Mea culpa. It was Congress IIRC than mandated the health provisions. The point being, that the fed govt inserts itself into local matters that the local jurisdictions have to deal with/fund, then when a state decides for its own reasons that it will extend in part a federal mandate/benefit, the feds jump in again and say, but you can’t do THAT. The feds DO try to have it both ways, and that leaves it to the states to deal with the situations the best way they know.
I chose to live in a state that not only doesn’t subsidize in-state tuition for illegals, but (last I heard) my state won’t even ADMIT them to state schools. That works for me. But I don’t live in TX/CA or any of the other states that offer the in-state tuition break. And, as far as I’m concerned, it is up to each of the states, and the feds should butt out. But that’s just me.
That's a "soft" mandate, in that giving E-room health care to all comers is a condition for receiving certain federal monies. No hospital is bound to seek the federal money in the first place.
-- And, as far as I'm concerned, it is up to each of the states, and the feds should butt out. --
Immigration policy is for the feds to set. Would you say the states have the right to act in contravention of a federal law that directs the handling of those in the country illegally?
See post 172, to you just above, for a cite and text of a federal law that pertains to in-state tuition for persons in the country illegally.
I'll be one of the last people to claim that the federal government is coherent. Congress, SCOTUS, and the Executive often establish conflicting rules. The only point of consistency among the three branches (and their administrative agencies, and their czars) is that ALL of them are in favor of aggregating (and arrogating) power to the federal government.
It's the big league of finger pointing, while asserting control.