WWW.DISSERTATION.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 3 | 4 || 6 | 7 |

«IN-STATE TUITION FOR UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS: FUELING THE STATE-FEDERAL BATTLEGROUND Jennifer Joy Lee* ABSTRACT In the last decade, state legislatures ...»

-- [ Page 5 ] --

c. Implied Preemption: A.B. 540 Is a “Regulation of Immigration” In DeCanas, the Supreme Court recognized that the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.”144 Under the first test in DeCanas, courts must determine whether the state enactment or policy “is an attempt to regulate immigration.”145 A state law is preempted if the law attempts to make a determination that is “independent” of federal standards regarding “who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which the person may remain.”146 As examples of state laws regulating immigration, the Court cited Henderson v. Mayor of New York147 and Chy Lung v.

Freeman.148 Henderson involved a New York statute that required every foreign passenger arriving on the state’s shores to pay a bond “as an indemnity against his becoming a future charge to the state,” unless the shipowner paid a fixed sum.149 Chy Lung concerned a similar requirement by the state of California, limited to “lewd and debauched women” and certain other classes of people.150 Justice Miller, writing for the majority in both opinions, held that the “passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens... of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the States.”151 Arizona’s S.B. 1070, on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 12, 2011,152 can similarly be treated as a “regulation of immigration.” In fact, in section 1 of this law, the Arizona legislature made “attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.”153 Sections 2(B), 3, and 6 explicitly require state law enforcement officials to identify immigration violations,154 punish unauthorized immigrants for failure to comply with federal registration laws,155 and arrest immigrants for civil immigration violations.156 In upholding the District Court’s preliminary injunctions, the Ninth Circuit did not rely on the first test in DeCanas, presumably because it found clear conflict preemption.157 However, an analysis DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976).

Id. at 353.

See Frank, supra note 122, at 144 (citing DeCanas, 424 U.S. at 355).

92 U.S. 259 (1875).

92 U.S. 275 (1876).

Henderson, 92 U.S. at 267.

Chy Lung, 92 U.S. at 276.

Id. at 280.

Arizona v. U.S., 132 S. Ct. at 845.

2010 Ariz. Sess. Laws 113, amended by 2010 Ariz. Sess. Laws 211 U.S. v. Arizona, 641 F.3d at 348.

Id. at 355.

Id. at 361.

Id. at 350.

24 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law [Vol. 19:3 under the first DeCanas test would be very similar. For example, section 2(B) requires law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of persons who they reasonably suspect to be unauthorized immigrants, and of all arrestees before they are released, regardless of reasonable suspicion.158 Yet Congress has spelled out the conditions under which state officials are permitted to assist the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws. For example, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State.159 The Ninth Circuit held that “Section 2(B) sidesteps Congress’ scheme for permitting the states to assist the federal government with immigration enforcement,” by enacting “a mandatory and systematic scheme that conflicts with Congress' explicit requirement that in the ‘[p]erformance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees,’ such officers ‘shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the Attorney General.’”160 In the same vein, some scholars argue that A.B. 540 conflicts with federal authority to enforce immigration law because it requires state officials to make independent judgments about whether students are disqualified as nonimmigrant aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15).161 The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California made such a finding with respect to sections of California’s Proposition 187 in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson (LULAC II).162 Sections 5 and 6 denied public social services and health care to “an alien in the United States in violation of federal law.”163 Because federal law provides that those lawfully “admitted” to the United States are those who an immigration officer determines satisfy admissibility criteria at the time of entry,164 the District Court found that sections 5 and 6 were preempted in that they purported to create a state classification scheme for immigrants requiring state agents “to make independent determinations of who is and who is not ‘lawfully admitted’ in this country.”165 Similarly, by singling out students who are nonimmigrant aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15), A.B. 540 forces state officials to make independent judgments about whether students have such status.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 11-1051(B) (2010).

8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1) (2006); see U.S. v. Arizona, 641 F.3d at 348–49.

U.S. v. Arizona, 641 F.3d at 350 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(3) (2006)).

See Kobach, supra note 88, at 516. CAL EDUC. CODE § 68130.5(a) provides:

“A student, other than a nonimmigrant alien within the meaning of paragraph (15) of subsection (a) of Section 1101 of Title 8 of the United States Code, who meets all of the following requirements shall be exempt....” (emphasis added).





997 F. Supp. 1244 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

See id. at 1250.

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13) (2006).

LULAC II, 997 F. Supp. at 1257 (quoting League of United Latin Am.

Citizens v. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755, 772 (C.D. Cal. 1995)).

Summer 2012] In-State Tuition 25

B. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREEMPTION

While critics of A.B. 540 and its progeny rely on the legislative history and overall purpose of §§ 1621 and 1623 to assert federal preemption, the state statute’s proponents have at their advantage the plain language of the state law and federal laws.166 The Supreme Court of California adopted this “plain language” approach in its 2010 decision upholding A.B. 540.167

–  –  –

a. A.B. 540 and Its Progeny Are Not Preempted by Section 1621 Proponents argue first that A.B. 540’s exemption from nonresident tuition is not a “benefit” within the meaning of the federal law, and second, to the extent that A.B. 540 does confer a benefit on illegal aliens, it complies with the “affirmatively provides” requirement of § 1621(d).

With regard to the first argument, proponents point to § 1621(b)(4), which refers to benefits in terms of the “amount of the assistance provided” or “cost of the assistance provided.”168 Because “amount” generally refers to monetary payments, and in-state tuition does not involve the payment of any money to students, A.B. 540 does not confer a benefit within the meaning of §1621.169 In Equal Access Education v. Merten,170 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia also interpreted “benefit” in § 1621 to mean monetary benefit.171 In that case, the court considered the 2002 Virginia policy denying undocumented immigrants admission to state universities.172 The plaintiffs argued that the policy was preempted by federal law because the state had invaded two fields occupied by federal law: (1) the field of immigration regulation, “specifically in the area of classification and reporting of persons based on immigration status as governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act,” and (2) the field of “alien access to post-secondary education.”173 The plaintiffs pointed to PRWORA, which classifies persons as qualified or non-qualified aliens “for the purpose of determining eligibility for federal, state and local Martinez v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 241 P.3d 855, 863–64 (Cal. 2010).

Id.

8 U.S.C. § 1621(b)(4) (2006).

See Martinez v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 518, 531 (Cal. Ct.

App. 2008).

305 F. Supp. 2d 585 (E.D. Va. 2004).

Id. at 605.

Id. at 591–93.

Id. at 604.

26 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law [Vol. 19:3 benefits, including post-secondary tuition assistance benefits”174 and “sets forth a system for verifying eligibility, including immigration status, for federal public benefits.”175 The District Court, however, interpreted PRWORA much more narrowly, as addressing “only postsecondary monetary assistance paid to students or their households, not admissions to college or university.”176 Therefore, the court concluded, “access to public higher education is not a benefit governed by PRWORA, nor is it a field completely occupied by the federal government.”177 One particular proponent of A.B. 540, Michael A. Olivas, looked to § 1623 to ascertain the definition of “benefit.”178 Section 1623(a) refers to “benefit” in terms of “amount, duration, and scope.”179 Olivas concluded that a benefit must be monetary in nature and that, because “the right to be considered for in-state resident status” is a “nonmonetary benefit,” it is not a “postsecondary education benefit” within the meaning of § 1623.180 Assuming that a term generally bears the same meaning throughout a statute, “the right to be considered for in-state resident status” is thus not a “benefit” within the meaning of § 1621.

The California Court of Appeal for the Third District, however, rejected this argument in Martinez v. Regents of University of California, holding that A.B. 540 confers “in-state tuition” (and not “the right to be considered for in-state resident status”) and that in-state tuition is a calculable amount and qualifies as a “benefit” within the meaning of §

1621.181 Although the Supreme Court of California later reversed, the Court of Appeal likewise determined that A.B. 540 conferred a benefit within the meaning of § 1621.182 Second, proponents of A.B. 540 assert that, to the extent that A.B.

540 does confer a benefit on illegal aliens, it complies with the “affirmatively provides” requirement of § 1621(d). They claim that the word “affirmatively” means explicitly rather than implicitly, and that A.B. 540 “affirmatively provides” that aliens not lawfully present are Id.

Id.

Id. at 605 (emphasis added) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1611 (2006)).

Id. at 605.

Michael A. Olivas, Lawmakers Gone Wild? College Residency and the Response to Professor Kobach, 61 SMU L. REV. 99, 124 (2008).

8 U.S.C. § 1623 (2006) (emphasis added).

Olivas, supra note 178, at 124–25; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1623 (2006).

Martinez v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 518, 531 (Cal. Ct. App.

2008).

See Martinez v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 241 P.3d 855, 868 (Cal. 2010).

Summer 2012] In-State Tuition 27 eligible for state benefits under subsection 1621(d) by referring to “person[s] without lawful immigration status.”183 The Supreme Court of California adopted this position. In doing so, it rejected the Court of Appeal’s reading of § 1621(d) to require that state laws expressly reference § 1621, determining that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation “encounters a formidable obstacle: It lacks grounding in the text of [the statute].”184 The Supreme Court of California “and the high court have cautioned against reading into a statute language it does not contain or elements that do not appear on its face.”185 Although the Court of Appeal cited a House conference report in support of its interpretation of “affirmatively provides” in subsection 1621(d),186 the California Supreme Court held that such a report “cannot change plain statutory language.”187 The court went on to explain that “[t]he general rule that a court should not add an element not appearing on the face of a statute has particular force here,” because “[t]he Legislature could easily have referenced section 1621 in section 68130.5, and no doubt [] would have done so if section 1621 had so required.”188

b. A.B. 540 and Its Progeny Are Not Preempted by Section 1623

As explained above, Michael A. Olivas has examined the words adjacent to “benefit” in § 1623 and concluded that “the right to be considered for in-state resident status” does not qualify as a “postsecondary education benefit” within the meaning of § 1623, and thus § 1623 has no bearing on A.B. 540.189 However, proponents generally assume that A.B. 540 conveys a benefit. The primary argument against preemption by § 1623, then, is that A.B. 540 does not grant instate tuition on the basis of residency in the state, but based on other criteria, such as three years of attendance at a California high school.190 A.B. 540’s proponents argue that the statute’s exemption from nonresident tuition is not based on residence for the simple reason that many nonresidents may qualify for it. The Supreme Court of California has identified three ways in which students could have attended high school in California for three years and qualified for the exemption Martinez, 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 544.

Martinez, 241 P.3d at 867 (quoting Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 82, 102 (2007)).

Id. at 867.

Id. (citing H.R. REP. NO. 104-725, at 383 (1996) (Conf. Rep.)).

Id. (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568 (2005)).

Id.

See supra notes 178, 180 and accompanying text.

CAL. EDUC. CODE § 68130.5(a)(1)–(4) (West 2012).



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 3 | 4 || 6 | 7 |


Similar works:

«1000 Years of Sobriety 1000 Years of Sobriety 20 People  50 Years William G. Borchert and Michael Fitzpatrick ® Hazelden Center City, Minnesota 55012 hazelden.org © 2010 by William G. Borchert and Michael Fitzpatrick All rights reserved. Published 2010 Printed in the United States of America No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or...»

«PLEADING PATENTS: PREDICTING THE OUTCOME OF STATUTORILY HEIGHTENING PLEADING STANDARDS ARJUN RANGARAJAN† ABSTRACT The tension between an extremely barebones Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Form 18 for patent infringement lawsuits and Supreme Court case law through Twombly and Iqbal has made it difficult for courts to dismiss frivolous patent litigation at the complaint stage. In this article, I look at the Federal Circuit’s treatment of Twombly and Iqbal, empirically evaluate 12(b)(6)...»

«Land Use Planning in the Doldrums: Case Studies of Growth Management in the I-495 Region by Christina Rosan and Lawrence Susskind With Ona Ferguson David Fairman Marina Psaros Research Assistance from Ye Ding Pankaj Kumar Jiawen Yang Prepared for the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston by The MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning and The Consensus Building Institute February 2007 Please submit comments and suggestions to trosan@mit.edu Case Studies of Growth Management in the I-495...»

«The Criteria for the Notification, etc. on Contraindications and Cautions for Bathing and Drinking as specified in Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Hot Springs Law The Criteria for the Notification, etc. on Contraindications as well as Cautions for Bathing and Drinking as specified in Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Hot Springs Law shall be as prescribed in the following. The prefecture, etc. and the party that serve hot springs for public bathing and drinking shall review, in light of this...»

«Global Prosecutors E-Crime Network Newsletter Issue 22 – July 2015 Welcome to the July 2015 edition of the GPEN newsletter. The next webinar with Martin Lee takes place on 26th August 2015 at 10:00 BST. Email me to book your place. In this issue of the newsletter we have a report from Esther George on the Octopus Conference on “Cooperating against Cybercrime”. We also have an update from Carlota Urruela about the Cybercrime training course for prosecutors and law enforcement officers in...»

«Study on the application of Criterion VII Considering superlative natural phenomena and exceptional natural beauty within the World Heritage Convention IUCN World Heritage Study Nº 10 The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or...»

«The Souls of Black Folk by W. E. B. Du Bois Chapter 13: Of the Coming of John The Souls of Black Folk: Chapter 13 by W. E. B. Du Bois What bring they 'neath the midnight, Beside the River–sea? They bring the human heart wherein No nightly calm can be; That droppeth never with the wind, Nor drieth with the dew; O calm it, God; thy calm is broad To cover spirits too. The river floweth on. MRS. BROWNING. Carlisle Street runs westward from the centre of Johnstown, across a great black bridge,...»

«The Ohio State University Knowledge Bank kb.osu.edu Ohio State Law Journal (Moritz College of Law) Ohio State Law Journal: Volume 49, Issue 2 (1988) 1988 The Misappropriation Theory: Carpenter and Its Aftermath Aldave, Barbara Bader Ohio State Law Journal, vol. 49, no. 2 (1988), 373-391. http://hdl.handle.net/1811/64417 Downloaded from the Knowledge Bank, The Ohio State University's institutional repository The Misappropriation Theory: Carpenterand Its Aftermath BARBARA BADER ALDAVE* I....»

«Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 66 (2), 179 – 195 (2013) DOI: 10.1556/AOrient.66.2013.2.4 NOBLE OR EVIL: THE ṢAḌVĀRGIKA MONKS RECONSIDERED* CUILAN LIU Department of South Asian Studies, Harvard University 1 Bow Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA e-mail: liu6@fas.harvard.edu This article reconsiders how the ṣaḍvārgika monks, or monks in the band of six, are represented in Vinaya, the codified Buddhist law texts. Conventionally, these ṣaḍvārgika monks are...»

«KOSOVO 2014 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT Executive Summary The constitution affirms the freedom of religion but the law does not specify a means by which religious groups may register to obtain legal status. The government implemented the law safeguarding religious and cultural special protective zones (SPZs) by providing security measures for religious sites. Kosovo Police (KP) detained several Kosovo Islamic Community (BIK) religious figures on charges of abetting or committing...»

«  Starting A New Law Office: A Checklist    Michael C. Smith  On January 14, 2008, after fifteen years at my prior firm, I opened a new office for the practice of law. Actually, “opened” and “office” are misnomers – since I did not yet have an office, what I actually did was walk into my study and start working from my home computer. But the point is that I left an existing firm and started my own office, essentially from scratch. There are countless good articles about...»

«SLS CLASS OF 2009 GRADUATION MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM STANFORD UNIVERSITY MAY 10, 2009 1 0 : 0 0 A. M. SLS CLASS OF 2009 GRADUATION TO THE MEMBERS, FRIENDS, AND FAMILIES OF THE CLASS OF 2009: I can imagine what you are feeling, sitting out there now, waiting for this to begin— and to end. I can imagine because I recall it well, though my own graduation was twenty five years ago: the mix of pleasure and excitement, of anticipation, of anxiety mixed with a slightly disturbing dash of “is that all...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.