In my opinion removing instate tuition is just a way of appeasement for those who oppose the bill. But to say that something like this will make the bill better is not true. No instate tuition means that college will still be out of reach for many, now because of their financial 'status'.

Yes, this shuts the trap of those that use in-state tuition to oppose the bill, but I think its more about them being against 'rewarding illegal behavior'. They'll find something else wrong with the whole idea and that 'rewarding illegal behavior' argument is NEVER going to go away, no matter how else they starve the bill.

Suppose they add an age limit to the bill? Does that make it 'better', because now more people are excluded from the benefits of the bill? I honestly dont think so. So removing in-state tuition and adding an age limit are in the same ballpark in my mind, both accomplish EXACTLY the same thing; appeasing those who opose the bill and limiting the extent of its benefits to only a small portion of people who most certainly deserve it.

I used to think that these two proposals were different (an age limit and no in-state), but no longer. Dont forget that to qualify under the DREAM Act you HAVE to go to college or military, and in a family where people are making just enough money to stay afloat neither is an option.

I can see that the general opinion here is 'give us something', while I certainly agree to some degree, I strongly believe that appeasement never works and I hate the idea no matter how many 'immigration hawks' it pleases.