IT IS absolutely amazing that in the United States of America, lawmakers, even governors, are willing to ignore the very law they swore to uphold and protect. One of the most prevalent debates in Virginia and at this University over the past several years has been whether or not to allow illegal immigrants and their children to attend public colleges and to receive in-state tuition. The simple and obvious answer is nobecause it is against federal law. That a state law must be passed to enforce this, and that there is intensive antagonism to it, is both surprising and saddening.
According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, as of March 6, HB 892, which was merged in HB 262, has been carried over until the 2007 session of the Virginia General Assembly. What makes the bill so controversial is the section declaring that "individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible for admission to any public institution of higher education in the Commonwealth." HB 1050, which would become irrelevant if 262 were passed, makes illegal aliens ineligible for in-state tuition. Both of these bills should be irrelevant, however, as they apply to illegal aliens who quite simply are unlawfully residing within the United States in the first place.
As readers are no doubt already flying to their computers to write angry letters to the editor, let me make very clear the point I am trying to make: I am not arguing that illegal immigrants or their children should be immediately deported. Quite the contrary, that they already reside in Virginia is an entirely separate issue and so must be dealt with separately -- indeed, I would welcome a bill expediting the speedy naturalization of deserving immigrants.
The University and other Virginia colleges cannot admit or extend in-state tuition rates to these immigrants, however, because to do so would violate federal immigration statutes. Until the law changes at this level it must be followed.
Critics of the bill argue that these immigrants and their children are hard-working members of society who contribute and pay taxes, and thus that they should receive the benefits available to other residents. This is not a legitimate argument because the bottom line is these people are here illegally. They are certainly on a level far above even petty thieves, but technically they are criminals nonetheless. Once again critics are no doubt drafting angry e-mails and letters, and I feel I must return their focus to my central point: The law is the law until it is changed.
Many others who are against the bill argue that providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens would require Virginia to offer in-state tuition to all persons, and that as a result the University and other colleges would lose millions of dollars of revenue. This is a valid argument, but it misses the central point. Why is a state law necessary to stop exceptions from being made that are already inherently illegal under federal law?
At the moment, the United States of America and thus the Commonwealth of Virginia require that citizens of foreign countries go through a specific process and meet certain requirements before they can become U.S. citizens. Moreover, to attend a Virginia college or university, one must either be a citizen of the United States or file the necessary paperwork through the country in which you do have citizenship. Illegal aliens have not done any of this, and until they do, they are defrauding the citizens of the United States and all immigrants who have worked hard to achieve citizenship.Violating the existing law is simply not an option.
However deserving many of these immigrants may be and however strong the case is for states' rights, the point remains that the law is the law. The U.S. was founded on principals of democracy whereby the citizenry elects representatives and has a direct impact on the statutes governing their lives.
As such, each citizen has a duty to obey the law, although he or she retains the right to propose and promote changes to that law. It is this right-- the ability to change the law through concerted action -- which sets our country and democracy in general apart. It is also this right which mandates we follow the law until it is changed.
Doing what is right entails walking a very narrow line that is fraught with dangerous twists and turns. Ultimately, if a law seems unjust or unfair you still have a duty to obey it so long as it is law, and if you choose not to you must recognize and accept the consequences. Working to change the law is of course entirely within a citizen's rights -- yet until that change occurs the current law still stands. Following the law until it is changed is what sets the United States and the University apart and is the true mark of democracy.
Allan Cruickshanks is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at acruickshanks@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 3 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
