California Supreme Court hears case that would bar illegal immigrants from receiving instate tuition

[The Northerner]

Source: Los Angeles Times

The California Supreme Court appeared skeptical on Tuesday of a lawsuit that would end in-state tuition for an estimated 25,000 illegal immigrants who attend the state's public universities and colleges.

The court is reviewing an appeals court ruling that said the state is barred by federal immigration law from giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition, which can be as much as $19,000 a year cheaper than fees charged to out-of-state students.

At issue is a 2001 state law that provides the lower tuition for students, including illegal immigrants, who attend and graduate from a California high school.

A lawsuit before the court contends that the state requirement is preempted by a federal law that prohibits states from using residency requirements to give educational benefits to illegal immigrants when the benefit is not also offered to citizens.

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/california-supreme-court-hears-case-that-would-bar-illegal-immigrants-from-receiving-in-state-tuition-at-public-colleges.html

[pampango]

1. Found this on the California Dream Act.

Whitman vs. the DREAM Act

The California Dream Act, which would allow undocumented students who qualify for in-state tuition to apply for financial aid, has been passed by the state legislature numerous times, only to be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown said this weekend he would have signed the bill, but Republican Meg Whitman said she would not support the legislation.

Here is her answer when asked by an undocumented senior in college whether she would support the California Dream Act or the federal push for the DREAM Act to allow some undocumented students to gain legal status, via the Fresno Bee:

"Here is the challenge we face. Our resources are scarce. We are in terrible economic times and slots have been eliminated at the California State University system. I think they’re down by 40,000 students. The same is true at the CSU and the University of California system. Programs have been cut and California citizens have been denied admission to these universities and I don’t think it’s fair to bar and eliminate you know the ability of California citizens to attend higher universities and favor undocumenteds. This is a very tough situation. But I don’t think it’s fair to the people who are here in California legally so I would not be for the California Dream Act and for the federal Dream Act. It is only a partial salve to a very challenging situation and I don’t think we can carve out a group of illegal immigrants and give them a path to citizenship when we haven’t sorted out our control of our borders and getting our arms around illegal immigration. So I would say no to both."

http://washingtonindependent.com/99596/whitman-vs-the-dream-act

Will be interesting to see how the California Supreme Court decision affects the future of the Dream Act, if Brown gets elected and the legislature passes it again.

[alp227]

2. PASS THE DREAM ACT NOW!!!!

The comments section is filled with the usual mainstream audience self-contradictory "America's great" hate towards illegal immigrants who came not to harm us but to pursue the American Dream...which apparently actually is reserved only for a privileged few. The fact that children who came here illegally can overcome the odds and be great students just scares the pants out of those comment posters. I'll be following this case; thanks for posting.

[alp227]

3. California Supreme Court hears case that would bar illegal immigrants from receiving in-state tuitio

Source: Los Angeles Times

The California Supreme Court appeared skeptical Tuesday of a lawsuit that would end in-state tuition for an estimated 25,000 illegal immigrants who attend the state's public universities and colleges.

The court is reviewing an appeals court ruling that said the state is barred by federal immigration law from giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition, which can be as much as $19,000 a year cheaper than fees charged to out-of-state students.

At issue is a 2001 state law that provides the lower tuition for students, including illegal immigrants, who attend and graduate from a California high school.

A lawsuit before the court contends that the state requirement is preempted by a federal law that prohibits states from using residency requirements to give educational benefits to illegal immigrants when the benefit is not also offered to citizens.

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/california-supreme-court-hears-case-that-would-bar-illegal-immigrants-from-receiving-in-state-tuition-at-public-colleges.html

---

The comments section is filled with the usual mainstream audience anger towards those immigrants. Supposedly, those types love America and tout it as exceptional...but manage to spin such claims that "Mexico wouldn't do the same for illegal American immigrants" to make it seem that the California colleges were wrong to issue in-state tuition. Apparently, the American Dream is only for a privileged few I suppose? Meanwhile I guess I shall shamelessly plug the DREAM Act.

[Xipe Totec]

4. I think, in this case, federal jurisdiction aids the so-called 'illegal' immigrants

States are barred from discriminating based on immigration status which is a federal prerogative.

I know in my case, which does not involve illegal immigration but does involve status, I could not apply for US residence status for my oldest son because he had 'aged out' (adopted past the age limit). So he remained a foreign student for federal purposes while in the US, but Massachusetts recognized the adoption as valid, so his state residence was based on being a dependent of a legal Massachusetts resident, so he was granted in state tuition.

I am happy to say that, thanks to Massachusetts' enlightened policies, he now hold a Master's degree in computer science and just two weeks ago was finally granted US residence by the federal government.

(15 years after setting foot on American soil, and having worked for 10 years in America's high tech industry).

[tomm2thumbs]

5. last line of the article...

If the court upholds the state law, the case is expected to be appealed to the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

_____

meaning whatever is decided, it isn't actually decided for good

[LuckyLib]

6. By California charter UC has historically supposed to have been tuition free.

Notice how they have abided by that requirement . . .

This is a back door way to decrease student numbers of Latino students, thereby making room for out-state (higher tuition costs) students and others who feel "denied" by their own university/college system.

[defendandprotect]

8. Interesting ... perhaps one day someone will sue on that point .... ????

[X_Digger]

7. SCOTUS ruled on this (sorta): Plyler v Doe

There has been additional federal legislation after this case, but still..

[24601]

9. So let's get this straight. Federal law requires the state to enforce

a tuition provision of immigration law. The federal government on the other hand sued Arizona for a provision of its state law that mirrored federal law on the basis that only the federal government can enforce immigration law provisions. So which way is it? This bi-polar federal policy must drive the courts nuts. And it's no wonder voters are confused about the administration positions.