The logic seems hard to argue with to me: How can you claim legal privileges as a resident if it isn’t even legal for you to live where you’re living?
Before American discourse got the idea that illegal immigration wasn’t really illegal – because people don’t like it to be, I guess – this type of common sense logic would have been unassailable.
But it’s 2018, and we can’t even be sure women are women or men are men anymore, so why not try to get perks for living somewhere you’re not supposed to be? And if you’re an Arizona college or university, what the hell? Give in-state tuition breaks to illegals. Hating on immigration enforcement is all the rage these days and the social justice warriors on your campus will love it.
Except for one thing: It’s not actually legal, and Arizona apparently has a Supreme Court that still cares about the law:
Arizona colleges can’t give in-state tuition to young immigrants covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court issued a brief decision order saying justices unanimously agreed with the Arizona Court of Appeals’ ruling that said existing federal and state laws don’t allow the Maricopa Community Colleges to grant in-state tuition rates for DACA recipients.
A full opinion further explaining the court’s ruling will be released by May 14, the order states.
The court released the order Monday to allow Maricopa Community Colleges students and the state to have as much time as possible to plan for those affected by the ruling.
More than 2,000 DACA recipients, commonly referred to as “dreamers,” currently attend community college or a state university in Arizona and pay in-state rates. The ruling will make DACA recipients pay much more to attend these schools, as out-of-state rates are about triple the cost of in-state tuition.
Right, that’s kind of the point of having two levels of tuition, with the one for out-of-state residents being higher. You want to give an advantage to your own legal residents. What this ruling simply and obviously says is that you’re not a legal Arizona resident if it’s not even legal for you to live in the United States.
By the way, let’s say something about the story’s use of the term “DACA recipients.” DACA is not something you receive. It’s not a public benefit, like a welfare check or food stamps. DACA is a decision by a president of the United States not to enforce the law with respect to certain lawbreakers. I suppose you’re receiving a benefit insofar as you’re getting away with breaking the law, but “recipient” is an awfully strange way to describe someone who’s being protected from deportation under this unconstitutional Obama action.
What these people really are is illegal childhood arrivals, not “DACA recipients” and not “dreamers.” I have considerable sympathy for their plight, and I’d like to see Congress come up with a legislative solution that would make it possible for as many of them as possible to live here legally. It is not their fault their parents brought them here illegally when they were children. That should be fixed.
But facts are facts, and words mean things. Right now, they are breaking the law by being here, and we have to protect the law. At least the Arizona Supreme Court still thinks that matters.
The logic seems hard to argue with to me: How can you claim legal privileges as a resident if it isn’t even legal for you to live where you’re living?
Before American discourse got the idea that illegal immigration wasn’t really illegal – because people don’t like it to be, I guess – this type of common sense logic would have been unassailable.
