By Holly Smith

for KansasLiberty.com

In calculating the costs and benefits to the state of illegal immigration, even small numbers eventually add up.

For example, undocumented aliens who meet admissions standards can seek an in-state tuition break at a Kansas state college, university or technical school, and at the moment, that's exactly what nearly 250 students are doing.

That's not many students. But by the time you add it all up, the total cost to taxpayers of granting illegal immigrants in-state tuition may easily exceed a half million dollars annually.

That's not only real money, to a group of disgruntled students from other states who are paying out-of-state tuition in Kansas it's also unfair.  In 2004, the students decided to sue.

Kris Kobach, chairman of the Kansas state GOP and a University of Missouri-Kansas City Law professor,  represented them, claiming the tuition policy constituted a violation of federal law.

So far, he's had little success. The case, Day vs. Bond, was dismissed by both the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver and by federal Judge Richard Rogers, saying the plaintiffs had no standing in the matter.

Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court decided June 23 not to review the lower courts' rulings. If Kobach had been successful,  the Kansas statute allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state rather than out-of-state tuition would have been repealed.

Some proponents of the law argue that immigrants would not be able to pursue higher education if they were not given the tuition break because the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition is substantial.

The conventional explanation for the difference is that Kansas taxpayers, who pay for the state's educational facilities, merit a tuition reduction for their children.

Some, however, see the discount given to illegal immigrants as a tool for social change. Dan Winter, interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri, thought the Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal would "only benefit the state as a whole as we will have more educated and trained people to contribute to the economy and to society."

Winter said he thought there was "a danger of creating a permanent lower class of citizens in our country unless we do something about providing a solution to the problem."

In Kansas, a Sebelius-backed law states that individuals seeking in-state-tuition must have attended a Kansas high school for three or more years, graduated or earned a GED, and, if the individual is an illegal immigrant, is pursuing citizenship. Nine other states have similar laws, and many of them are being tested in courts.

The tuition break does not apply to anyone with a valid student visa, which causes some opponents of the law to accuse Kansas of encouraging illegal actions.

“This law is fundamentally unfair,” said Mariann Davies, vice chair of You Don’t Speak for Me, a group of Hispanic and Latino Americans who believe illegal immigration is damaging to America and its citizens.  “We have thousands of students who come to America to study and in order for them to gain a legal student visa they have to jump through tremendous hoops so why should illegals get a free pass?  It boggles the mind that any legislator didn’t do five minutes of research and just think about it.”

Davies said she felt it was also unreasonable for proponents of the law to believe illegal immigrants could not pursue higher education without the tuition breaks.

For example, Davies argues that Mexican nationals can pursue a free college education at the world-renowned National Autonomous University of Mexico.

“The spin we have been seeing is that these kids are being denied the opportunity to go to college when in fact they have every opportunity to pursue their own education at a world-class university,” she said. 

The tuition break has also been targeted in the Kansas Legislature.  In 2008 a group of senators, headed by Augusta Republican Peggy Palmer, tried to pass legislation that would repeal the 2004 law.  The language of the bill stated that no public dollars could be spent on illegal immigrants. 

“We are spending millions and millions of dollars on illegal immigrants and the taxpayers should be tired of paying that when we could be spending that money on more important things,” Palmer said.  “We are hurting financially as a state and that is one way to reduce expenditures.”

Palmer said she felt the bill did some good even though it died in committee after it was gutted by legislators.

“The senate likes the open borders so I knew it would be difficult but I wanted to open up the issue for debate,” she said.  “This is not an issue that is going away.”

Barb Nichols, director of the Kansas Immigration Reform Effort, said Kansas is making itself a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants by passing immigrant-friendly legislation.

“Since Oklahoma and Missouri have both passed legislation that is tough on illegals it makes Kansas very appealing,” she said. “We just can’t give in-state-tuition to illegals because it is totally ignoring the law and if we don’t have the rule of law and respect it then we have anarchy.”

Nine other states have laws similar to Kansas', and Kobach has promised to carry on the fight here and elsewhere. He's currently lead counsel in a class-action case challenging California’s granting of in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. 

Wichita Republican Brenda Landwehr said the battle isn't over in Kansas, either. "You're going to see the illegal alien legislation on a regular basis until we get something done," she told the Topeka Capital-Journal.

In most newsrooms and at the Board of Regents - and, if a Board of Regents spokesman is correct, in homes across the state - all those little numbers evince little concern. "I can't recall the last time we got a public letter on the issue," the spokesman told the Capital-Journal's reporter. "The board has always been supportive of the concept of expanded educational opportunities."