December 18, 2007

Federal Court Won't Rehear Case Against In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants

A federal appeals court denied a request on Monday to rehear a challenge to a Kansas law that allows some illegal immigrants to pay cheaper, in-state tuition at the state’s public colleges.

The decision, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, upheld the court’s ruling in August on the matter.

In that decision, the panel ruled that a group of students and parents who paid higher, out-of-state tuition at public colleges in Kansas, and who were challenging the tuition law, did not have standing to sue. The court, upholding a 2005 ruling by a federal district judge, said the students and parents had failed to provide evidence that they had been directly harmed by the Kansas law, or that they would benefit if the statute were removed.

The plaintiffs — all of whom are U.S. citizens who live outside of Kansas — have argued that the Kansas law on immigrant tuition violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as a 1996 federal immigration law.

They wanted federal courts to require the state to either eliminate the tuition benefit or offer the same tuition rates to all U.S. citizens, regardless of their state of residence.

The Kansas law, which took effect in 2004, allows immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at state institutions if they attended a Kansas high school for at least three years and graduated, or if they earned a General Educational Development certificate, commonly known as a GED, in Kansas. The individuals also must prove that they are actively seeking legal immigrant status or plan to do so as soon as they are able. —Sara Hebel

Comments

1. I find it amazing that out of state students had no standing when their inflated tuition dollars clearly help to subsidize the in-state tuition rates. It is remarkable that having stolen potentially a k-12 education by not paying income tax (for the state portion of the tab) illegal immigrants are entitled to in-state college tuition as well. I am all for fast tracking kids who have grown up in the US on the way to citizenship-it is called the GI bill, serve the country you claim to love so much ( volunteer service as well as miltary), get citizenship and if you serve in the armed forces all of the benefits of a native born veteran including health care and education. That would solve a lot of issues at once. Then once a citizen you can apply to bring family members (parents and siblings) into the country legally!

   — Amy James    Dec 18, 03:17 PM    #

2. Although I am not an attorney, it seems that the court did not rule if the law was unfair or not. It ruled that the families “did not have standing to sue” and that they could not prove that they had been harmed.

   The problem is the Kansas law and it needs to be fought at the legislative level. It just doesn’t make sense to give privileges to individuals who are here illegally, no matter how deserving.

   — Dodd    Dec 18, 04:07 PM    #

3. Ms James does not understand the reason why out-of-state students pay higher tuition. It is not to ‘subsidize the in-state tuition rates.’ It is state subsidies that subsidize in-state tuition rates. Out-of-state students pay something close to what it actually costs to educate them. And to have standing , you must be able to prove you are materially and directly harmed or affected. Simply being a taxpayer is not enough, for instance.

   — Carol    Dec 18, 04:08 PM    #

4. Even if this had gotten past the standing issue, the court would have probably found that the more restrictive residency requirements for undocumented individuals would have rendered the case moot. We have a similar law in Washington and it basically creates a situation where if you’re a US citizen, you can live in WA for 1 year and gain residency. If you are undocumented, then you have to live here for 3 years, attend and graduate from a WA high school. In this system, it is actually easier for the out of state US citizen to receive the tuition discount than the undocumented individual, therefore it is inconceivable that actual harm could be proven.

   — JS    Dec 18, 04:18 PM    #

5. These students came here as children and have been in our school system for years — they and their parents pay taxes on everything they purchase, inlcuding rent, cars, clothes, and in some places even food. And in a state like WA with no income tax, that means they pay as much state taxes as anyone else. All out-of-state students have their own in-state institutions to attend — they are not being deprived of a state-supported education. All of the students benefitting have graduated from KS high schools. If the out-of-staters had standing to argue that equal protection entitled them to in-state tuition in KS, then no state anywhere could make a distinction between residents and non-residents.

   — JC    Dec 18, 04:24 PM    #

6. What Ms. James and others elude to above is the essence of the Senate’s DREAM Act: volunteer or military service in exchange for a clear and legal path for citizenship, and the opportunity to pay in-state tuition. Unfortunately, the bill has stalled with the usual election year political rhetoric. Additionally, the military no longer takes undocumented individuals, further narrowing the opportunities for citizenship. If we do not address the issue affecting these children, there will be a continued undercurrent of second-class citizens, who will be relegated to underground resources instead of contributing to the economy and society at large.

   — CM    Dec 18, 05:37 PM    #

7. The issue of standing is quite separate from the tangled emotional issues around legal residency. I agree with the court.

   It also happens that I agree with providing in-state tuition for these students. I’d rather have an educated workforce – legal or illegal – than not.

   — Al    Dec 18, 05:41 PM    #

8. The justices have erred in this case. There is a violaltion of equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as a 1996 federal immigration law. The time has come to oust these judges who make their own laws. The irony is that U.S. Citizens have no rights whereas illegal aliens can do anything. Judges are like gods and they make their own laws and administer the way they want. Democracy, ha! ha!

   — Kan Chandras    Dec 18, 10:33 PM    #

9. The court is right for all the reasons posted. And I agree with Al. Given that the demographics of the US are changing and it’s expected that by 2040, the state of KS will be 51% “minority”, given currrent rates of immigration, we have to address this issue. It’s far better to have an educated workforce that is paying taxes (many of them are doing so already) than a non-educated one. Our economy depends on it and I don’t think it’s realistic to think the gov’t is going to round up the 11 or 12 million undocumented people and send them back from whence they’ve come.

   — JD    Dec 18, 10:37 PM    #

10. I think JS is mistaken about how easy it is to establish residency. Most states will not count time enrolled in college toward establishing residency. A prospective student would have to move into a state and live there for a year without attending classes to establish residency.

    — E. G.    Dec 19, 09:12 AM    #

Previous: U. of California to Pay $2.8-Million for Los Alamos Security Breach
Next: Scholars and Pop-Culture Fans Create Nonprofit Group to Fight for Creative Rights