CA. Instate tuition might be repeald!!!!! - Page 3

Do you have an estimate around what 'several years' actually means? How many years are we talking about here?

well if ab-540 gets repealed, and dream passes then we r safe, but if ab-540 gets repealed, and dream doesn't pass, then we r screwed.

2 years ! After California Supreme Court decides on the case in the next 90 days, either side will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, they'll probably hear it from between Sep 2011 and Jan 2011. Then, they'll issue a decision around May 2012.

Hopefully, in that mean time, Dream Act will pass, thus invalidate the AB 540 challenge.

So there is no guarantee that SCOTUS will even take up the case? Let's just hope they don't get around to it then.

This doesn't bother me because

(1) I live in NY, not CA.

(2) I'm one of those wacky traitor undocumenteds who realize that legal students need money for school too and the money should be going to them over us until we are legalized, simply because we can't use the degree here yet.

Also, let's not forget California is broke people? They are having to borrow money from the Fed. It's hard to justify granting undocumenteds instate tuition over out of state citizens when that is going on.

okay you don't have a clue what you are talking about federal money borrowin huh who what bro ab540 student don't borrow no money from the feds.....

go read the ab540 nao!!!

instate tuition laws were challenged like 4 times so far, each time they failed

I think you are misunderstanding the whole point about AB540 and this whole issue!! First off, ANYONE can benefit from AB540 if they qualify. 70% of those who uses AB540 are U.S. Citizens!! Also, anyone can get in state tuition after living in California for a year. If this case doesn't go in our favor, they are trying to ask the (UC and Cal State schools) for refunds for anyone who paid out of state tuition. Do YOU realize what kind of burden that will be? The whole issue going to the supreme court is so odd to begin with.

I don't understand the situation that well, but here's what I gather.

The United States Immigration Law forbids people in the country illegally from getting benefits from federal or state governments. This includes things like welfare, in-state tuition, etc.

A number of states like California and Texas have created legislature that creates a new set of criteria for determining residency status. The Texas one, for example, is technically meant for people who live with their grandparents or relatives in the state without those people having legal guardianship. If your deadbeat parents live out of state and you can't get any sort of paperwork from them showing where they live, you go to this law and see if you qualify. Basically, you just needed to have lived in Texas for 3 years during high school or before getting your GED. The way that this law is worded seems like the fact that DREAMers can benefit is almost secondary. (I do think that the law was initially created to help illegals though..)

So, some people in California don't like the fact that the California law is breaking the previously mentioned immigration law and now they're suing the state of California. I'm not sure what their angle is. Are they from a state with a crappy university system and want to be able to attend out of state without paying out of state tuition (don't forget that residency is based off of where your parents live, not where you live)? Is this just a test-case by anti-illegal immigration groups to remove benefits? I have no idea.

Anyway, it looks like the California supreme court will consider whether the California law conflicts with Federal Law. The federal laws have supremacy over state laws so this is the issue that's being questioned now. If the California supreme court rules that the CA law conflicts with federal law, they CA law will be struck off the books and CA DREAMers will have to pay out-of-state tuition.

On the other hand, the California judicial system is very liberal. It's likely that they will rule that the CA law does not conflict with federal law and so the only recourse of the plaintiffs will be to take this suit to the federal court system.

It'll probably be filed in the 9th circuit court (which has jurisdiction over all west coast states) and slowly make its way through the queue until arguments are heard and the judges decide on the merits of the case.

Here's another thing though -- the 9th circuit is the most liberal court in the country. They'll likely uphold the law as well. If they don't uphold the law, all of the west-coast states will be affected by this judgment.

At this point, a year or so down the line, the plaintiffs can appeal the court to the United States Supreme Court.

The Court only takes something like 60-70 cases a year and considers each one indepth because their decisions affect the entire country. The court may refuse to hear the case or send it back for more consideration in a lower appeal court. This'll basically let the previous decision stand (if it's been appealed to SCOTUS, it's likely that the CA law was upheld repeatedly). If they choose to hear the case, they can rule either in favor or against it.

If they rule against the CA law, then it will strip all in-state tuition benefits for all DREAMers in the country. Then we're all SOL :P

So yes, WhiteOut, you should be bothered.