Colorado higher education director David Skaggs wants to know where he stands. He wants Attorney General John Suthers to clarify whether the state's postsecondary educational institutions can grant in-state tuition to the U.S.-citizen children of parents illegally in the United States.

And it's no small matter, considering that in-state tuition is often a quarter to a third as much as out-of-state tuition.

But this should be a no-brainer for Suthers. For legal, ethical and practical reasons, we believe he should answer in the affirmative.

All applicants to state colleges and universities in Colorado who are U.S. citizens and meet residency requirements - that means living in the state at least 12 consecutive months before the date classes open in a given semester - should automatically qualify for in-state tuition regardless of their parents' naturalization status.

In railing against such a dispensation, opponents seize on the word "illegal" and somehow overlook the "citizen" part of the equation. They see the economic benefits to the parents and ignore the rights of one of their fellow countrymen.

Until last year, when House Bill 1023 became law, none of this was an issue - if you could prove you were a U.S. citizen and met Colorado residency requirements, you got in-state tuition.

But HB 1023 required proof of lawful presence in the country before "certain public benefits" - like in-state tuition - could be bestowed.

Confronted with this legal development, admissions officials and the attorneys advising them had to decide whether applicants who were born in the United States - but whose parents were here illegally - were lawfully present in the country.

Some of these administrators and legal eagles, like those at Metropolitan State College of Denver, concluded that because the parents were illegal immigrants, no one in the family, even U.S.-born children, should qualify for in-state tuition.

This is silly and horribly unfair. Once you become a U.S. citizen - through birth or naturalization - by definition you are lawfully present in the United States.

Moreover, establishing residency for the purpose of qualifying for in-state tuition is demanded of students, not parents. Holding an applicant responsible for the actions of his parents is both unjust and contrary to long-established legal tradition.

But there's an even better reason to give these students a break on the cost of their education: Like so many who came before them, this is just the sort of immigrant fiber we should want to weave into the fabric of American life.

These are not the kids who take the easy path. They haven't dropped out, they don't hang around street corners day and night, they aren't isolated by their native tongue and caught up in a sense of aggrieved helplessness.

On the contrary, by so doggedly pursuing a higher education, these young men and women are proving their commitment to a constructive role in our society. They are working hard, stepping out of their comfort zones and are embracing the opportunities this nation so profligately provides.

Little wonder then that Skaggs has pledged to fight any effort to deny these young citizens their due. In-state tuition? By all means.