ACLU vs AG over in-state tuition

Brent Finnegan -- March 27th, 2008

You may remember when Sen. Emmett Hanger came under fire from Scott Sayre for supposedly voting “to allow illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates at Virginia’s colleges” (Hanger later clarified his position with a bill).

Now the issue of in-state tuition for children of unauthorized immigrants is building to a crescendo in Virginia. Attorney General Bob McDonnell’s office says that granting the children of unauthorized immigrants in-state tuition rates is illegal. But the ACLU has announced they “will offer legal representation to any student it believes has been improperly denied in-state tuition rates based on the legal status of his parents.”

From the AP:

Ronald C. Forehand, senior assistant attorney general, wrote in a March 6 memo that children ordinarily are classified as in-state only if their parents are legal Virginia residents. However, he said such a student can still get in-state tuition by proving he has established legal residence in Virginia despite his parents’ status […]

if universities begin to reject students based on the attorney general’s memo, this more than likely would end up in court.”

The ACLU disputes the attorney general’s position that illegal immigrants cannot be considered “domiciled” in Virginia, saying the law’s definition of domicile does not mention immigration status.

“An undocumented immigrant, and, by extension, his children, should be considered a domiciliary of Virginia if he resides in Virginia and intends to remain there indefinitely,” Glenberg wrote.

The AG’s office counters:

“The ACLU is wrong legally,” said McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin. “Illegal aliens cannot establish domicile in Virginia, so the ACLU has no basis for any legal action. This agency advice simply reiterates that basic legal fact, and then explains how every citizen has the ability to rebut a determination that they are not eligible for in-state tuition.”

To my knowledge, neither the AG nor the ACLU are known for backing down once their positions have been publicized. This one should be interesting to watch.

29 Responses to “ACLU vs AG over in-state tuition”

  1. JGFitzgerald says:

    Only the most paranoid fabulists believe the undocumented to be anything but the poorest among us (see Matthew 25:45), which makes this by definition an attempt to make political hay from the plight of the most unfortunate. It is also an attack not just on the undocumented, but on their children. A teen-ager who was born in Virginia and has never lived anywhere else could be screwed out of in-state tuition rates to gain the GOP a few extra votes in the governor’s race next year. Why is nobody surprised?

  2. David Miller says:

    This is shameful. Let’s punish the children of the poor because their parents made the decision that they should be fed (and therefore immigrated to make sure that this was possible). Again and again we have republicans and to a lesser extent the dems stating that capital and industry can move but for a human being to do so in an attempt to feed their family, they’re criminals and will be punished (even if it has to wait till the state can go after their children).

  3. Dave Briggman says:

    Geez.

    Dave Miller’s right…punishing the children for the acts of the parents is wrong.

    The solution is to ensure that illegal aliens and their child aren’t tethered to the U.S. simply because their child was born in the U.S. Take away the citizenship status of those children born here would do that.

    I would think that penalizing the “legal” children of the illegals constitutes a bill of attainder, which is illegal under both federal and Virginia law.

  4. JGFitzgerald says:

    This is an issue worth amending the Constitution? In-state tuition rates, ferchrissakes? Doesn’t the Declaration say that government long-established should not be changed for light and transient causes?

  5. David Miller says:

    Dave, You state that the solution is to “take away the citizenship status of those children born here”. Apparently you missed my point entirely or chose to ignore it. It’s like punching a brick wall with you. Why do you even post if you aren’t going to debate the moral dilema I pointed out!?

  6. Dave Briggman says:

    Joe, you know the issue isn’t limited to in-state tuition. What Declaration are you referring to? If you’re referring to the Declaration of Independence, while a founding document, is not the document upon which our legal system is based.

    It’s already been established that illegally penetrating our borders is a criminal act — shown previously in this blog where the exact criminal code section was quoted verbatim — so I see no reason to provide the privilege of citizenship to the children of those who illegal penetrated our borders.

  7. JGFitzgerald says:

    Constitution says they’re citizens. Knowing the proclivity of some bloggers to cite chapter and verse of the law, I’d think that would do it. Argument over. Gotcha.

  8. Dave Briggman says:

    The issue isn’t whether the Constitution “says” it…and it doesn’t “say” it, Joe, it is written in the Constitution and I’m sure the document hasn’t learned speech, yet, although liberals tend to think it’s a “living, breathing” document.

    You made reference to whether amending the Constitution should be accomplished merely for reasons of in-state tuition. That’s foolish, but then when one considers the source, it’s par for the course. There’s a whole host of reasons why that part of the Constitution (Article II, Section I) should be changed — the most minimal of which would be the issue of in-state tuition.

  9. JGFitzgerald says:

    Can’t admit it. I won. Gotcha. Nana-booboo. Constitution says it. I’m smarter than you. My point won. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah!

    (This post is dedicated to hair-splitting bloggers who think the Constitution begins and ends with the Second Amendment. You know the ones I mean. The ones who love well-regulated minutiae.)

  10. JGFitzgerald says:

    Oh, by the way, a teen-ager who was born in Virginia and has never lived anywhere else could be screwed out of in-state tuition rates to gain the GOP a few extra votes in the governor’s race next year. Why is nobody surprised?

  11. Lowell Fulk says:

    We have just received an official ruling on the issue from our panel of independent verification experts.

    They have found in favor of Joe Fitzgerald and the Nah Nahs.
    David Briggman has been assessed a penalty the amount of which has yet to be determined and to be based on his next two posts in response to Mr. Fitzgerald.

  12. Bubby says:

    Is this a Regent University-based legal opinion? The AG just got his hat handed to him over his ruling regarding those unconstitutional Regional Taxing Authorities that were at the center of last year’s Transportation Funding Law.

    In that case it was a unanimous Supreme Court decision against the AG. I’m not confident he knows what he’s talking about.

  13. David Miller says:

    It’s not a matter of knowing what you are talking about when it comes to political fodder. Its ok to rule incorrectly on a matter as long as it shines the politically correct light on you and your party. Ignore the fact that it is divisive, insulting to common sense and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

  14. Draegn88 says:

    David Miller,

    If a child’s parents robbed a bank, that child would not be allowed to spend the money that was stolen.

    Why then should a child of an ILLEGAL alien who has broken at least one law by entering the country ILLEGALLY be granted instate tuition?

    Joe, a child born in Virginia, and has lived here his or her entire life will not be granted instate tuition if his or her parents are declared foreign nationals. Ask diplomats, consular officers, guest artists, etc….

  15. David Miller says:

    It doesn’t matter if that teenager has consumer hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxable goods and services throughout their life in VA.

    Everyone making your argument (Dave and 88?;) views society through selfish colored glasses and has no longterm interest in the betterment of said society. The whole point of publicly funded education is the betterment of society through an educated populace. Why exclude anyone from this? Do you really believe that kids who are born and raised here are going to “steal” their education from the state of VA and then run back to Mexico with their advanced degrees to make a paltry sum?

  16. Draegn88 says:

    Resources are not unlimited. I would rather see an American child bettered over the child of an illegal alien.

    The same can be said of any “aid program”.

    Why feed africa when there are hungry Americans?
    Why build homes for people overseas when Americans are homeless?
    Why supply medicines to the third world when Americans lack health care?

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

  17. Dave Briggman says:

    Actually, David, I’m afraid the illegal aliens coming in from Mexico are going to out-breed us and turn this country into a third-world country like Mexico is — with the help of the Socialist-Democrat Party and creeps like John McCain.

  18. JGFitzgerald says:

    Why shoot deer when there are so many Nazis?

    (Yeah, it’s a trick question. It’s because the meat is too tough.)

  19. Frank J Witt says:

    Sorry to hijack this wonderful conversation but it seems Dave’s email is not working and I need to show him this link…http://standardspeaker.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7113&Itemid=2

    Dave, I knew you would enjoy this tyoe of humor from those silly peeps in my hometown.

  20. Dave Briggman says:

    That’s a great posting, Frank. My email is always briggman@gmail.com.

    Aside from the sidetrip I actually to into DOWNTOWN Hazleton, you wouldn’t think there would be as much of a problem with illegals as there seems to be there.

  21. David Miller says:

    “Actually, David, I’m afraid the illegal aliens coming in from Mexico are going to out-breed us and turn this country into a third-world country like Mexico is — with the help of the Socialist-Democrat Party and creeps like John McCain.”

    Did you seriously say out-breed us. By us, to whom are you referring? You mean Americans? Like the pure blooded uninterrupted blood lines from our European ancestory? Get real man. We’re immigrants (and yes many of our ancestors didn’t have social security numbers-because our government hadn’t gotten so large as to necessitate such a measure of control). Nationalism is one step away from facism. The Nazis were also proud folks, do you wish to continue your hatred and immoral regard for your fellow man that you illustrate in your writings.

  22. Frank J Witt says:

    If you were to travel the streets during the day, the problem seems to be within the Alter and Wyoming Streets district. After night time and right after school however, the shootings, gang violence and assaults happen from near the high school to Grant, Lincoln, Peace (funny) and McKinnely street areas. Those are the streets that take you away from the high school and into “mid city” Hazleton. South Pine and all of the South side of town along the government housing and playgrounds as far north as 10 th street is a well established drug/violence zone. I have been trying to get my friend and his wife and kids to move here for over 5 years now, but they red about the local “gangs” and think it is just as bad HERE ! ! Man, they need to realize it isn’t anywhere that bad YET…and I hopefully will never see the day…however…

  23. Bubby says:

    The authoritarian, governing elites backed by private armies and death squads – found throughout Central America, and passing for “democracy”, more closely approximates the current right-wing model of governance. Just saying.

  24. Draegn88 says:

    Dave Miller, compare the economic policies of National Socialism with that of Clinton and Obama. You might be surprised at the similarities.

  25. David Miller says:

    88, I appreciate that you think that I am uneducated but I must disagree. You and and I arguing is without merit because you do not argue, you change the subject or pretend to retort by redirecting. I appreciate that you want to discuss it with me but you lack the desire to understand my point and hear my voice. Therefore I must decline.

  26. Mike says:

    My wife and I will not be having any children.

    I hereby bestow the “higher education resources” this frees up to the children of an ILLEGAL family who came here ILLEGALLY so that their children might have a better ILLEGAL future.

  27. David Miller says:

    Here here!

  28. Gxeremio says:

    Economic policies of the Nazi regime:
    1. Abolition of trade unions and collective bargaining.
    2. Establishment of a military-based, self-sufficient, industrial economy.
    3. Restricted immigration and favorable treatment of citizens over non-citizens in every realm.
    4. Abolition of land taxes.
    5. Deficit spending.
    6. “The good of the state before the good of the individual”.
    7. Alliance of government officials and industrial leaders.

    Hmm…

  29. Draegn88 says:

    Source Gxer?

    I suggest you try;

    Hitler’s Economy
    Nazi Work Creation Programs, 1933-1936
    Dan P. Silverman

    Description: The author focuses on the main Nazi work creation programs like motorization, Autobahn, emergency relief, and rearmament. He stresses on the fact that most work creation from the period 1933-1936 was not a result of rearmament rather a fierce attack on employment through some of the methods mentioned above. In addition, the growing control of the Nazi party over all aspects of the economy is clearly identified in every chapter as this control grows. The book is loaded with information.

    Professor Silverman argues, as a result of impressive research in Nazi archives, that it was work creation programs that account for this “miracle” and it was the 4-year Plan announced in 1936 that represented an emphasis on autarky and arms and a seller’s market. Plans called for motorization and the famous autobahns. It is natural to compare Hitler’s achievements with FDR’s New Deal. Strangely Silverman hardly mention the USSR as a source of ideas in the Hitler years, though the 4-year Plan itself was inspired by the Soviet FYP, the second of which was being completed by the time Goebbels began administering the German equivalent. Earlier (February,1935) Soviet-type “work books” necessary for employment were introduced.

    Hitler was named “Man of the Year” in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler’s anti-capitalistic economic policies:

    “Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany’s bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.”

    (Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)

    Hitler setup the Labour Front. Both employers and employees joined it. According to the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons. In other words, both employers and employees were put under the control of the government.

    Summary: Below is a short economic analysis of German Economy under the Nazis. It is apparent they ran a centralized collectivist economy just like the Soviet Union. It was a political party that acted much in the same way the American Left does in regard to unemployment and trying to use the government to decrease it. It notes that the Nazis used public works to a large extent, which is exceedingly leftist, and put people to work for the State.

    The Nazis started enacting other leftist ploys like price freezes and starting expanding the role of the government and destroying any freedom left in the Market. Private Property owners were dictated to by the State. Clearly Nazis were opponents of capitalism through and through.

    Notes on: “On the Theory of the Centrally Administered Economy: An Analysis of the German Experiment,” by Walter Eucken

    Walter Eucken was a professor of economics at the University of Freiburg, Germany and an architect of the economic reforms that led to the Economic Miracle. In this article Eucken wanted to explain the problems and weaknesses of centrally administered economies such as that of National Socialist (Nazi) Germany and the Soviet Union.

    The Nazi economic system developed unintentionally. The initial objective in 1932-33 of its economic policy was just to reduce the high unemployment associated with the Great Depression. This involved public works, expansion of credit, easy monetary policy and manipulation of exchange rates. Generally Centrally Administered Economies (CAE’s) have little trouble eliminating unemployment because they can create large public works projects and people are put to work regardless of whether or not their productivity exceeds their wage cost. Nazi Germany was successful in solving the unemployment problem, but after a few years the expansion of the money supply was threatening to create inflation.

    The Nazi Government reacted to the threat of inflation by declaring a general price freeze in 1936. From that action the Nazi Government was driven to expand the role of the government in directing the economy and reducing the role played by market forces. Although private property was not nationalized, its use was more and more determined by the government rather than the owners.

    Eucken uses the case of the leather industry. An individual leather factory produces at the direction of the Leather Control Office. This Control Office arranged for the factory to get the hides and other supplies it needed to produce leather. The output of leather was disposed of according to the dictates of the Leather Control Office. The Control Offices set their directives through a process involving four stages:

    * 1. The collection of statistical information by a Statistical Section. The Statistical Section tried to assemble all the important data on past production, equipment, storage facilities and raw material requirements.
    * 2. The planning of production taking into account the requirements of leather by other industries in their plans; e.g. the needs of the Shoe Control Office for supplies of leather. The available supply of hides limited the production of leather. There had to be a balancing of supply and demand. The result of the planning of all the control offices was a Balance Sheet. There was some effort at creating some system for solving the planning, such as production being limited by the narrowest bottleneck, but in practice the planning ended up being simply scaling up past production and planning figures.
    * 3. The issuing of production orders to the individual factories.
    * 4. Checking up on compliance with the planning orders.

    In practice the authorities of the control offices often intervened and there was continual negotiation and political battles as the users of products tried to use political influence to improve their allocations. The prices of 1936 made little economic sense, particularly after Germany was at war. So there economic calculations using the official prices were meaningless. In particular, the profitability of a product was of no significance in determining whether it should be produced or not. Losses did not result in a factory ceasing production; the control offices made sure that it got the raw materials and that the workers got rations of necessities.

    At the beginning of the war the Government established a priorities list for allocating scarse resources. Activities associated with the war got top priority and consumer goods production was near the bottom of the list. If two users wanted gasoline any available stocks went to the user with the highest priority. This seems reasonable but, in fact, it led to major problems. Suppose one use of gasoline is for trucks to haul raw materials to factories. If the Government always gives the available gasoline to the Army then the truckers cannot deliver supplies to the factories and they shut down and eventually other factories dependent upon them also shut down. At first the Government tried to handle the problem by revising the priorities list and moving up uses such as gasoline for trucks. But whatever uses got put at the bottom eventually created bottlenecks. In the middle of the war the Government abolished the priority list. It was an unworkable system.

    The problem with making production decisions without reference to relevant prices is that the control offices may dictate the production of goods which are of less value to the economy than the opportunity costs of the resources that go into their production.

    Because of the mistakes and failures of Centrally Administered Economies there are often black markets operating. Although the authorities typically persecute people for dealing in these markets the reality is that such markets are essential for preventing a collapse of the Centrally Administered Economy.

    Production decisions may be made on political criteria that are economically foolish, such as locating a factory in a region to benefit the supporters of some political figure. Even aside from such corruption of the decision process the centrally administered economy suffers from major weaknesses. The centrally administered economy can mobilize resourts quickly for big investment projects but there is no guarantee that there will be a balance of investments. For example, there may be big programs to build railroads but not enough trains to make use of those railroads.

    Although Centrally Administered Economies may appear to be efficient and effective initially their errors and inefficiencies accumulate and eventually result in stagnation if not collapse. Often the apparent successes of such economies are just illusions. Outsiders who do not know how such economies really work are often fooled by these illusions.

    Source: San José State University – Department of Economics

    http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co…tist/id10.html

    1939 GERMAN ECONOMIC POLICY (under Hitler)
    by Wilhelm Bauer

    http://www.faem.com/books/economic.htm

    [German academic study from 2006]

    The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry

    Abstract. Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often
    considered a mere formal provision without much substance. However, that is
    not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the
    state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment
    patterns. Even regarding war-related projects freedom of contract was
    generally respected and, instead of using power, the state offered firms a
    bundle of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind
    this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property
    provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.

    http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/…pdf&images=yes

Reader Tweets

Latest Flickr photos in the hburgnews Flickr pool
Announcements & Press Releases
  • Friendly City Grand Opening Set for July 9

    Friendly City Food Co-Op, Harrisonburg’s consumer-owned grocery, invites the community to come see its new destination for natural, organic and locally-produced products at the store’s grand opening 11 a.m.-5 p.m. July 9 at 150 East Wolfe Street.

  • Friendly City Becomes Member of National Cooperative Grocers Association

    HARRISONBURG, VA — Friendly City Food Co-op, slated to open this month in Harrisonburg, Va., has become the newest member of the National Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA), a business services cooperative serving 120 consumer-owned food co-ops nationwide.

  • Harrisonburg Recognized as a Bike Friendly Community

    May 2: Harrisonburg was honored when the League of American Bicyclists announced the latest round of Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) designations over the weekend to kick off May as National Bike Month.