KILLING
AMERICA!
THE
DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THE WASTELAND OF AMERICAN CITIES THEY CONTROL AND SURRENDER
TO LA RAZA
A study by Tom
Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25
percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That
totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled
illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified
illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER
“The Democrats had
abandoned their working-class base to chase what they pretended was a racial
group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited
migration”. DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE
"It extends to each issue the Democrats embrace. Every city
that has come under Democrat control is proof positive that instead of raising
the standard of living for the occupants, the city falls to crime, gangs, and
drugs. In fact, "America is awash with troubled, dysfunctional
cities that have been electing Democrat Party mayors for decades." EILEEN F TOPLANSKY
THE DEM CONSPIRACY HITS SAN DIEGO
Let’s briefly review the sordid history of DACA. DACA was a
program concocted by the Obama administration to overcome the failure of
Congress to pass a massive amnesty program known as Comprehensive Immigration
Reform and the follow-up attempt to pass a massive amnesty program known as
“The DREAM Act.” By Michael Cutler
*
*
The
concept behind the DREAM Act and DACA was to exploit the well-known empathy and
compassion Americans have for children. Both of those efforts were sold as
means of helping children who were brought to the United States by their
parents. By Michael Cutler
*
A study by Tom Wong of the University of
California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled
illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000
anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does
not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER
No
Right to College for Illegal Immigrants
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5440581937224467578#editor/target=post;postID=1242653707746926792
The Eleventh Circuit confirms: Universities
don’t have to accept unauthorized immigrants, including DACA beneficiaries, as
students.
At a
time when Americans believe immigration
to be the most important
issue facing the nation, the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled
that Georgia’s state colleges and universities can’t be forced to admit illegal
immigrants as students. And that includes aliens who qualified under the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program implemented by former
president Barack Obama in 2012.
In an opinion handed
down earlier this month, a three-judge panel upheld the right of the Georgia
Board of Regents, which runs the state-university system, to verify the “lawful
presence” of applicants before granting them admission as students to the “more
selective schools in the University System.” Selective schools are defined as
any Georgia college or university that “did not admit all academically
qualified applicants” in the “two most recent academic years.” That applies to
at least three state colleges, including the Georgia Institute of Technology,
one of the best-known engineering schools in the country.
This policy denies admission to aliens who received “deferred action”
under the 2012 DACA memorandum issued by the Department of Homeland Security.
That memo provided what amounted to a temporary administrative amnesty to
aliens who entered the U.S. illegally before their 16th birthday and met
certain other criteria. The government agreed to defer removing DACA
beneficiaries from the country under the exercise of “prosecutorial
discretion.” But as the court pointed out, the DACA memo specifically stated
that DACA recipients “are not considered lawfully present in the United
States.”
Despite that qualification, in Estrada v. Becker, three DACA recipients who were
denied admission to Georgia colleges filed suit, alleging that the board’s
policy is preempted by federal law and violates their right to “equal
protection” under the 14th Amendment.
Thus, the lawsuit dealt simultaneously with two important
questions: Does DACA actually confer “lawful presence” onto illegal immigrants?
And do states have a legal obligation to any illegal immigrants when it
comes to a college education?
“Lawful presence” is a classification that designates whether a
person who is not a citizen is legally in the United States. It is a status
enjoyed by green-card recipients, visa holders, and others.
The plaintiffs in Estrada v. Becker claimed that DACA provides them
with lawful presence, but the DACA memo explicitly states otherwise. It also
says that it “confer[s] no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to
citizenship.”
Under federal immigration law, simply living in the United
States for an extended period does not entitle one to lawfully present status —
a fact usually overlooked by DACA advocates.
Yet the students argued that the board’s policy conflicts with
federal law because it creates a new alien classification. The court disagreed.
It concluded that the board’s policy verifies lawful presence based on
classifications established by Congress and written into federal immigration
law. According to the court, the DACA program grants recipients nothing more
than “a reprieve from potential removal.”
Given that no federal statutory authority exists for classifying
DACA recipients as lawfully present, the plaintiffs also argued that the
constitutional doctrine of preemption (i.e., federal law overrides state law)
prohibits states from regulating a policy area that is within the authority of
the federal government. Under the Constitution, the power to regulate
immigration is exclusively a federal one.
Yet, as noted earlier, the Board’s policy creates no new
regulation. It simply uses existing federal immigration statutes to “verify
lawful presence, and it does not require a state agent to make any independent
determination,” according to the court. DACA confers no residency status onto
illegal immigrants and does not prohibit state entities from using existing
federal statutes to shape their policies. Thus, there is no preemption.
The plaintiffs additionally alleged that their right to equal
protection under the laws is being abridged, since their classification burdens
a fundamental right, the right to an education. But as the court pointed out,
the Georgia “policy deals with postsecondary education, and the Supreme Court
has never said that education is a fundamental right.”
According to the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiffs “may pursue
postsecondary education outside these three schools, and the Policy in no way
undermines appellants’ deferred action status.” Lawful-presence checks are
rationally related to a government’s interest “in responsibly investing state
resources” in residents who are most likely to remain in the state. Thus,
states have no obligation to admit illegal immigrants — whether they are
DACA-qualified or not — to their university systems.
Outside of Georgia, 18
other states are doing their best to expressly disobey federal
immigration law by providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens who
reside in that state. 8 U.S.C. §1623 prohibitsstates from
providing in-state tuition rates or any other post-secondary benefit to an
illegal alien if the same benefit is not available to a citizen of the United
States. In other words, states such as California and Texas that provide
in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens while charging higher tuition rates to
out-of-state students who are citizens are doing so in direct violation of
federal law.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Justice Department has never enforced this
provision against any state, to the detriment of the public. These states are encouraging illegal
immigration and forcing taxpayer parents to subsidize the education of illegal
immigrants while disadvantaging students who are citizens.
That is fundamentally unfair.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a
senior legal fellow, and Caleb Morrison is a member of the Young Leaders
Program, at The Heritage Foundation. Mr. von Spakovsky is the co-author, along
with John Fund, of Who’s
Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk and Obama’s
Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.
No comments:
Post a Comment