Court to decide if illegal California residents can pay in-state tuition
The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging a state law that allows illegal immigrant students who attended a California high school for at least three years to pay the in-state tuition rate. Residents of other states can be charged more than three times the in-state rate.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the decision in Martinez v Regents of the University of California ”could affect hundreds of illegal immigrant students who attend community colleges, Cal State and UC campuses and who say they would not be able to afford a higher education if required to pay out-of-state tuition.” The case is being watched closely, as nine other states have similar laws. A federal law prohibits special tuition rates for illegal immigrants unless the same benefit is extended to all U.S. citizens.
Plaintiffs don’t think it’s fair that U.S. citizens should pay a higher rate than illegal aliens. Illegal immigrant students fear that they would not be able to afford the higher tuition.
That the affected students are even allowed to enroll in California schools at any tuition rate is a travesty. If the plaintiffs prevail, then presumably many illegal resident students will drop out, freeing space in taxpayer-funded schools for citizens and legal residents.
UPDATE: Facing budget cuts, the UC Regents voted last week to reduce freshman enrollment this fall by 6%, or 2300 students. This despite the fact that UC freshman applications have increased by about 3%. The CSU system is considering a similar cut.
Since “standing” is skillfully employed by courts in dismissing inconvenient suits (see: BHO not a natural citizen), can someone point me to the law that gives standing to non-citizens suing not for a human right, but for a financial benefit?
Comment by Ed — 1/20/2009 @ 11:21 pm
I’m not from Kalifornia, but don’t illegals already have basically all the rights a natural born citizen has viz a viz medical care and welfare? If so, I see no reason why the liberal Kalifornia Supreme Court (I know I’m being redundant) will not grant “in-state” tuition rates to illegal aliens. Kalifornia = Bankrupt.
Comment by J. Raymond Wright — 1/21/2009 @ 5:31 am
The “liberal Kalifornia Supreme Court” is a good part of why Kalifornia = Banrupt. How many laws limiting spending on services to people illegally in the country have they deemed unconstitutional? How many times have they determined that prisons must be more like vacation resorts than punishment centers?
And now we are going to release 25,000 prisoners because the prisons are too crowded. Set up tent cities in the desert like Joe Arpia has done. Use convict labor as farm workers like Colorado does.
We allow illegals to pay in state tuition but we cut the freshman class sizes because we “can’t afford to teach” the number of students that want to enroll.
Comment by Jay Curtis — 1/21/2009 @ 8:14 am
Illegal immigrant students fear that they would not be able to afford the higher tuition.
We cannot afford to educate them.
Comment by Perfect Sense — 1/21/2009 @ 10:11 am
As a policy matter, the trouble is that illegal immigrant children did not choose to break America’s laws; they were brought here by their parents, who made that choice for them. Some of them don’t know they are here illegally; many of them have been here for long enough that this is the only home they know. Repatriating them to a country that isn’t their home in any meaningful sense, or punishing them for the illegal acts of their parents, both seem unnecessarily cruel.
The legal issue is that this policy effectively favors illegal immigrants who grew up in California over citizens who grew up in Nevada. Doing so violates federal law.
But is that federal law an unconstitutional infringement on the sovereignty of the state of California?
Comment by aphrael — 1/21/2009 @ 10:51 am
Repatriating them to a country that isn’t their home in any meaningful sense, or punishing them for the illegal acts of their parents, both seem unnecessarily cruel.
Should they be rewarded for the illegal acts of their parents?
Comment by aunursa — 1/21/2009 @ 11:22 am
#6 You aren’t allowed to ask questions like that! What are you thinking?!?
/sarcasm off
Comment by Jay Curtis — 1/21/2009 @ 7:05 pm
Both the UC and CSU systems could free up class space if they would just demand that incoming freshmen be able to pass the required “Bonehead” classes prior to their enrollment.
University is not the level at which remedial education should be given, or required.
Of course, that would mean holding the K-12 systems accountable for the lousy product they are pushing out onto the colleges and universities.
And, as everyone knows, liberalism means never having to be held accountable.
Comment by AD — 1/22/2009 @ 9:00 am
Whether or not they chose to break the law as children, they aren’t children anymore. By the time they reach college, they are adults.
This is a really weak argument from you, aphrael.
Comment by Steverino — 1/24/2009 @ 10:45 am