Arizona Supreme Court Denies DACA Students In-State Tuition -- How this Threatens Texas College Students

This week, the Arizona Supreme Court decided that Arizona-resident DACA students no longer have in-state/in-district tuition status for colleges and universities. In their decision, the court agreed that DACA students have been granted "lawful status" by the federal government, but not "legal status" for state law to qualify for state resident rates. In other words, though these students live in the state, apparently the court does not see them legal but illegal. Wrap your head that one around for a while.

This decision affects over 2,000 students in Arizona and, without appeal to circuit court, these thousands of students will see immediate tuition increases or simply withdraw from college. The out-of-state rate will triple the tuition for these students, and of course, many cannot afford that tuition. For example, in-state students at Arizona State University will pay $9,834 for tuition next school year, while non-resident students pay $27,618.

This court decision is exactly why the federal DREAM Act is needed (and the Congress has no interest -- neither Republicans nor Democrats have the willpower to make this happen). The original federal DREAM Act was proposed in 2001, and nearly two decades later, the nation has failed these hundreds of thousands of young people. Because of this state's decision, thousands over another generation will not be able to afford higher education, promising more poverty in the state for another generation. We should notice that the Arizona Board of Regents Chair Bill Ridenour had been supportive of DACA students and stated:

"The board continues to hope that soon, a congressional enactment will establish the lawful status and presence of those who were brought to this country unlawfully as children and have remained here as law-abiding members of our communities," Ridenour said.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich's response was merely that this was "his job," arguing that all along that colleges and universities were violating state and federal laws by granting in-state tuition to DACA recipients. “It’s about time someone held them accountable, and that’s my job. My role as AG is to make sure you’re following the law,” he said. As we argue elsewhere, this kind of response that mimics others' excuses for their own impotence endangers all justice.

The Arizona AG's response -- "That's my job" -- is parallels to Texas Attorney General Paxton, who has lead the charge to sue the federal government to cancel all DACA protection of youth: “Indeed, if the injunction is maintained through June 2018, amici States will be forced to consider filing a lawsuit challenging the original 2012 memorandum creating DACA,” said Paxton in January 2018.

Why Arizona Predicts Texas's Threats to Undocumented Students

We need to appreciate that, though the federal government has continuously failed to do what functional governments should, the State of Texas was the first state with a DREAM Act, in 2001. In 2001, a Republican-majority House of Representatives and Republican-majority Senate passed HB 1403 to qualify migrants -- including some undocumented -- as residents of Texas for purposes of tuition at the rate provided to residents of this state ... and was signed by Republican Governor Rick Perry. In 2001, the people of Texas had the moral motivation to both recognize the economic and social capital of state residents, regardless of their national document status. This Texas DREAM Act has permitted tens of thousands of students who live in the state to attend the state's colleges and universities with the economic privilege of residency. This is sensible, since undocumented families pay taxes in Texas and should have the advantage of those taxes. Specifically, the current Texas DREAM Act allows in-state tuition for students who have lived in Texas for three years and either have obtained a GED or graduated from the state's public or accredited private schools. Before this act, Texas colleges treated undocumented students as international, requiring them to pay international tuition, even though most had lived in Texas for most of their lives, paying Texas taxes.

Now, if Texas AG Paxton follows Arizona's lead to further attack our undocumented students, again tens of thousands of future college students will not afford tuition.

For example, the following table demonstrates the gross disparity of in-district tuition vs international tuition.

Credit Hours	In-District	International
1	$96	$252
2	$160	$360
3	$224	$524
4	$288	$688
5	$352	$852
6	$416	$1,016
7	$480	$1,180
8	$544	$1,344
9	$608	$1,508
10	$672	$1,672
11	$736	$1,836
12	$800	$2,000

See Lone Star College.

In future blog posts, we will address real problems of working- and poverty-class students, how their poverty affects college success, and both college support and college failures to support our community members.

For now, we need to reach out to our current legislators and start a very aggressive campaign to a) oppose the Abbott-Patrick-Paxton axis attack against our students, and b) demand stronger legislation to expand protection of our undocumented students. This is a core value of the college and -- importantly -- must be a core value for the union.

SB4, Unjust Laws, and LSC

This article picks up a conversation about how laws governing immigration affect our college students. You can read the other parts here [1, 2, 3].

Brief Updates with DACA and SB4

1. The Fifth Circuit of Appeals: A three-judge panel unanimously sustained Texas SB4. We address this as the main of our discussion, below.
2. Neither Democrats nor Republicans amassed willingness to pass a clean DREAM Act to protect hundred of thousands of young migrants affected by the loss of DACA.
3. ICE increases aggressive separation of families across the country, including separating parents from children; as part of their strategy, ICE continues consistent policies of disinformation to confuse local communities and institutions
4. Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions III, U.S. Attorney General -- never a friend of migrants -- has promised "using every power” in his suit against the State of California’s sanctuary laws, using rhetoric supporting Arizona’s HB 1070 (“Show Your Papers”), which has largely been shown to be unconstitutional.
5. On 26 February, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the president’s appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court Jan. 9 nationwide injunction that halted Trump’s move to rescind DACA. Therefore, Homeland Security resumed DACA renewals. The White House appeal now returns to the Ninth Circuit.

Source: Center for Law and Social Policy

The Fifth Circuit -- Abandoning the Fourth Amendment

The Fifth Circuit -- the most conservative of appellate courts -- held that SB4

• is not preempted under the federal Constitution’s Supremacy Clause;
• its section requiring local governments (including public colleges) to comply with ICE immigration detainer requests does not violate the Fourth Amendment; and
• its provision prohibiting local laws or policies that “materially limit” immigration enforcement activities is not so vague as to violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Importantly, the Fifth Circuit clarified that local entities -- such as colleges -- are not required to collaborate with federal immigration enforcement; that is, the court identified how local entities may help federal officials and whether they must. Stunningly, the Fifth Court ignored the Fourth Amendment (“against unreasonable searches and seizures”) when it comes to immigration arrest authority. The Court announced that immigration arrests do not require evidence of criminality; instead, the Court claims: “we…disavow any district court decisions that have suggested the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause of criminality in the immigration context.” Remember that immigration courts do not require defense, and migrants often are un-represented before the bench.

Remember, too, that ICE does not require warrants for entering private residences or business … or colleges. ICE uses Form I-274A which is not a warrant requiring a judge’s determination of “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.” No warrants. No defense. No rights. Professor of Law Michael Kagan notes:

At issue here is the power of the government to detain a person, citizen or immigrant, without probable cause, and without immediate review. An autocrat would very much enjoy this power.

Texas and Unjust Laws and Why a College Matters

We start with the idealistic and often untrue assumption that we all have rights in our republic: specifically, The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution give defendants the right to counsel — to be represented by an attorney in court proceedings. But recall that the Immigration Courts do not provide defense counsel if the defense cannot pay legal protection, like criminal courts do. Further, ICE has increasingly threatened all organizations — private and public—that oppose his hatred. Not surprisingly, the Texas axis of Abbott-Patrick-Paxton enthusiastically support Albence’s xenophobic stance. These two truths — the White House hunts undocumented migrants and immigration courts do not provide defense for indigent migrants — act as inhumane, uncivilized, immoral, and hostile against anti-American claims of a just system. Attorney General Paxton, again, conflates all immigrants as criminals:

Enforcing immigration law prevents the release of individuals from custody who have been charged with serious crimes. ... Dangerous criminals shouldn’t be allowed back into our communities to possibly commit more crimes.

Meanwhile, the current practice of ICE sees all undocumented migrants as targets for detention and deportation.

We see that already in our college. Our undocumented students or students with undocumented family members are increasingly stressed, absent from class, and withdrawing. I have had a student who withdrew because his undocumented family returned to Mexico; the student needed to work to support his nephews and nieces. Another student’s family has made her -- at age 21 -- the legal custodian of her little brother in case parents are deported. Other students in threatened families just disappear, without a conversation. A recent study by Kathleen Roche in The Journal of Adolescent Health shows that students in undocumented families are experiencing increased emotional stress under the current U.S. immigration policies.

With that context, we return to SB4 and the State of Texas’s insistent assault on our college students.