VandenBerg’s Views

This is interesting:  the California Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments in the Martinez vs. Regents of the University of California, No. C054124.  The case revolves around California State Law AB 540 that states, among other things, that any non-resident (of California) who has attended high school in California for three academic years can go to a California State university at in-state resident tuition prices.  AB 540 originally became a California State statute in 2001, and the Martinez case has been bouncing around superior and appellate courts since 2005.

So far it sounds innocuous enough, even fair-minded. I mean, the student has completed three years in high school, that’s almost residency, right?

Martinez et. al. are a group of non-resident students (and graduates, I hope) who are suing for a partial refund of the tuition they paid.  They base the lawsuit on AB 540.  This is frivolous!  How can Martinez et. al. have a case?  How can the Supreme Court waste the taxpayers’ money to hear this?  The appellants are all from out of state and none went to a California high school once, let alone for three years!

There must be more to this.  Let’s dig a little deeper.

In this article we read that the “statute violates a 1996 federal law banning states from giving undocumented college students benefits they don’t offer to all U.S. citizens.”  Wait, what?  Undocumented?  So, if I understand it correctly, criminal aliens are not only attending state universities in California under AB 540, but doing so at drastically reduced prices?

I will put this as plainly as I can: in the State of California criminal aliens attend state universities for much lower tuition than citizens of the USA.  Let that sink in a little.  Put another way, the very fact that these students are inside the border of the State of California makes them criminals, and the state, as a punishment, gives them a huge tuition discount.

This is a symptom of a deeper problem that is so pervasive we as a society fail to even recognize it any more.  In an effort to be “politically correct” we give criminals gifts instead of arresting them.  And don’t start with the “but they’re only children” missives; these criminals are old enough to be in college, that means they are adults and should be tried, in a court of law, as such.  ”We have a moral obligation to help them” is another phrase I hear often.  Really?  Their own country has an obligation to help them; to this I would agree.  Just as my country has an obligation to me, a citizen.

So, what then, is the solution?  Close the borders?  Round them up?  No.  Those are reactionary responses to an already bad problem.  We can start in the right direction by rescinding laws, like AB 540, that actually give criminal aliens advantages over citizens.  We can eliminate so-called “safe-harbor” cities that blatantly aid and abet these criminals.  We can stop electing people to legislative offices who do more for the citizens of another country than citizens of their own country.

Let me be clear, here; I am absolutely in favor of immigration.  Nothing builds our country better than diversity as we constantly learn new things from each other.  In fact we probably should approve more residency applications than we do, as a country.  I am absolutely against letting crimes go unpunished.  If a law is bad, change the law, don’t ignore it.

In light of all this I still think the Martinez case is a bust and the Supreme Court of California is wasting time and dollars.  Clearly the overall intent is that students who are residents should get a tuition discount, and the appellates in the Martinez case are all not residents.  They may make a good argument that criminal aliens are being given a discount, and by doing shed light on a ridiculous loophole in the law but in the end, in their situation, the law was fair and was applied correctly.  Two wrongs still don’t make a right, afterall.

Copyright 2009 Mark D. VandenBerg All Rights Reserved