Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, July 6
Washington — Today, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) reacted sharply to the decision by a federal district judge in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to keep college students from getting a serious hearing on the substance of claims challenging an in-state tuition law for illegal aliens.
Rather, the judge used banal procedural roadblocks to ignore the substance of a lawsuit by injured college students challenging a Kansas state law granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens. In doing so, the judge declined to address the merits of the lawsuit.
Dan Stein, President of FAIR, today called the decision by U.S. district Judge Richard D. Rogers, an appalling exercise in judicial activism, “taking a blatantly illegal state law and using various procedural obstacles to keep these young people from having their day in court.”
An appeal to the lawsuit is already planned, says FAIR.
The case, Day v. Sebelius (No. 04-4085-RDR, July 5, 2005) was brought by two dozen out-of-state college students enrolled at the University of Kansas who claimed that under federal law, the Kansas in-state tuition law now meant they should have the right to receive in-state tuition rates as well.
According to Stein, “this decision is especially troubling in that Judge Rogers decided to use brazen procedural roadblocks to uphold a state law clearly prohibited by Congress under federal law. The federal statute is clear,” says Stein. “If a state decides to give in-state tuition to persons who have no right to be in the United States, then it must offer similar tuition rates to all enrolled students.” The judge refused to consider the plain facts and law, he said.
FAIR, which helped bring the lawsuit, says the record was replete with examples of how the U.S. citizen students are injured by Kansas’ illegal actions. “State laws such as those under consideration treat illegal aliens even better than legal nonimmigrant students, and they cause tuition rates to increase while discriminating in favor of those who’ve broken our laws,” contended Stein.
Stein further asserted that the Day v. Sebelius decision continues a troubling trend within the Federal judiciary to frustrate the rights of U.S. Citizens to pursue remedies to vindicate injuries associated with the lack of U.S. immigration law enforcement. “In this case, the judge has ignored evidence of severe financial strain on the affected law abiding families, the plain language and intention of federal law and the brazen appearance of unfairness such an unjust result would seem to suggest,” Stein concluded.