In an age when many judges have decided their role is to make laws rather than rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislative and executive branches of government, the Arizona Supreme Court did something entirely novel on April 9: they conscientiously attended to the business that falls under their job description.
The Arizona high court handed down a unanimous ruling barring Maricopa County Community Colleges from offering in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens, including DACA recipients. The ruling applies to all public colleges and universities in the state. Regardless of the justices’ personal views on the matter, they recognized that both federal and state laws prohibit illegal aliens from receiving in-state tuition benefits.
Sec. 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 states explicitly that, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”
California, in its never-ending quest to bestow benefits on illegal aliens, managed to find a loophole in the law by making in-state tuition subsidies contingent on having completed three years of high school in the state. However, the intent of Congress in 1996 was clear. They aimed to end a powerful incentive for people to bring their kids to the United States illegally; alleviate a substantial burden on taxpayers; and ensure that illegal aliens did not receive preferential treatment over citizens and legal residents.
Second, the Arizona Supreme Court ruling affirms that DACA recipients are illegal aliens. As President Obama forthrightly acknowledged when he established the program in 2012 (after repeatedly saying he did not have the authority to do so), DACA does not bestow legal status on beneficiaries. It merely grants a temporary exemption from enforcement. “Now, let’s be clear – this is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix,” Obama said in his Rose Garden announcement.
Third, granting in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens violates Arizona law – in this case, one that was enacted directly by the people of Arizona. In 2004, 56 percent of Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 that, among other things expressly prohibits illegal aliens from receiving public benefits. The law “requires that a state or local governmental entity that is responsible for administering ‘state and local public benefits that are not federally mandated’ must: – verify the identity and eligibility for each applicant for the public benefits. – provide other state and local government employees with information to verify immigration status of applicants applying for public benefits and must also assist other state and local government employees in obtaining immigration status information from federal immigration authorities.”
In-state tuition is clearly a public benefit, and not an insignificant one. At Arizona State University, for example, in-state tuition amounts to a $17,784 a year subsidy, borne by state taxpayers.
Although the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling applies only to Arizona, it provides important legal precedent that can be cited by other states seeking to protect the interests of citizens and taxpayers against the harmful effects of illegal immigration.
9 Comments
this should be in ALL states.. we should NOT be spending ONE dime on ANYONE in this country illegally and that includes medical care, food, housing, etc… NOTHING.. they have NO right to be here and catering to these illegal aliens with all these free benefits ONLY encourages more and more illegals to violate our laws and enter the country.. it is total insanity to allow this to continue and holding these illegal aliens above our laws and the citizens… they are a huge burden to the tax payers…
STOP ALL FREE BENEFITS TO ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS AND WE’D SAVE BILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS EVERY YEAR…
AGREE and any person who promotes refuge, employment, sanctuary etc should be PROSECUTED. E verify should be mandated for all employment.
Damn straight!!!
Good morning. Well it’s about time! Let see if Texas follows in that direction! That doesn’t make sense, that a State would give illegal aliens in-State Tuition which is a benefit. And at the same time, wouldn’t give citizens of that State, the same benefits! I say cut all taxpayer handouts to illegal aliens! Imagine how much money the States would save.
agree.. we should NOT be spending ONE dime of tax money to take care of illegal aliens.. that is totally INSANE.. they have NO right to be here… … and I don’t understand anyone who is okay with paying for their medical care while they send their money back to Mexico.. INSANE..
One thing to be remembered. The more Democrats elected the more they will cater to illegals. A lot of people are holding their noses and voting Republican. Not that they necessarily want to but its come down to a matter of do we want the country we have known to survive or do we want open borders, which the Democrats are determined to give us, one way or another, either directly through the non enforcement of law or judges who will tie those laws in knots to the point they are unenforceable. There was a Democratic consultant on tv a few days ago who said that there is a perception the Democrats “don’t listen”. Actually they do listen and when you say you want the borders enforced and illegals deported, they call you a racist bigot.
AMEN!!!! a judge with some sense…now they need to start doing this in ALL STATES!!!
I AGREE 100%. I’m glad it’s going to happen, it’s a great idea. Think about Americans more. It’s our country.
Hallejujah! Guys and gals wearing black robes who understand that they serve in the judicial, not legislative, branch of government. What WILL they think of next?