In two recent posts — not surprisingly, Preferences For The (Formerly) Illegal Immigrants and Preferences For (Formerly) Illegal Immigrants II — I discussed (again, no surprise) preferences for the currently and perhaps soon to be formerly illegal immigrants. If “comprehensive reform” in its current form passes, I warned, illegals will immediately be catapulted “out of the shadows” to the front of every affirmative action line.
Now comes attorney Kris Kobach, writing in today’s Washington Times, who reveals that the bill currently before the Senate specifically “allows illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition rates at public universities, discriminating against U.S. citizens from out of state and law-abiding foreign students.”
These provisions are buried deep in the Senate bill. They are part of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act section.
The DREAM Act is a nightmare. It repeals a 1996 federal law that prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. On top of that, the DREAM Act offers a fast track to U.S. citizenship for illegal aliens who attend college.
On its own, the DREAM Act never stood a chance of passing — even in the Senate. Every scientific opinion poll on the subject has shown over 70 percent opposition to giving in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens.
Not surprisingly, the DREAM Act languished in committee for five years — until the opportunity arose to hitch it to the Senate’s “comprehensive” immigration bill of 2006. Now, Sen. Edward Kennedy and his allies have added it to this year’s amnesty bill, too. They know that the only way to slip such bad legislation past the American people is to bury it in a comprehensive bill.
But perhaps this doesn’t really matter, since so many states have found ways to ignore this prohibition with immunity. Author Kobach, by the way, is doing more than complaining about this state of affairs. He is representing clients in lawsuits proceeding in Kansas and California challenging in-state tuition for illegals.
This is a huge problem with S1639/1348. The barring of use, by the legalized, of affirmative action privilege, if it is even politically and legalistically possible today,
is still far from enough to cool down opposition to legalization/amnesty.
There would still be the effect of their numbers being counted to determine
how far underrepresented these disadvantaged minority groups would be henceforth. This means also that any smear jobbery about how only racism, xenophobia and the like, could oppose mass legalization, is up against the fact that almost the entire political spectrum is going to have a problem with the specific racial/ethnic composition of the legalized: they are very largely affirmative action-eligible.