Recent California in-state tuition case

A friend recently forwarded me an article from the Sac Bee asking my opinion on a recent US Supreme Court decision to not review the case Martinez v. Regents of the University of California. The California Supreme Court found the law valid.

Currently, there is a law that any high school student that has attended high school in the state for at least three years will be charged in-state tuition upon entering a state college or university. The residency of the student's parents is not relevant as to whether the student gets in-state tuition.

According to the article, this law benefits not only children of undocumented parents but students in boarding schools and those whose parents have moved out of the state. For these students, the law encourages them to stay in the state.

My friend was more concerned about the implications of allowing undocumented individuals to pay in-state tuition. I explained that the children of undocumented parents do not have capacity, in my opinion, to break the immigration laws. These children were brought here by their parents and could not make the decision whether to immigrate from themselves. And thus, they should not be punished when they are just as much residents of California as other students.

Also, I think that the argument for allowing undocumented students to have in-state tuition is even stronger than for boarding students. Because their parents live in California, they pay property taxes, either directly by owning a home or indirectly through renting. By paying property taxes, these parents are contributing to public education. This contribution is the basis for in-state tuition. Those from out of state have not paid taxes and thus pay higher tuition. Boarding students' parents are not paying California property taxes.

Overall, I think the law is very wise and am glad that it has been upheld by the judicial system.

Here is the link to the article.
href="http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/08/3684470/court-refuses-to-punish-kids-of.html">

What's new with same-sex couples and immigration

I recently gave a short presentation on this topic at a law school club meeting.

First, an immigration judge in New York suspended the deportation of the same-sex spouse of an American citizen so that the couple could challenge the constitutionality of DOMA.
Currently, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in states such as Connecticut, Iowa, or Massachusetts. An Argentine national came here several years ago and overstayed her visa, making her deportable. While here, she married a US citizen. On a raid of a passenger bus, this Argentine lady was found to be here illegally and placed in deportation proceedings. As the legal spouse of a US citizen, she would be entitled to apply for certain types of relief from deportation. Without that relationship, she has no relief from deportation.
This lady is legally married to a US citizen. They were married in Connecticut and live in New York (which does not perform same-sex marriages but recognizes those performed in other states). The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage for purposes of the federal government to only be between a man and a woman. The Obama administration has recently announced that it believes DOMA to be unconstitutional and will not defend it in court. This announcement has clouded the validity of DOMA for this particular immigration judge.
Should DOMA be found unconstitutional, this Argentine lady's deportation will have been unnecessary and will have caused great harm to her family. By suspending the deportation, this immigration judge is allowing her family to stay together while the courts determine whether DOMA is constitutional. Other immigration judges are not required to follow this judge's lead. However, many judges may choose to act as this judge did in similar situations.

Second, US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that it would put applications for immigration benefits from same-sex spouses into pending status as opposed to denying them outright. This is because it is not clear whether DOMA is constitutional. However, several days later, USCIS announced it would resume denying these types of applications because DOMA is still valid.
I find this dichotomy interesting. The Justice Department will not defend DOMA in court but Homeland Security (which administers USCIS) will enforce a law that the administration believes unconstitutional. So at this point, the administration will not defend the law, but it will enforce it.

Arizona is at it again

Some state legislators are trying to push through legislation that would prohibit those born in this country to parents that are neither US citizens or lawful permanent residents from gaining citizenship. Some experts are arguing that the 14th Amendment, which gives citizenship to everyone born in the US, was only meant to clarify that former slaves and their children are citizens.
The bill does not look like it is getting very far at this point. If it were to pass, I'm sure there would be challenges all the way to the Supreme Court. I don't think we have enough strict constructionists on the Court to swing a decision in favor of a bill like this. I understand the argument that such a bill could be constitutional (not that I agree). However, even if it were, we have a long history of giving citizenship by place of birth as opposed to descent, and I see no reason to change that.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_e3f477cf-fdb2-5609-afd1-db34e3f9dfd0.html

The states figure out for themselves why the federal government is selective about immigration enforcement

I just read an article attached below. After Arizona passed its controversial immigration legislation, several states jumped on the boat and drafted copycat legislation. However, most of these bills have been abandoned or redrafted or are just not faring well. The reason - state budgets! It costs a lot of money to enforce immigration as with any other law. The federal government tends to focus on criminal aliens. In my opinion, this is largely due to budget constraints. If you only have so much money for this particular function of government, you're going to use it up on the most urgent issue. The federal government considers criminal aliens a higher priority for removal than an otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens.
Arizonans passed their legislation because they felt the federal government wasn't doing its job. Other states have now realized while facing budget problems that the federal government may have been onto something. It's really expensive to enforce immigration measures against peaceful citizens if it requires taking funding away from other sources. I'm glad that states are now realizing what should be a priority even though I'm not glad about the recession.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012806902.html

Deportation Action Plans

I recently heard a story on NPR concerning "deportation wills." When someone is deported, he may have substantial assets that need to be disposed of appropriately. For example, someone may own a house, a car, a business, some real estate. He may have children. A deportation action plan is a combination of legal instruments designed to protect a deported person's assets and children. It could involve setting up trusts for property, guardianships for children, powers of attorney, contracts to protect business interests, and probably much more. This seems to be a very new area and there is not much information on it. If anyone has any thoughts about this topic, they would be very much appreciated.

Secure Communities

A controversial program recently started by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is called Secure Communities, or S-Comm. This program sends all fingerprints taken by local law enforcement to ICE. The result is that every person taken into custody, no matter if the charges are dropped, will have his/her immigration status revealed to ICE.

There is actually a way for counties to opt out of this program and several have chosen this path including San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Arlington, VA. Why have they opted out? Many seem to think this program is wonderful and will help to discover undocumented people. However, civil rights groups think that S-Comm is horrible.

For those that subscribe to the view that undocumented individuals are breaking the law, I can see how S-Comm would seem attractive. For those who feel that undocumented people are discriminated against and not given the rights they deserve, I can see how S-Comm would seem such an terrible thing.

However, there are practical concerns as to why a county would not want to use S-Comm that should be considered no matter your philosophy on undocumented people. Very large percentages of some cities are made up of undocumented people. If you were undocumented and knew about S-Comm, how willing would you be to assist law enforcement, even if you were completely innocent and in a position to assist? I personally would be very scared that I could somehow be placed in removal proceedings from my encounter with the police. With S-Comm, local police become pseudo-ICE agents, seeking out undocumented people. How can we inspire trust in immigrant communities when all peace officers working among us are also agents for ICE (in some sense).

I personally think opting out is wise for counties that have large immigrant communities, if for no better reason than public safety and trust of peace officers.

Immigration status of children of Russian spies

My mom sent me a text earlier pointing out this issue. I also wrote to my immigration professor about it. The children that were born in the US are citizens. The only way to be born in the US and not be a citizen is to not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only people that fall into this category, as far as I know, are the children of diplomats. The spies were not diplomats by any means.
Interestingly, immigration laws were used to officially deport the spies even though it was really just a political spy-swap. After the spies plead guilty, the judge removed all the other charges and found them in violation of immigration laws. The spies chose voluntary departure.

Here's an article about the children of the spies. Some of the older ones are staying here, it seems.
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/09/russian-spies-children-face-trauma">

Here's the article where I got my info on the deportation of the spies. It's in Russian.
href="http://korrespondent.net/world/1096150">