Hey, Kevin! Thank you for the response. Arguably, you may be ignoring the final clause of Section 505:
[A]n alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.
True, a Texas resident is eligible for in-state tuition, but an Arkansas resident is not eligible unless he establishes residency. Only if an Arkansas resident could qualify for in-state tuition without regard to whether he was a resident might Texas plausibly under Section 505 offer in-state tuition to illegals. In 2005, a federal district court found that plaintiffs did have standing to sue with regard to their claim that a Kansas statute granting in-state tuition violated Section 505, but because there was no private right of action under the statute, their suit could not proceed (Day v. Sebelius, 376 F. Supp. 2d. 1022 (D. Kan. 2005)). I am frankly not up on subsequent court cases.
This issue helped TPaw win in MN in 2006. My wife generally doesn't have strong opinions about politics. She wasn't going to vote in 2006, but Pawlenty ran a commercial about Hatch wanting to give illegals in-state tuition. Now, my wife is a MN native, but she moved to DC for a job then moved back for school and needed to pay out-of-state tuition. This was the one issue the caused her to vote and she only voted for TPaw (leaving the rest of her ballot blank).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI take "benefit" under this law to mean a scholarship or other such thing. What we are talking about here, I think, is allowing a person who is an "illegal alien" from an immigration perspective, but is also a "resident" of the state because they have lived there for 3 years, to pay in-state tuition. They aren't going to college for free.
But the whole concept of illegal aliens being considered residents of a state at the same time presents quite a conundrum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusei like how kevin shows a picture of what a hell hole the rio grande river is but putting a fence 300ft off of that is impossible. texas nationalism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are missing the point. Illegal immigrants don't get in-state tuition because they live in the state. They get in-state tuition if they spent three years in public high school, and graduated from a public high school.
So the federal law doesn't apply.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, as Heather MacDonald said in her original post, the Texas law is even worse than Arizona's SB1070 because the Texas law actually circumvents federal law which is supposed to be superior to state law. Glad to know that she was right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is nothing in the US Constitution about education, unless one consider's the 10th Amendment. State law rules, in the Tea Party world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark Levin discussed this today. Apparently there is a federal law that says that if you give in-state preferences to illegals who live in the state, then that state has to give any American citizen full access at resident rates. I'm not a lawyer, but I am sure that if its what it seems, Mark will be emphasizing it next week.
Beyond that, I think Heather is a lot (lot!) smarter then Kevin, although it'd be hard to convince him of that, since he thinks he is smarter than anyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSee, e.g.:
Robert MARTINEZ et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants,
v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants
and Respondents.
No. S167791.
Supreme Court of California.
Nov. 15, 2010.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe case holds that Congress did intend to prohibit aliens from receiving in-state tuition breaks based on "residence." But living in a state and attending school for three years is not the same thing as "residence," and therefore the statutory prohibition does not apply. Mighty fine lawyering, I'd say. Doesn't sound like a straight-shooting Texan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe point is, it's an outrage that an adult unlawfully in this country should qualify for free higher education (WELFARE) in Texas, denied to a majority of U.S. citizens.
In-State-Tuition for illegals is one more magnet to encourage, reward & protect a lawless invasion overrunning America on the taxpayer's dime.
La Raza operative Perry is as "Unified Transnational Healthcare" socialistic, as he is "Super Highway" Globalyst.
Safeguarding U.S. Sovereignty is not just a state's prerogative, it is the constitutional right of every citizen.
Article Four; "The United States shall guarante to every state in this union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of these against invasion.."
States have the constitutional authority & obligation to their citizens to protect their borders from violence & illegal invaders in their millions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, now this conversation has descended into the hell of lawfare quibbling?
Kind of like the legal challenge that the White House decided to wage against Arizona? Is that really where you want to take this conversation about Texas in-state tuition?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMs. Mac Donald: Do you acknowledge that under Plyler v. Doe, there are serious questions as to whether section 505, if interpreted as you do, is unconstitutional?
Do you acknowledge that the district court case you cited constitutes no precedent to the contrary? Here's how that case has been described elsewhere as part of a fairly detailed and link-filled summary of recent legal developments on this issue:
"In Day v. Sibelius [376 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Kan. 2005)], lawyers challenged the Kansas statute that allowed undocumented college students to establish residency status for tuition. The judge ruled for the state, finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring suit; the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has filed an appeal to the Tenth Circuit. The arguments were heard the week of September 25, 2006. To see the briefs in the case, go to the FAIR website: External Link
. In Fall, 2005, state data showed 221 students used this provision to enroll in KS public colleges. In January, 2006, a KS state representative filed a bill to eliminate the provision, but as of 2008, hearings had not been scheduled. On August 30, 2007, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision, in the case, now-styled Day v. Bond, which had the result of upholding the statute: External Link 
."
You write that you're not "up on" subsequent court cases. Does that mean you don't have one to support your position?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFurther info: "Unauthorized Alien Students, Higher Education, and In-State Tuition Rates: A Legal Analysis," from the Congressional Research Service.
With due respect, and claiming no great legal expertise myself on these issues, I don't think these legal issues are nearly as simple as you're suggesting that they are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis argument is completely silly. So, an anchor baby is given in-state rights not available to a baby born of legal US residence from a neighboring state?
I don't buy that Texas a substantially unique circumstances either. Other bordering states like California, Arizona, and New Mexico are not remotely similar to Texas?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse