Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/11/providing-in-state-tuition-for-illegal-aliens-a-violation-of-federal-law?rel=Education
Timestamp: 2015-11-29 01:40:01
Document Index: 3126573

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1623', '§ 1623', '§ 1623', '§ 1623', '§ 1623', '§ 15', '§ 24', '§ 50', '§ 8']

In-State College Tuition for Illegal Aliens and the Federal Law
Legal Memorandum #74 on Legal Issues
November 22, 2011 | Legal Memorandum on Legal Issues
By Hans A. von Spakovsky and Charles "Cully" Stimson
Federal immigration law prohibits states from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens based on residence in a state unless the same rates are offered to all U.S. citizens.
Twelve states are providing illegal aliens with in-state tuition rates (California, Texas, New York, Utah, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Maryland, and Connecticut) based on flimsy distinctions that likely violate the federal statute.
These states are encouraging illegal immigration, forcing taxpayers to subsidize the education of illegal aliens, and unfairly punishing students from out-of-state who are U.S. citizens.
While the Justice Department is suing states that are assisting the enforcement of federal immigration law, it is ignoring the violation of an unambiguous federal law that is designed to reduce incentives for illegal immigration.
The Justice Department has an obligation to enforce federal law and take action against these twelve states.
Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal FellowEdwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies Charles "Cully" Stimson
Manager, National Security Law Program and Senior Legal FellowThe Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Constitution, the States, and Immigration Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress has the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Over the decades, Congress has done just that, imposing a variety of conditions on those who wish to immigrate (e.g., such individuals must do so openly and in accordance with established legal process) and on those who might be visiting (e.g., such individuals must not overstay their authorized visit).
Beyond these immediate concerns, there is another, larger issue at stake: the federal government’s preeminent power to regulate immigration. The Supreme Court has held that the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.”[viii] However, not every state action “which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se pre-empted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised.”[ix] In order for a state statute affecting immigrants (legal or illegal) to be valid, it cannot be expressly preempted by federal immigration law and must “not otherwise conflict with federal law.”[x] State laws that provide in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens are both expressly preempted by, and in conflict with, § 1623—unless the state also provides in-state tuition rates to all other American students regardless of their state of residence. However, none of the states that provide in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens have changed their state laws to provide such tuition rates to out-of-state students who are U.S. citizens.
Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler provided a dubious legal opinion regarding Senate Bill 167 to Gov. O’Malley on May 9, 2011. Gansler concluded that federal law (in particular, 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a)) does not preempt Senate Bill 167. The opinion suggests that Senate Bill 167 is not subject to the preemptive effect of § 1623(a) because the former “looks to factors such as time of attendance in Maryland schools and graduation from Maryland schools to define an exemption from nonresident tuition” [xii] and not residence. There are at least two problems with that legal analysis. First, federal law permits a state to grant in-state college tuition to an illegal alien only if the state affords the same benefit to non-Maryland residents. The purpose of that law is to allow a state to treat illegal aliens like nonresidents for college tuition purposes: If the state does not charge more to the latter than to in-state students, then it may charge the same amount to illegal aliens (who, in an abstract sense, are akin to non-Marylanders). But Maryland’s law does not use that formula; Gansler claims that the bill does not require “residence” in Maryland to attend college and receive in-state tuition since it looks to “time of attendance” in Maryland high schools.
For example, in Day v Bond, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit brought by nonresident citizen university students and their parents against the state of Kansas. Section 1623 does not create a private right of action and the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring an equal protection claim.[xix] The court held that the injuries claimed by the plaintiffs failed to satisfy “the requisite standing criteria.” These injuries included: The denial of equal treatment caused by the Kansas law that made it impossible for nonresident U.S. citizens to obtain the same in-state benefits;
As the National Conference of State Legislatures notes in a report on in-state tuition for illegal aliens, in order to try and “maneuver around the [§ 1623] requirements, the eleven states that have enacted laws granting in-state tuition rates to undocumented students have tried to word the legislation so that it is contingent on high school attendance and graduation, and not based on residency within the state.”[xxiii] But Texas bases its definition of residency for college admission on an individual (or his parent) establishing domicile in Texas not later than one year before the academic term in which the student is enrolled in college or graduating from a Texas high school who “maintained a residence” continuously for three years before graduation.[xxiv] Similarly, California bases residency on high school attendance in California for three or more years and graduation from a California high school.[xxv] The California Supreme Court bought into this legally questionable argument in Martinez v. Regents of the University of California.[xxvi] The court recognized that the question of federal preemption of California’s residency law depended on whether the three-year high school attendance requirement is an “exemption based on residence within California.” However, the court held that the requirement that a student attend a California high school for three years and graduate was not a residency requirement. It overturned the California Court of Appeals, which had come to the legally straightforward conclusion that the California law was intended to benefit illegal aliens living in the state and the “wording of the California statute...creates a de facto residence requirement.”[xxvii] The court of appeals did not consider it relevant that the eligibility criteria did not correlate 100 percent with residency. The California Supreme Court made the illogical claim that because § 1623 is not an “absolute ban” on illegal aliens receiving such tuition benefits, that section of federal law is not in accord with the expressed intention of Congress in its immigration legislation to “remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.”[xxviii] The court also ignored the fact that the state had adopted the law specifically to benefit illegal aliens living in California and that the overwhelming majority of those who qualified for the benefit were only illegal aliens.
And yet, offending states continue to ignore the clear language provided by a federal court in the Merten decision, and instead rely on the preferred outcome found in a state supreme court ruling—a shortsighted and legally specious approach to governing. Unwise Public Policy
Granting financial preference to illegal aliens also discriminates against otherwise qualified citizen students from outside the state. Furthermore, states that offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens act as a magnet for more illegal aliens to come to the state. Arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive, and not supported by the facts. An Obligation to Enforce Federal Law
[i] Pub.L. 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546 (1996).
Undocumented Student Tuition: State Action, National Conference of State Legislatures (October 2011), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12846. Wisconsin repealed its law providing illegal aliens with in-state tuition rates in 2011. Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, and Indiana prohibit illegal aliens from receiving in-state tuition rates. Some states like Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, and South Carolina prohibit in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1803(B) (2006); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-76.5-101 (2006); Ga. Code Ann. § 50-36-1 (2011); S.C. Code § 8-29-10 (2008).
See, e.g., Kris Kobach, The Arizona Immigration Law: What It Actually Does, and Why It Is Constitutional, Heritage Foundation Lecture No. 1173 (Dec. 3, 2010), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/2010/12/The-Arizona-Immigration-Law-What-It-Actually-Does-and-Why-It-Is-Constitutional; Charles Stimson, States Get a “License” to Enforce Immigration Laws, Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 3342 (August 22, 2011), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/08/Ruling-on-States-Immigration-Law-Enforcement-and-EVerify-Use.
See Letter from Douglas E. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, to Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland (May 9, 2011) at 4, available at http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/ag_letters/sb0167.pdf.
Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries, Prince George’s County Public Schools (Sept. 2011), http://www1.pgcps.org/pasb/index.aspx?id=20182 (emphasis added).
Quick Guide to Enrollment, Montgomery County Public Schools (Jan. 2011), http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/info/enroll/QuickGuideToEnrollment-English.pdf (emphasis added).
Undocumented Student Tuition: Federal Action, National Conference of State Legislatures (May 2011), http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12851.
at 864.
Id. at 864–65.
Most Voters Oppose Public Schooling, Tuition Breaks, Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Immigrants, Rasmussen Reports (August 23, 2011), http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/most_voters_oppose_public_schooling_tuition_breaks_driver_s_licenses_for_illegal_immigrants.
[xxxi]Jack Martin, Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red, Federation for American Immigration Reform (June 2005), http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=17193&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1901. The plaintiff in Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas v. Texas claimed that there are 8,000 illegal aliens “currently attending Texas colleges and universities” who are eligible for in-state tuition as well as financial aid and other state education grants. 706 F.Supp.2d at 762. The Heritage Foundation