are paying Utah taxes, which pay for public schools, roads, bridges, police, higher education, etc.
Did you get the impression that I think we need more undocumented immigrants/illegal aliens? Hell, I noted that corporate America - plus small and medium sized businesses - loves the pool of cheap labor. I fully recognize that such a large pool of cheap labor undercuts low-income whites, blacks and Hispanics who are here legally.
However, it is not practical to think that we are going to send these people back on buses, and keep them out. American companies, including mom and pop establishments, reap the benefits of a cheap labor force. If the companies would quit (illegally) hiring these workers, then you would see a drastic decrease in illegal immigration.
This post pertains to charging those who have paid taxes to the state of Utah - for several years - out-of-state tuition to state schools. Can you justify that - other than with ideology?!
Make a cogent argument as to why these people must pay out-of-state tuition. Again, review the sources before reaching a conclusion. The state wants those workers here, and then turns around and tries to put the entire blame on them.
Here is what others have to say about the man pushing this legislation:
http://bobaagard.blogspot.com/2009/08/carl-wimmer-is-moron.html
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/301
(Wimmer comes in at number ten.)
“So congratulations, Rep. Wimmer - not only are you too dumb to consider the concept that America's current healthcare system may be deeply flawed, you can't even manage to come up with a 21st Century insult. Communists? Oh... er, that hurts.”
http://www.nonpart.org/?p=1171
Carl Wimmer is listed as an idiot seeking elected office.
http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-11854-carl-wimmer-mike-winder-gun-nuts.html
“Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, has made a national name for himself as a leader of the states’-rights movement. Apparently, however, his political success is a financial burden, so he is demanding payment of up to $4,500 for any speeches out of the state. In many state legislatures and in Congress, elected officials are prohibited from using their position to make money. But, surprise, surprise, it’s not banned in Utah, so Wimmer can legally profit from his public service. It’s a good gig, if you can get it.”
http://oneutah.org/category/utah-politics/carl-wimmer-utah-politics/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/28/841068/-Meet-Carl
Wimmer getting slapped around.
“Because Carl believes that the government should stay out of the decisions of private citizens -- unless those citizens are women.
Carl is wrong. He is part of the problem, as is every other elected official who supports this sexist, racist, draconian system of controlling women. The right to women's bodies does not belong to Carl. It does not belong to the government.
It belongs to women.”
http://www.carlwimmer.com/
In the end, Carl does a great job of making himself look foolish.
Resident tuition is not based upon having paid taxes. One can grow up in Utah (or almost any other state) and be supported completely on government assistance such that one's family has never paid any taxes and still qualify. Conversely, one's family can pay taxes for generatiosn to one state and, having moved away a few years before, return for college and get tagged as a non-resident. If the resident/non-resident tuition distinction is defensible at all (a separate argument), then it seems that limiting it to those who can lawfully reside and accept employment within a state makes sense. If it is based on some sort of familial quasi-tax credit, I am in complete agreement with your point, but I know of no state that applies the benefit that way.
Cyn, I do understand what you do is serious. The nickname came across as a pseudonym. I am sure I will not be the last to make this mistake. Perhaps use his full name when it is first written.
@ 5:46 pm,
You do not fully understand this issue. I provided a hyperlink in the main entry to the current statute.
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53B/htm/53B08_010600.htm
53B-8-106. Resident tuition -- Requirements -- Rules.
(1) IF allowed under federal law, a student, other than a nonimmigrant alien within the meaning of paragraph (15) of subsection (a) of Section 1101 of Title 8 of the United States Code, SHALL BE exempt from paying the nonresident portion of total tuition IF the student:
(a) attended high school in this state for three or more years;
(b) graduated from a high school in this state or received the equivalent of a high school diploma in this state; AND
(c) registers as an entering student at an institution of higher education not earlier than the fall of the 2002-03 academic year. [Emphasis mine]
How many families do you know that have received Food Stamps or other assistance for three years? This subsidy is not going to people who just entered the state. Do you think states subsidize college tuition so the graduates can be “leeches”? They have a reasonable expectation that those grads will find work here, and contribute to the state’s economy.
By the way, someone could live in Wyoming or Oklahoma for 20 years, and spend one year in Utah - to establish residency - and qualify for in-state tuition. An illegal immigrant needs to have attended a Utah high school for three years.
You do understand that those who rent still pay property taxes, correct?!?! (The owner simply pushed the tax onto the tenants.) Those who register their cars, pay sales taxes, enroll their kids in school are paying fees, taxes and assessments. Those who are paid under the table are "contributing" to a business owner's profits. You see how illegal immigration benefits the business and corporate class?
By the way, Carl Wimmer has a limited education – and it shows in the way he presents himself and in how he acts.
53B-8-106. Resident tuition -- Requirements -- Rules.
(1) IF allowed under federal law, a student, other than a nonimmigrant alien within the meaning of paragraph (15) of subsection (a) of Section 1101 of Title 8 of the United States Code, SHALL BE exempt from paying the nonresident portion of total tuition IF the student:
(a) attended high school in this state for three or more years;
(b) graduated from a high school in this state or received the equivalent of a high school diploma in this state; AND
(c) registers as an entering student at an institution of higher education not earlier than the fall of the 2002-03 academic year.
I still see no requirement that the family have paid a penny in taxes. For instance, if one grew up in Utah in state foster care, one would qualify. The point is, contrary to your earlier assertion ("This post pertains to charging those who have paid taxes to the state of Utah - for several years") is that this tuition break has nothing to do with paying taxes in Utah.
I personally view tuition as a tax on the stupid, and if Utah wants to charge some stupid people less of that tax than others it is no concern of mine. The statute does not, however, have any requirement that the beneficiary, or his family, have ever paid any taxes.
@Feb. 9 6:47 PM - Uh. Yeah. In response to your view that tuition is 'a tax on the stupid,' here's what I have to say. As Walter said to Donnie, and I will say to you: "You're out of your depth, Donnie."
To the moron at 6:47 pm,
Guess what, genius? Everybody is charged tuition - including wealthy people. Everyone pays taxes, even the rich pigs who try to avoid paying any taxes.
You are a lost cause. How did you even find this site? To wit:
"I personally view tuition as a tax on the stupid"
If tuition is a progessive tax on stupidity, then your rate must be stratospheric.
The children of undocumented immigrants should not be charged more tuition--they often don't have a great amount of financial resources as it is, let alone having to straddle what will amount to nearly 80,000 for a four year degree in Utah.
I take issue, however, with the idea of charging some students higher tuition at all. Many people have been victimized, unknowingly, by these ridiculously higher out of state rates and they were not all planning to return to the place where they grew up after graduating. This cynical suspicion about people across national borders seems to mirror another about people who wish to cross state lines, to not go to college and ultimately live/work right down the street from their parents house.
Post a Comment