- NAACP: Detroit water shutoffs are racially motivated
- Obama family set to buy $4.25M desert home in California: report
- Big milestone for Britain’s little Prince George who turns 1
- Murphy: Israel must be wary of Hamas using civilian deaths for recruitment
- Royce: Putin recruiting ‘every skinhead and malcontent around Russia’
- Nancy Pelosi is adamant: Congress worked together when Bush was president
- ‘Slender Man’ stabbing victim receives Purple Heart from anonymous veteran
- Kentucky city called socialist for buying gas station, undercutting competitor fuel prices
- Israel hits five mosques, sports complex in overnight Gaza strikes
- Hillary Clinton dogged for refusing reporters’ questions on book tour
Court backs in-state tuition rates for illegals
Question of the Day
The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that illegal immigrants attending state universities can continue to pay the cheaper, in-state tuition rates instead of the pricier rates charged to U.S. legal residents and citizens who live outside the state.
Justice Ming W. Chin said in the 28-page ruling that the 2002 state statute that grants in-state tuition rates to any student who attends a California high school for at least three years and graduates is not pre-empted by the 1996 federal law making illegal immigrants ineligible for the lower tuition.
The key, he said, is the wording of the federal law, which says in Section 1623 that illegal immigrants “shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state for postsecondary educational benefits.”
“The fatal flaw in plaintiffs’ argument concerning section 1623 is their contention that [the state] exemption from paying out-of-state tuition is based on residence. It is not,” Justice Chin said in the opinion. “It is based on other criteria.”
He said the wording of the federal statute, which says that illegal immigrants shall not be eligible for lower tuition “on the basis on residence within a state,” provides states with wiggle room.
“If Congress had intended to prohibit states entirely from making unlawful immigrants ineligible for in-state tuition, it could have easily done so,” said Mr. Chin. “It could simply have provided, for example, that ‘an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible.’ But it did not do so. … The reference to the benefit being on the basis of residence must have some meaning. It can only qualify, and thus limit, the prohibition’s reach.”
Michael Hethmon, general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, filed the lawsuit. He said his organization likely would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We’re obviously very disappointed because it was so clearly in our view a results-driven decision,” Mr. Hethmon said. “They concede that this is what the California Legislature intended to do, and then conclude Congress was stupid because they wrote the law so you could find loopholes. They dismiss any argument about legislative intent.”
California is one of 10 states that allow illegal immigrants to take advantage of in-state tuition waivers. The lawsuit, Martinez v. the Regents of the University of California, was filed on behalf of U.S. citizens who attend California public universities but reside outside the state and therefore must pay higher tuition.
The California law, known as Assembly Bill 540, became a campaign issue during the governor’s race. Republican primary candidates Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner voiced opposition to lower tuition for illegal immigrants.
Attorney General Jerry Brown, who won the gubernatorial race and whose office defended the legislation before the court, released a statement Monday in support of the ruling. “The Martinez decision upholds California law, which was intended to encourage California high school graduates to attend public colleges and universities in the state,” he said.
Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, also applauded the high court’s decision.
“The court’s decision means that California’s institutions of higher education will continue to be strengthened by the inclusion of some of our state’s brightest and most successful students, who simply lack legal status due to the nation’s failure to enact the widely supported DREAM Act,” he said.
Congressional Democrats are pushing to bring the DREAM Act for a vote before the Republican House majority is seated in January.
The act would open a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who attend college or enlist in the armed forces.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Valerie Richardson covers politics and the West from Denver. She can be reached at email@example.com.
- Rep. Jared Polis' anti-fracking crusade riles Colorado
- Carson wins straw poll as conservatives focus on winning battle of ideas
- 'Carson for president' troops converge on Western Conservative Summit
- Palin urges Western Conservative Summit grassroots to support impeachment of Obama
- Western Conservative Summit: Jindal says Obama is abandoning the American dream
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
U.S. appetite for drugs begets violence migrants are fleeing
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- Jewish woman booted from JetBlue flight over fight with Palestinian
- YOUNG: A sinking presidency, deeper after November?
- Hillary Clinton dogged for refusing reporters' questions on book tour
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
- Rep. Jared Polis' anti-fracking crusade riles Colorado
- Hamas terrorists wear Israeli army uniforms to ambush soldiers in Gaza
- MERRY: Handicaps in Hillary's way
- Blunder on the bases costly in D-Backs' 4-3 loss
- Nancy Pelosi: Congress worked together when Bush was president
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq