Reclassifying Residency for Some of Pennsylvania's International Students

With the rising cost of university education, the disparity between in-state and out-of-state/international tuition prices is becoming increasingly noticeable. Children of long-term visa holders find themselves in a unique predicament due to their immigration status. Despite having spent considerable time living in their respective states, they are obligated to pay international tuition fees. I propose that Pennsylvania revises its residency classification to include children of long-term visa holders for in-state tuition.

Current legislation excludes children of long-term visa holders from being considered in-state residents, even if they have spent almost their entire lives in Pennsylvania. The rationale behind the distinction in tuition rates was to retain local talent and reward taxpayers whose contributions fund the state’s schools. How do these principles not apply to children of long-term visa holders?

These children may have spent their entire lives in Pennsylvania, yet they are denied residency status under the law. Does this policy make sense? Wouldn’t it benefit the state to support children who wish to stay and contribute to the economy? Instead, they may be forced to leave due to prohibitive costs, providing no economic incentive for them to remain and contribute to the state.

Similarly, don’t the families of these children pay the same taxes as state residents to fund our schools? If the goal is to incentivize tax payments, we unquestionably fail to do so for these children. In effect, it would be logical to provide appropriate tax relief to these families, who currently receive no benefits from their contributions. The only entities benefiting from this status quo are the schools, which receive funding from taxes paid by these families and then charge double the international rate.

This policy reform is not as novel as it may seem. Iowa has legislation that avoids this pitfall by not differentiating between immigrants and citizens for residency purposes in higher education. Iowa’s legislation asks a simple question: “Why are you living in Iowa at this moment in time?” This straightforward yet powerful question aligns with the original intention of distinguishing between in-state and international tuition costs. By requiring proof of non-educational residency before starting university, Iowa can separate native taxpayers from those who moved to the state solely for educational purposes.

To address this shortfall, I propose a minor legislative amendment to include an exception for children of long-term visa holders. Under 22 Pa. Code § 35.29b of the Pennsylvania Code, part a.2 should be amended to state:

“Non-citizens who have lived in Pennsylvania for 12 consecutive months prior to registering as a student for non-educational purposes shall be considered residents for tuition purposes.”

This amendment would cover both children on the H4 visa and those who transitioned to an F1 visa due to aging out. It would also address the fundamental question: “Why are you living in Pennsylvania?”

In full disclosure, I am also a child of a long-term visa holder and have lived in the United States for nearly 20 years, 14 of which were spent in Pennsylvania. When I attended Penn State for Mechanical Engineering, I had to pay international tuition fees, despite residing in Pennsylvania since seventh grade and graduating from a Pennsylvania high school.

The current disparity in tuition rates for children of long-term visa holders in Pennsylvania is not merely an issue of fairness; it’s a barrier to economic opportunity and growth for our state. By denying these children access to in-state tuition rates despite their longstanding residency and contributions, we undermine our own goals of retaining local talent and fostering a thriving economy.

The proposed amendment to Pennsylvania’s residency classification is a small yet crucial step toward rectifying this injustice. By aligning our policies with states like Iowa, which consider current residency and intent rather than outdated criteria, we can ensure that all residents, regardless of citizenship status, have equal opportunities to contribute to and benefit from our educational institutions. Through this op-ed, I aim to highlight a problem within our state and encourage our politicians to make incremental improvements for the betterment of Pennsylvania.