蜜柚直播

Mary O鈥橤rady is asking the state Court of Appeals to dismiss a claim by state Attorney General Mark Brnovich that the Maricopa Community College District is violating a voter-approved law that says only legal residents get in-state tuition. She told the judges that the decision by the Obama administration to allow Dreamers 鈥� undocumented immigrants brought here as children 鈥� to stay and work means they qualify.

While this case involves only the Maricopa system, what the courts ultimately decide will affect the policies of community colleges statewide. And it also will determine the legality of what the 蜜柚直播 Board of Regents has done in offering in-state tuition to Dreamers at the three state universities.

Central to the fight is a 2006 ballot measure that limits in-state tuition to citizens and legal residents. It also denies waivers of tuition or fees, grants, scholarships, financial aid, tuition assistance 鈥渙r any other type of financial assistance that is subsidized or paid in whole or in part with state monies鈥� to those who are in the country 鈥渨ithout lawful immigration status.鈥�

Despite that, the Maricopa system board decided to grant resident tuition at its 10 colleges, two skill centers and several education centers to Dreamers 鈥� those accepted into the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Pima Community College in 蜜柚直播 also grants DACA recipients in-state tuition. That allows people who arrived in this country illegally as children to remain without fear of deportation if they meet other conditions, a process that gets reviewed every two years. They also are issued Employment Authorization Documents allowing them to work legally.

In 2014, Tom Horne, then the state attorney general, filed suit to have the college鈥檚 policy voided. He said that DACA, which is simply a policy decision of the administration, does not mean the students are lawfully present, as the 2006 law requires.

A trial judge ruled against the state. And now Brnovich, Horne鈥檚 successor, is attempting to get the appellate court to rule otherwise. But O鈥橤rady, in new filings, said the attorney general鈥檚 arguments miss several crucial points.

One, she said, is that after the 2006 ballot measure was approved, there was some uncertainty about how state and local agencies and governments should determine who is in the country legally. The result, O鈥橤rady said, was a new law which said an agency may rely on a 鈥淯nited States Citizenship and Immigration Services employment authorization document鈥� as sufficient for 鈥渄emonstrating lawful presence in the United States.鈥�

DACA recipients get such documents.

O鈥橤rady conceded that DACA does not provide a particular immigration status for those in the program. Nor does it create a path to citizenship. But she quoted federal documents that say a DACA recipient 鈥渋s not considered to be unlawfully present鈥� and that such a person 鈥渋s authorized ... to be present in the United States.鈥�

鈥淎s a matter of federal law, a DACA recipient is lawfully present,鈥� she told the judges. 鈥淎nd as a matter of 蜜柚直播 law, MCCCD (the Maricopa district) may rely on an employment authorization document to verify lawful presence.鈥�

And she said that means 蜜柚直播 did not need a special law to give DACA recipients the lower rate.

O鈥橤rady already has won the first round.

In a ruling last year, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Arthur Anderson rejected the state鈥檚 argument that DACA recipients are ineligible for in-state tuition.

Anderson said the Department of Homeland Security considers DACA recipients to be here legally. And he specifically cited the Employment Authorization Documents permitting them to work, pointing out that state law says these are permissible identification for certain benefits.

鈥淭he state cannot establish subcategories of 鈥榣awful presence,鈥� picking and choosing when it will consider DACA recipients lawfully present and when it will not,鈥� the judge wrote.

Anderson also pointed out that the 2006 law failed to define the terms 鈥渃itizen,鈥� 鈥渓egal resident鈥� and 鈥渓awful immigration status.鈥�

But the judge said the way he reads federal law as well as the voter-approved measure, the exclusion from in-state status applies only to those who are not 鈥渓awfully present.鈥�

鈥淭hat鈥檚 not up to the state to determine,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淔ederal law, not state law, determines who is lawfully present in the U.S.鈥�

The amount of money at issue is significant, at least for the individuals involved.

In the Maricopa college system, a student seeking an associate degree would save about $13,800 by being granted in-state status.

DACA recipients at PCC pay the in-state rate of $75.50 per credit hour for basic courses 鈥� there are higher fees for some programs 鈥� which translates to $4,530 for someone seeking an associate degree.

Nonresident students are charged the basic rate of $352 per credit hour, or $21,120, for the same degree.