Public radio's Chas Sisk reports that every Republican candidate for governor is against extending in-state tuition for Dreamers. The reason is unclear. One says he thinks it unfair. That's an elastic term -- unfair. Extending in-state tuition does not represent an outlay of money. The state is not reaching into its pocket to pay. A slot at a state school is not much of a cost at all. That is to say that the marginal cost is close to zero.
What's it cost to have one more student attend a lecture? Are these students taking slots away from out-of-staters who are willing and able to pay the full freight, the full out-of-state tuition? If not, the conservative impulse should be to let them in, no?