LAURIE ROBERTS

'Dreamer' tuition appeal is (sadly) justified

Laurie Roberts
opinion columnist

As expected, Attorney General Mark Brnovich has decided to appeal a judge's ruling that "dreamers" can score in-state tuition.

It, of course, makes no sense to essentially bar the door to Arizona's colleges to these students who were brought here illegally when they were children.

Not if you acknowledge the reality that they aren't going anywhere. This is their home and generally speaking, we don't punish the children for the sins of the parents.

Not if you acknowledge that Arizona needs a well-educated population if we are to grow the economy of this place we love.

It does, however, make legal sense for Brnovich to appeal. (And no doubt, his political base loves it.)

On Wednesday, Brnovich filed notice that he's appealing Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Arthur Anderson's order that dreamers who qualify for the Deferred Action Program for Childhood Arrivals program are eligible for in-state tuition.

Anderson, in his May ruling, wrote that DACA means the students are "lawfully present" and thus eligible for in-state tuition. This, despite a 2006 law that bars undocumented students from qualifying for residents' rates.

"Federal law, not state law, determines who is lawfully present in the U.S.," Anderson wrote.

The 2006 law, as approved by voters, denies in-state tuition to anyone who is "not a citizen or legal resident of the United States or who is without lawful immigration status."

According to the Department of Homeland Security, DACA students have legal presence but they don't have "lawful immigration status."

"The fact that you are not accruing unlawful presence does not change whether you are in lawful status while you remain in the United States," according to a fact sheet put out by DHS. "However, although deferred action does not confer a lawful immigration status, your period of stay is authorized by the Department of Homeland Security while your deferred action is in effect and, for admissibility purposes, you are considered to be lawfully present in the United States during that time."

The question is: is lawful status the same as being a legal resident?

The real question is: when are we going to quit parsing language and come up with an immigration system that works.

As a result of Anderson's ruling, all DACA students now pay in-state tuition.

That makes total sense. It's the smart thing to do, here in a state where the average high school sees only 18.6 percent of its graduates earn a college degree within six years.

It's the right thing to do, here in a state where voters overwhelmingly support the DREAM Act. Here in a state that needs the contributions these highly motivated students can offer.

But is it the legal thing?