Supreme Court Passes on Case on Tuition Break for Illegals

[Jeanfromfillmore]

It is exactly as AG stated, the SOTUS rejected the case. Basically the reason was that the Calif law states that if a person has attended a Calif high school for 3 years, they may attend a Calif college or university as a Calif resident. That was the reason the SOTUS did not want to hear the case. The SOTUS reasoned that the Calif law was not about immigration because it would also cover legal citizens who had attended a Calif high school and had then moved out of state, so it wasn't pertaining to their legal status as a citizen which would fall under federal law.

This was the loophole that Calif knew would get their "Dream Act" through. But it is still unfair and this state will pay dearly for such pandering in the near future.

Kobach at center of two Supreme Court decisions in illegal immigration cases
Topeka — The U.S. Supreme Court has issued two decisions in illegal immigration cases that involved Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
On Monday, the court refused to review a California Supreme Court ruling that upheld a state law giving California high school graduates reduced in-state tuition at state schools, regardless of their immigration status. The court did not give a reasons for its action.
Kobach, a Republican, was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs suing to have the law overturned.
Eleven other states, including Kansas, grant similar benefits to illegal immigrants. The others are: Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.
On Tuesday, Kobach said the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the case did not mean that it supports the California law.
He said the court may be waiting for more lower court rulings on similar laws in other states before it takes up the matter. Kobach is leading a similar lawsuit in Nebraska.
In another case Monday, the high court vacated an appellate court decision that declared a Hazleton, Penn. illegal immigration ordinance unconstitutional. The court sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration.
"That was a big victory for the proponents of illegal immigration enforcement," Kobach said. But opponents of the Hazleton ordinance said the court's decision doesn't mean the lower court will automatically reverse its earlier ruling.
Among other things, the Hazleton ordinance requires businesses to use the federal E-Verity database to see if a worker is legally in the United States. Last month, the Supreme Court upheld a provision in an Arizona law that did the same thing.
Kobach has represented the city of Hazleton and state of Arizona in these cases.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/ju...ions-illegal-/

[LAPhil]

I just got an e-mail back from one of the writers of the Times story:

"Hi, thanks for the note. I don’t see the contradiction since the stories say the same thing. By dismissing the appeal and refusing the hear that case, it upholds the California court. Sorry if you thought there were differences."

Larry Gordon

Los Angeles Times

This is the weasliest thing I've ever seen. As if he doesn't know the difference between dismissing an appeal and refusing to hear it. Totally misleading story.

[Supermanglide]

I like "LAPhil " is signature!! wow

[LAPhil]

Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore

It is exactly as AG stated, the SOTUS rejected the case. Basically the reason was that the Calif law states that if a person has attended a Calif high school for 3 years, they may attend a Calif college or university as a Calif resident. That was the reason the SOTUS did not want to hear the case. The SOTUS reasoned that the Calif law was not about immigration because it would also cover legal citizens who had attended a Calif high school and had then moved out of state, so it wasn't pertaining to their legal status as a citizen which would fall under federal law.

This was the loophole that Calif knew would get their "Dream Act" through. But it is still unfair and this state will pay dearly for such pandering in the near future.

Jean, did you read the L.A. Times story? Anyway, see the previous post.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by LAPhil

Jean, did you read the L.A. Times story? Anyway, see the previous post.

Yes Phil I did read it, or at least part of it when it was first released. But I knew that it was wrong and that is why I didn't post it on our board. Los Angeles Times is not worth the time it takes to read in my opinion. That is why I post very few of their articles. But I could see where you would get confused. The LA Times writes what they think their LA readers what to hear, not necessarily the truth. That's the liberal/leftest spin, not exactly wrong, but not accurate either, the typical leftist top keeps spinning.

[LAPhil]

Yeah, you got that right. When I first saw the story early this morning, I was furious with the Supreme Court because I thought it was their decision, and I was about to post the story under a separate thread when I discovered you already had a thread about it. Of course I'm not happy with the way it all came out, but at least the High Court didn't make its own decision on this. And that writer's reply to my e-mail only confirms that the journalism standards of the L.A. Times leave a lot to be desired.

[Rim05]

I read that story yesterday and I thought the same as Phil did. The explanation by AG and Jean really helps start my day. Thanks Phil, for taking the time to contact the writers.