Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > The Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch Topics and information of interest to SOS associates in relation to courts, law, and justice

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-06-2011, 11:15 AM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default Supreme Court Passes on Case on Tuition Break for Illegals

Supreme Court Passes on Case on Tuition Break for Illegals
A California law that gives illegal aliens a break on college tuition and resembles a controversial proposal before Congress will not get closer scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
The justices announced Monday they will not hear arguments in a case brought by thousands of California college students who pay out-of-state tuition rates. The students object to a state law allowing their classmates, who are illegal aliens, the conditional ability to pay in-state or "resident" rates.
The dispute comes as some lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to press for passage of the DREAM Act. The legislation allows illegal aliens to earn citizenship by attending college or enlisting in the military.
While the case centers on a California law designed to benefit illegal immigrants, the state's legal case is very similar to the arguments used by other states, namely Arizona, which have pursued legislation to crack down on illegal aliens. In each instance, the states claim that its law is not preempted by Congress.
The student opponents of California's 2001 measure contend the tuition break directly conflicts with the main federal immigration law passed five years earlier.
"In the absence of guidance from this court, numerous states have circumvented federal law in this area with impunity," lawyer Kris Kobach wrote in February, asking the justices to take the case. "They have done so by urging a reading of federal law that reduces it to a dead letter and is contrary to every expression of congressional intent on the matter."
Kobach contends that federal immigration law prohibits the special kind of residency tuition break California passed unless the benefit is also available to all Americans. In other words, the California measure can only be allowed if all U.S. residents equally qualify for the in-state tuition rate specifically extended to illegal aliens.
In November, the California Supreme Court upheld the state law concluding "the exemption is not based on residence in California. Rather, it is based on other criteria." It pointed to situations where non-resident students could nonetheless qualify for the "resident" tuition status.
For example, any student with three years' attendance at a California high school qualifies for the break regardless of his or her home address. This would cover students who crossed the state line to attend a California school, boarding students whose parents live in a different state or students who moved away but wanted to return for college.
"If Congress had intended to prohibit states entirely from making aliens eligible for in-state tuition, it could have easily done so," Justice Ming Chin wrote for a unanimous court.
Late last year, the House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act that would among other things repeal the in-state tuition ban found in the 1996 immigration law. Senate backers have been unsuccessful in getting the bill to President Obama who fully backs the measure. Opponents have blasted the measure as an amnesty for people who've illegally entered the country.
Kobach says the inability of federal lawmakers to pass the DREAM Act "has not dissuaded some state legislatures from taking an alternative path: simply circumventing federal law."
Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Utah and Washington are some of the other states that have passed similar laws. The difference between "resident" and "nonresident" tuition for four years of undergraduate studies at Cal-Berkeley, for example, is $91,512.
The justices offered did not explain why they decided against taking the case.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1OWYZSeyv
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-07-2011, 05:19 AM
LAPhil LAPhil is offline
Continent Thief
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tralfamador
Posts: 454
Default

This morning's L.A. Times says otherwise. Something's weird about this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4277083.story
__________________
OPEN BORDERS AND MASS AMNESTY

Ich Bin Ein Arizonan!

"I entirely reject the concept, however, of "anchor babies." If parents are found to be here illegally, then the whole family, children as well, should be sent back to the parents' country of origin."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-07-2011, 05:24 AM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAPhil View Post
This morning's L.A. Times says otherwise. Something's weird about this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4277083.story
Of course the open borders lobby is touting this as a "ruling" for their side. Somehow the courts refusal to review the case is being interpreted by mass immigration proponents as being a ruling on the merits of their case.

The court refused to say why it wouldn't take it up. That's chickenshit justice
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-07-2011, 05:31 AM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,057
Default

If you visit the link, you'll see that no decision was issued in that case. Looking further, you'll see that it was denied review. Wesley Snipes appeal was also denied review. The justices do not believe it is worthy of their time, as their was likely not enough of a point of law to consider.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-07-2011, 05:39 AM
LAPhil LAPhil is offline
Continent Thief
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tralfamador
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola View Post
If you visit the link, you'll see that no decision was issued in that case. Looking further, you'll see that it was denied review. Wesley Snipes appeal was also denied review. The justices do not believe it is worthy of their time, as their was likely not enough of a point of law to consider.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/
Then why does today's L.A. Times article say this?

Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington— The U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing California to continue granting reduced, in-state tuition to college students who are illegal immigrants is likely to bolster similar proposals across the nation, as well as a California measure to provide financial aid for the undocumented.

The high court's action Monday upholds a California Supreme Court ruling last year that said the state's policy is legal because it grants in-state tuition on the basis of students' graduation from California high schools, not on their citizenship. A conservative immigration-law group appealed the decision, arguing that the discount — worth as much as $23,000 annually at University of California schools — was preferential treatment that violated federal law.
__________________
OPEN BORDERS AND MASS AMNESTY

Ich Bin Ein Arizonan!

"I entirely reject the concept, however, of "anchor babies." If parents are found to be here illegally, then the whole family, children as well, should be sent back to the parents' country of origin."
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-07-2011, 05:48 AM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAPhil View Post
Then why does today's L.A. Times article say this?

Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington— The U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing California to continue granting reduced, in-state tuition to college students who are illegal immigrants is likely to bolster similar proposals across the nation, as well as a California measure to provide financial aid for the undocumented.

The high court's action Monday upholds a California Supreme Court ruling last year that said the state's policy is legal because it grants in-state tuition on the basis of students' graduation from California high schools, not on their citizenship. A conservative immigration-law group appealed the decision, arguing that the discount — worth as much as $23,000 annually at University of California schools — was preferential treatment that violated federal law.
Well, it's just propaganda. The court didn't take the case up. Why, they didn't say. It may bolster granting in state tuition in other states, but it does not have to. The previous rulings just said it was in line with California law. Other states are not restricted by California law
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-07-2011, 09:57 AM
LAPhil LAPhil is offline
Continent Thief
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tralfamador
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola View Post
Well, it's just propaganda. The court didn't take the case up. Why, they didn't say. It may bolster granting in state tuition in other states, but it does not have to. The previous rulings just said it was in line with California law. Other states are not restricted by California law
Look, I know the L.A. Times is pretty biased, but I don't think they would just make up a story out of whole cloth. It does look like they were wrong, but I'm wondering where they got their information from. I hope they print a retraction when the truth comes out.
__________________
OPEN BORDERS AND MASS AMNESTY

Ich Bin Ein Arizonan!

"I entirely reject the concept, however, of "anchor babies." If parents are found to be here illegally, then the whole family, children as well, should be sent back to the parents' country of origin."

Last edited by LAPhil; 06-07-2011 at 10:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-07-2011, 10:22 AM
LAPhil LAPhil is offline
Continent Thief
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tralfamador
Posts: 454
Default

Rather than speculate any further, I sent this e-mail to the two writers of the L.A. Times article:

Larry Gordon/David Savage:

Your story in today's L.A. Times about the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to uphold California's policy of allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants is directly contradicted by this story from 6/6 which states the Court declined to hear the case:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1OWYZSeyv

I'd like to know what's going on here. Where are you getting your information?
__________________
OPEN BORDERS AND MASS AMNESTY

Ich Bin Ein Arizonan!

"I entirely reject the concept, however, of "anchor babies." If parents are found to be here illegally, then the whole family, children as well, should be sent back to the parents' country of origin."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-07-2011, 10:59 AM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

It is exactly as AG stated, the SOTUS rejected the case. Basically the reason was that the Calif law states that if a person has attended a Calif high school for 3 years, they may attend a Calif college or university as a Calif resident. That was the reason the SOTUS did not want to hear the case. The SOTUS reasoned that the Calif law was not about immigration because it would also cover legal citizens who had attended a Calif high school and had then moved out of state, so it wasn't pertaining to their legal status as a citizen which would fall under federal law.

This was the loophole that Calif knew would get their "Dream Act" through. But it is still unfair and this state will pay dearly for such pandering in the near future.

Kobach at center of two Supreme Court decisions in illegal immigration cases
Topeka — The U.S. Supreme Court has issued two decisions in illegal immigration cases that involved Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
On Monday, the court refused to review a California Supreme Court ruling that upheld a state law giving California high school graduates reduced in-state tuition at state schools, regardless of their immigration status. The court did not give a reasons for its action.
Kobach, a Republican, was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs suing to have the law overturned.
Eleven other states, including Kansas, grant similar benefits to illegal immigrants. The others are: Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.
On Tuesday, Kobach said the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the case did not mean that it supports the California law.
He said the court may be waiting for more lower court rulings on similar laws in other states before it takes up the matter. Kobach is leading a similar lawsuit in Nebraska.
In another case Monday, the high court vacated an appellate court decision that declared a Hazleton, Penn. illegal immigration ordinance unconstitutional. The court sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration.
"That was a big victory for the proponents of illegal immigration enforcement," Kobach said. But opponents of the Hazleton ordinance said the court's decision doesn't mean the lower court will automatically reverse its earlier ruling.
Among other things, the Hazleton ordinance requires businesses to use the federal E-Verity database to see if a worker is legally in the United States. Last month, the Supreme Court upheld a provision in an Arizona law that did the same thing.
Kobach has represented the city of Hazleton and state of Arizona in these cases.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/ju...ions-illegal-/

Last edited by Jeanfromfillmore; 06-07-2011 at 11:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-07-2011, 11:15 AM
LAPhil LAPhil is offline
Continent Thief
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tralfamador
Posts: 454
Default

I just got an e-mail back from one of the writers of the Times story:

"Hi, thanks for the note. I don’t see the contradiction since the stories say the same thing. By dismissing the appeal and refusing the hear that case, it upholds the California court. Sorry if you thought there were differences."

Larry Gordon

Los Angeles Times

This is the weasliest thing I've ever seen. As if he doesn't know the difference between dismissing an appeal and refusing to hear it. Totally misleading story.
__________________
OPEN BORDERS AND MASS AMNESTY

Ich Bin Ein Arizonan!

"I entirely reject the concept, however, of "anchor babies." If parents are found to be here illegally, then the whole family, children as well, should be sent back to the parents' country of origin."

Last edited by LAPhil; 06-07-2011 at 11:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved