Thursday, July 3, 2008

Reality Check Needed for Supporters of In-State Tuition for Illegals

There are a lot of people heralding the US Supreme Court's recent decision not to hear a case brought by Kris Kobach as some kind of victory for illegal immigrants. The allegations proponents of illegal immigration are making against Kobach is that his lawsuit sought to deny education to illegal immigrants and that's just plain false.

In reality Prof. Kobach's lawsuit was brought on behalf of students in Missouri who were seeking restitution for Kansas violation of Section 505 of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Reconciliation Act of 1996 which requires all US citizens receive the same tuition benefits that illegal immigrants do.

(a) IN GENERAL.—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.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to benefits provided on or after July 1, 1998.

As is Kansas' law giving in-state tuition to illegals violates federal law, not in the fact that it gives illegal immigrants in-state tuition, but that it does not also extend that benefit to all other U.S. citizens. Kobach originally filed the suit in 2004 after the Kansas law was enacted.

The case was heard in federal district court in Topeka in 2005. U.S. District Judge Richard Rogers wrote a 38-page decision that said the out-of-state students did not have standing to file the lawsuit and dismissed it.

That decision was upheld at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. Kobach then asked the Supreme Court to review the case.[1]

Maybe you didn't catch what that US District judge said, "out-of-state students did not have standing to file the lawsuit." Huh? No standing? Has Judge Rogers even read section 505 of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Reconciliation Act of 1996? We're guessing he hasn't, nor did any of the appeals court judges in this case, since that is exactly what section 505 of the law does.

Let us repeat that, out-of-state US citizens that are paying out-of-state tuition rates are being wronged under section 505 of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Reconciliation Act of 1996 and are thus entitled to restitution.

In 2008, Kansas residents and illegal immigrants will pay $3438.75 per semester to attend Kansas University. Out-of-state residents are being charged $9030.75 per semester, nearly three times as much. Over a four year term, out-of-state students will pay $44,736.00 more than illegal immigrants and that figure is expected to rise with the growing cost of tuition.

We don't know about you, but we certainly feel that US citizens being charged a $45,000 premium over people who violated immigration laws to enter this country have standing and apparently congress and President Clinton agree.


Ed said...


James you got to realize that liberals don't want illegals to have to abide by any laws. PERIOD. Not immigration laws, not tuition laws - none.

So I propose the following compromise:
Anytime an illegal immigrant commits a crime against a US Citizen, the first question should be was the crime against a liberal US Citizen? If yes, do nothing and let the illegal immigrant go free. If the crime was committed against anyone other than a liberal US Citizen, then we prosecute the illegal immigrant to the fullest extent of the law. This way the libs are appeased in that illegals get off scott free in some circumstances, and illegals get the book thrown at them in other situtations making conservatives happy.

If anyone thinks the above compromise is the craziest thing you've ever heard, then you should also know that allowing people to totally disregard laws is crazy too.

I guess kids (or their parents) from Missouri will just have to rent an apartment for a few months in Kansas and claim it as their address when they sign up for school in KS. Even if you paid an entire year's rent and a little on utilities, it would be far cheaper than paying the out-of-state tuition rates.

Yeah, I know - that sounds like cheating. But then again, so is crossing the border illegally.

Kyle said...

Ed, if only it were that easy. I'm one of the students that was a plaintiff in the original case against the state of Kansas, during my junior year at KU. One of the women involved in the suit had moved from Colorado, married a Kansas man and had a child, along with buying a home in Lawrence and KU still wouldn't grant her in-state tuition.

Giving the children of illegals in-state tuition is just another way the liberals in this country are working to destroy nationalism and our way of life. This might not be a big deal in itself, but with all the other things constantly happening, its a bigger deal.

Anonymous said...

Kyle, what was their reasoning that denied you "standing" in this case?

Also, it appears to be a no brainer given the law. At the very least the court could have accepted the case and ruled the law unconstitutional.

What is the purpose of having laws on the books if you are going to ignore them?