<p></p>
<p> The California Supreme Court is the second most important court in the United States of America without doubt. Six (6) Republican appointed justices and one Democrat-appointed justice sit on the court. He is Hispanic, the others are not.</p>
<p> The national media exploded with journalistic rage especially the Fox News Channel which was apoplectic — when the court unanimously decided that a California law allowing children brought to the United States illegally could receive discounted in-state tuition at state colleges and universities. It ruled that a 1996 federal denial of educational “benefits” to illegal aliens by states does not apply to California in this case.</p>
<p> Published arguments against this ruling include:</p>
<p> · Illegal aliens have no rights in the United States because they are here illegally</p>
<p> · We must pass federal/state constitutional amendments to deny illegals any “entitlements”</p>
<p> · The court should investigate how illegal aliens are allowed to attend California’s public, taxpayer supported high schools</p>
<p> · Can anyone from any state, race or nation now get domestic rates for college tuition?</p>
<p> · Legal residents pay taxes and illegals attend school with legal resident children; is that fair?</p>
<p> Are these arguments valid or even informed? They are not.</p>
<p> The California Supreme Court: “This case involves a controversial subject: persons unlawfully present in this country. The California Legislature has provided that unlawful aliens are exempt from paying nonresident tuition at California state colleges and universities under certain circumstances.”</p>
<p> The Court: “Section 68130.5 to the Education Code. (Stats. 2001, ch. 814, § 2.) It provides:</p>
<p> “(a) A student… who meets all of the following requirements shall be exempt from paying nonresident tuition at the California State University and the California Community Colleges:</p>
<p> “(1) High school attendance in California for three or more years.</p>
<p> “(2) Graduation from a California high school or attainment of the equivalent thereof.”</p>
<p> Further, “(4) In the case of a person without lawful immigration status, the filing of an affidavit with the institution of higher education stating that the student has filed an application to legalize his or her immigration status, or will file an application as soon as he or she is eligible to do so.”</p>
<p> The Court, “The high court has specifically held that states may charge nonresidents, even those who are American citizens, more for attending their public postsecondary institutions than they charge residents. ((1973) 412 U.S. 441, 452-453.)”</p>
<p> The Court, “In <em>Plyler v. Doe </em>(1982) 457 U.S. 202, the high court held that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits states from denying “to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens.” (<em>Plyler, supra</em>, at p. 205; see also <em>id</em>. at p. 230.) Thus, the high court has held that the Constitution requires states to provide a free public education to some unlawful aliens.”</p>
<p> None of the arguments or questions or other emotional reactions to the court’s decision are valid or even intelligent.</p>
<p> The facts: Illegals pay taxes, thus are part of the tax-paying public that funds the colleges and universities, thus the tax-paying argument is invalid as it violates “equal protection” and the taking clause of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution ; Illegals have 14th Amendment constitutional rights as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court (<em>Plyler</em>)…The state can define who is eligible (or not) for in-state tuition as long as the requirements apply to all (<em>Vlandis v. Kline</em>).</p>
<p> Despite high-running emotions on this subject, emotion cannot be allowed to taint the illegal alien controversy. Reason must prevail along with American labor needs in wide swaths of the economy. The rule of law must prevail and the Supreme Court and its decisions are the rule of law. (Marbury v. Madison, 1803)</p>
<p> Children cannot be held responsible for “crimes” (misdemeanors) committed by adults; adults after all, can form “criminal intent” while children are not legally capable of “criminal intent.” A child cannot be punished for what his/her parents do or not do.</p>
<p> Granting in-state college tuition to innocent children who attend California schools and graduate is not wrong. It is right, morally, legally and economically right.</p>
<p><em>Contreras’ books at Amazon’s Kindle Books – (1) Drug Cartel Novel, “JUNIORS,” (2) A Hispanic View: White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) Racism & Hatred of Mexicans…(3) A Hispanic View: The 2008 Presidential Campaign & Candidate Barack Obama…(4) A Hispanic View: Hollywood, Berkas and Abayas…(5) The State of Arizona vs. The United States of America.</em></p>
Category