Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calif. Supreme Court Will Hear Case Challenging In-State Tuition to Illegal Aliens
CNSNews.com ^ | January 05, 2009 | Fred Lucas

Posted on 01/05/2009 2:20:04 AM PST by Man50D

The California Supreme Court will hear a case on the legality of granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens attending public colleges, potentially setting a national precedent for nine other states that allow the same discount.

Just before Christmas, the California court announced it would hear the case of Martinez v. Regents of University of California. The plaintiffs in the class action--42 students from 19 different states attending public colleges in California--contend the state violated federal law by making them pay higher tuition than other non-California residents who got a tuition break.

The lawsuit could require compensation for every out-of state student attending a public higher education institution in California, said Michael Heathman, co-counsel for the plaintiffs and general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

The states of Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington also provide discounted college tuition to illegal aliens.

Those state laws will almost certainly be affected by the final outcome of the California case, Heathman said, even though the case is in state court.

“California is a prominent jurisdiction,” Heathman told CNSNews.com. “The fact that it is a state court is not that much of a draw back.”

A state judge dismissed the initial complaint filed in 2005, but in September, a three-judge appeals court panel reversed the lower court ruling and determined the trial courts must hear the case.

On Dec. 22, the California Supreme Court announced that it would review whether the state law first enacted in 2001 that “authorizes undocumented aliens and other non-residents who attend and graduate from a California high school to pay in-state tuition for post secondary education violates” federal law. Also, the high court will review whether the in-state tuition law “violates the rights of non-resident students under federal law in violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

It could be months before the high court hears the case, Heathman said.

The 1996 federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act says, “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state (or political division) for any post secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit.” Further, the 1996 welfare reform law states that anyone in the country illegally is not eligible for state or local benefits, including higher education benefits.

The state of California argued that its tuition discount was not a benefit because it did not provide monetary payments, and that it was based on the students having attended a California high school for three or more years and having graduated from the school. Thus, it wasn’t a special benefit just for immigrants.

In fact, non-California U.S. residents are eligible if they attended a California high school for three years. Examples include a student attending a high school boarding school or a graduate student who had lived outside of California while earning their undergraduate degree. A report in March from the University of California system says that 70 percent of students receiving the discount are legal residents.

The state also argued that students who are illegal and are receiving the tuition discount are required to pledge to seek legal residency.

The appellate court ruled, “The vast majority of students who attend a California high school for three years are residents of the state of California.” The opinion continued that the in-state tuition law “thwarts the will of Congress.” On the pledge to seek legal residency, the court said, “This is an empty, unenforceable promise contingent upon some future eligibility that may or may not ever occur.”

The appeals court ruling was based on “flawed legal analysis,” said Josh Bernstein, director of federal policy for the National Immigration Law Center, among the organizations that asked the state’s highest court to review the appellate decision.

“It would be extremely unfortunate if this intermediate court decision were upheld,” Bernstein said in a statement. “The affected students are talented high achievers who grew up in California and persevered against the odds to graduate from high school and meet the qualifications for higher education. … The elected representatives and governor of California, as well as legislators in nine other states where the majority of undocumented immigrants live, have determined that it is a wise policy to charge these students an affordable tuition.”

About 80,000 students pay higher tuition to attend California public universities and colleges because they are from out of state, Heathman said. He said there are only two ways for the case to go after the California Supreme Court rules.

“If the ruling is upheld, we’ll have to figure out how the students will get the $2.5 billion,” he said. “If it is overturned, it will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.”


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; illegalaliens; illegalimmigrants; immigrantlist; immigration; rico; rights4illegals
All this violates the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act below.

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act

Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) Recruitment and Employment of Illegal Aliens Encouraging and Harboring Illegal Aliens Enforcement RICO —Citizen Recourse Tax Crimes Comment

Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) "Any person who . . . encourages or induces an illegal alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each illegal alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

· assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or · encourages that illegal alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or · knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions. ·

Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.

Recruitment and Employment of Illegal Aliens

It is unlawful to hire an alien, to recruit an alien, or to refer an illegal alien for a fee, knowing the illegal alien is unauthorized to work in the United States. It is equally unlawful to continue to employ an illegal alien knowing that the illegal alien is unauthorized to work.

It is unlawful to hire any individual for employment in the United States without complying with employment eligibility verification requirements. Requirements include examination of identity documents and completion of Form I-9 for every employee hired. Employers must retain all I-9s, and, with three days' advance notice, the forms must be made available for inspection. Employment includes any service or labor performed for any type of remuneration within the United States, with the exception of sporadic domestic service by an individual in a private home. "Day laborers" or other casual workers engaged in any compensated activity (with the above exception) are employees for purposes of immigration law. An employer includes an agent or anyone acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer. For purposes of verification of authorization to work, employer also means an independent contractor, or a contractor other than the person using the illegal alien labor.

The use of temporary or short-term contracts cannot be used to circumvent the employment authorization verification requirements. If employment is to be for less than the usual three days allowed for completing the I-9 Form requirement, the form must be completed immediately at the time of hire.

An employer has constructive knowledge that an employee is an illegal unauthorized worker if a reasonable person would infer it from the facts. Constructive knowledge constituting a violation of federal law has been found where (1) the I-9 employment eligibility form has not been properly completed, including supporting documentation, (2) the employer has learned from other individuals, media reports, or any source of information available to the employer that the alien is unauthorized to work, or (3) the employer acts with reckless disregard for the legal consequences of permitting a third party to provide or introduce an illegal alien into the employer's work force. Knowledge cannot be inferred solely on the basis of an individual's accent or foreign appearance.

Actual specific knowledge is not required. For example, a newspaper article stating that ballrooms depend on an illegal alien work force of dance hostesses was held by the courts to be a reasonable ground for suspicion that unlawful conduct had occurred.

It is illegal for nonprofit or religious organizations to knowingly assist an employer to violate employment sanctions, regardless of claims that their convictions require them to assist illegal aliens. Harboring or aiding illegal aliens is not protected by the First Amendment. It is a felony to establish a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of federal immigration law. Violators may be fined or imprisoned for up to five years.

Encouraging and Harboring Illegal Aliens

It is a violation of law for any person to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection in any place, including any building or means of transportation, any illegal alien who is in the United States in violation of law. Harboring means any conduct that tends to substantially facilitate an alien to remain in the U.S. illegally. The sheltering need not be clandestine, and harboring covers aliens arrested outdoors, as well as in a building. This provision includes harboring an alien who entered the U.S. legally but has since lost his legal status.

An employer can be convicted of the felony of harboring illegal aliens who are his employees if he takes actions in reckless disregard of their illegal status, such as ordering them to obtain false documents, altering records, obstructing INS inspections, or taking other actions that facilitate the alien's illegal employment. Any person who within any 12-month period hires ten or more individuals with actual knowledge that they are illegal aliens or unauthorized workers is guilty of felony harboring. It is also a felony to encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in the U.S. knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that the alien's entry or residence is in violation of the law. This crime applies to any person, rather than just employers of illegal aliens. Courts have ruled that "encouraging" includes counseling illegal aliens to continue working in the U.S. or assisting them to complete applications with false statements or obvious errors. The fact that the alien is a refugee fleeing persecution is not a defense to this felony, since U.S. law and the UN Protocol on Refugees both require that a refugee must report to immigration authorities without delay upon entry to the U.S.

The penalty for felony harboring is a fine and imprisonment for up to five years. The penalty for felony alien smuggling is a fine and up to ten years' imprisonment. Where the crime causes serious bodily injury or places the life of any person in jeopardy, the penalty is a fine and up to twenty years' imprisonment. If the criminal smuggling or harboring results in the death of any person, the penalty can include life imprisonment. Convictions for aiding, abetting, or conspiracy to commit alien smuggling or harboring, carry the same penalties. Courts can impose consecutive prison sentences for each alien smuggled or harbored. A court may order a convicted smuggler to pay restitution if the illegal alien smuggled qualifies as a victim under the Victim and Witness Protection Act. Conspiracy to commit crimes of sheltering, harboring, or employing illegal aliens is a separate federal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or five years' imprisonment.

Enforcement

A person or entity having knowledge of a violation or potential violation of employer sanctions provisions may submit a signed written complaint to the INS office with jurisdiction over the business or residence of the potential violator, whether an employer, employee, or agent. The complaint must include the names and addresses of both the complainant and the violator, and detailed factual allegations, including date, time, and place of the potential violation, and the specific conduct alleged to be a violation of employer sanctions. By regulation, the INS will only investigate third-party complaints that have a reasonable probability of validity. Designated INS officers and employees, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws, may make an arrest for violation of smuggling or harboring illegal aliens.

State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient. Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer's consent to enter workplaces or residences. Any vehicle used to transport or harbor illegal aliens, or used as a substantial part of an activity that encourages illegal aliens to come to or reside in the U.S. may be seized by an immigration officer and is subject to forfeiture. The forfeiture power covers any conveyances used within the U.S.

RICO —Citizen Recourse

Private persons and entities may initiate civil suits to obtain injunctions and treble damages against enterprises that conspire to or actually violate federal alien smuggling, harboring, or document fraud statutes, under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO). The pattern of racketeering activity is defined as commission of two or more of the listed crimes. A RICO enterprise can be any individual legal entity, or a group of individuals who are not a legal entity but are associated in fact, and can include nonprofit associations.

Tax Crimes

Employers who aid or abet the preparation of false tax returns by failing to pay income or Social Security taxes for illegal alien employees, or who knowingly make payments using false names or Social Security numbers, are subject to IRS criminal and civil sanctions. U.S. nationals who have suffered intentional discrimination because of citizenship or national origin by an employer with more than three employees may file a complaint within 180 days of the discriminatory act with the Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, U.S. Department of Justice. In addition to the federal statutes summarized, state laws and local ordinances controlling fair labor practices, workers compensation, zoning, safe housing and rental property, nuisance, licensing, street vending, and solicitations by contractors may also apply to activities that involve illegal aliens.

Comment:

A comment and a published quote by Robert Gaffney, Attorney and County Executive of Suffolk County, LI, NY:

The statutory foundation of United States immigration law has always been the jurisdiction of the federal government, Congress and the federal courts. The preeminent laws concerning the employment of illegal aliens are found in the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §~ 1101-1503), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 CIRCA).

The law states it is a crime to assist an illegal alien who lacks employment authorization by referring him to an employer, or by acting as his or her employer, or as an agent for an employer. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324a(a)(1)(A) (Lexis 1997). Furthermore, it is unlawful to hire an individual for employment without complying with the employment eligibility requirements for every person hired. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324a(a)(l)(B) (Lexis 1997). Moreover, conduct tending substantially to facilitate illegal aliens remaining in the United States illegally, where there is knowledge or a reckless disregard of an illegal alien s unlawful status, is a crime, with escalating penalties, encompassed within the provisions of 1324. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(iii) (Lexis 1997); United States v. Kim. 193 F-3d 567 (2d Cir. 1999), are considered employees for purposes of immigration law.

1 posted on 01/05/2009 2:20:05 AM PST by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Bump to stoppit

Illegal, costly, stupid and unconstitutional.

Let them pay Foreign Student Fees which should be higher than out of state citizen fees.

Their fees should cover every cost associated with their education and a little more to show how much they appreciate our educational system.

2 posted on 01/05/2009 2:37:43 AM PST by Syncro (Mi TagLine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

The heck with that.....DEPORT THEM NOW!


3 posted on 01/05/2009 2:47:43 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

And CA wants a bail out.


4 posted on 01/05/2009 3:38:40 AM PST by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Stuck on stupid, again?


5 posted on 01/05/2009 4:19:24 AM PST by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

“It would be extremely unfortunate if this intermediate court decision were upheld,” Bernstein said in a statement. “The affected students are talented high achievers who grew up in California and persevered against the odds to graduate from high school and meet the qualifications for higher education. … The elected representatives and governor of California, as well as legislators in nine other states where the majority of undocumented immigrants live, have determined that it is a wise policy to charge these students an affordable tuition.”

Yet ANOTHER example of RIGHTS for ILLEGAL ALIENS that American’s don’t have.

It MUST stop now.

Thank you for the information...much of the same can be used to argue against sanctuary cities. Oberlin Ohio is currently deciding on whether or not to make it’s city a sanctuary. I believe residents who oppose should take action against every member of council who votes to enable/harbor/encourage illegal immigration. I know that Judicial Watch has filed in Calif. on behalf of citizens vs. their city...Ohioans need someone who’ll step up to the plate and do the same. Oberlin is a small college town...but, Oberlin today, Columbus tomorrow.


6 posted on 01/05/2009 4:59:30 AM PST by Kimberly GG (Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda been HUNTER.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

ping


7 posted on 01/05/2009 8:57:24 AM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
The heck with that.....DEPORT THEM NOW!

Don't worry, they would fight tooth and nail to get a free education.

If they can't, it will be self-deportation.

Of course the liberals will step in and keep them here, it's their voter base (along with the welfare plantation in the inner cities) that they buy the votes from with the free money and education.

But I agree, deport all of the Criminal Illegal Insurgent Invading Colonist Aliens NOW!

8 posted on 01/05/2009 10:33:59 AM PST by Syncro (Mi TagLine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson