NEWS: AB 540 reopened for debate - Page 6

BTW, wus being sarcastic bout lovin the married life, haha. Well, I haven't forgotten! Who else is gonna watch over you?

Anyone has any plans on how to fight this?

I may have to join mech...

Wow... what a load of bs!

California court ruling on in-state tuition is not the last word

On Monday, September 15, a California Court of Appeal panel overturned the Superior Court's decision dismissing a challenge to AB 540, California's in-state tuition law. Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, No. C054124 (CA3 Sept. 15, 200. The Court of Appeal's ruling, if allowed to stand, would return the case to the Superior Court for trial. The court did not enjoin or block AB 540. The law remains in effect. Similar laws in others states were not affected by the ruling. The decision will likely be appealed and any final decision is likely to come from the California Supreme Court.

AB 540 provides that students who have attended at least 3 years of high school in California, graduated from a California school and meet certain other conditions may attend state colleges and universities at the same rate that is charged to state residents. Some students who qualify for AB 540 are undocumented immigrants who live in California. Others are U.S. citizens who attended school in California in the past but are now unable to establish state residence, such as those who live in a neighboring state or those who recently returned to California after living elsewhere. In fact, about 70 percent of AB 540 students attending the University of California are U.S. citizens who do not meet the state residency requirements for in-state tuition purposes.

Despite these facts, the Martinez Court found that AB 540 confers a benefit "based on residence" and therefore conflicts with a federal law that precludes such a benefit for undocumented immigrants unless the same benefit is available under the same conditions to U.S. citizens who are not residents of the state. The opinion is internally inconsistent, and conflicts with other court decisions that have addressed the in-state tuition issue.

It would be extremely unfortunate if this intermediate court decision were upheld. 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. They include valedictorians, class presidents, and student prizewinners, among others. California can ill afford to deny these students the opportunity to complete their education. The elected representatives and governor of California as well as those of 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.

Monday's decision is only one step in the process of resolving the legality of AB 540. The decision is based on a flawed legal analysis and we are hopeful that it will be reversed.

The Martinez case adds urgency to efforts to pass the federal DREAM Act and thereby address the status of undocumented immigrant students who have grown up in this country. The federal DREAM Act would provide immigration relief to those who entered the U.S. more than 5 years ago if and when they graduate from high school. It would allow them to become permanent residents and eventually citizens if they go to college or serve in the military.

For more information, please contact Josh Bernstein at [email protected].

I wish people would calm down and someone would change the erroneous title of this thread. This is only Kobach's first victory and probably his last. He has been trying to overturn in-state tuition in other states as well, and this is the only court opinion in his favor.

If you want references, one of the court cases was Day v. Selebius.

There's also an extensive brilliant law review in answer to Kobach on Lexis Nexis.

I am so frustrated right now! I can't believe this can happen. I Talked recently to someone who used to be a Leticia A. recipient in the late 90s and she told me how hard it was for her to have to quit college because they took that away from her. We should not let this politicians take this law away from us. We should all maintain alert and constantly be checking updates. And I say, if in any case they decide to abolish ab-540, we should uprise and demand justice. OUR EDUCATION IS ALL WE GOT!!!

I was just reading your posts and wanted to ask a question.

It is my understanding that the courts decision does not eliminate AB 540. And even in the plaintiffs in the county court case win, California can still have AB 540 as long as out-of state citizens are given the same in-state tuition benefit.

So what is the problem?

California can give in-state tuition to all!

To help you guys understand the California court process, please refer to the following document:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/c.../casescome.pdf

There is a scary fact from the above statement:

A party who does not like the outcome in the Court of Appeal can seek further review by the California Supreme Court. This is done by a petition for review, which is a document that resembles a brief.

The main job of the California Supreme Court is to promote justice by overseeing the development and consistency of the law. It is not a court of last resort to make sure every case was handled correctly. Therefore, it has no obligation to review every decision of the Court of Appeal. In fact, it receives thousands of petitions for review every year and it grants fewer than 5 percent of them.


only 5% of them? I couldn't count on it.

Of course California cannot give in-state tuition to all.

People, please go to the public universities in the state you file your state income tax please!!!

Why not? All it has to do is pass a bill that permits it.

If everyone has in-state tuition, where is the harm?