Thread: In Maryland, an immigration battle redux

In Maryland, an immigration battle redux
A new law allowing in-state college tuition for some illegal immigrants is suspended until it can go before voters next year. In the meantime, both sides build up huge campaigns to persuade the public.
By Andrew Seidman, Washington Bureau

July 22, 2011

Reporting from Washington—

The fierce battle to pass a law in Maryland that offers in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants who graduate from the state's high schools immediately launched another fight — one aimed at persuading voters to stop it from taking effect.

Maryland's version of the DREAM Act was approved in May by the General Assembly and signed by the governor, and would have become law on July 1. But in a state where public referendums are rare — the last one was 20 years ago — the polarized tone that dominates the national debate on immigration helped opponents launch a petition drive that had no trouble amassing the minimum 55,700 signatures to put the issue before voters in November 2012. Until then, the new law is suspended.

Opponents of the law say Maryland can't afford to subsidize the college education of illegal immigrants. Supporters, who say they will challenge the petition drive in court, say that the effort used misinformation to persuade people to sign and that the law grants undocumented students only some of the rights enjoyed by other Maryland high school graduates.

"This is just the beginning of the big fight you're going to have over the next 12 to 15 months," said Gustavo Torres, executive director of Casa de Maryland, a Latino and minority rights advocacy group that supports the law. The group expects to raise between $3 million and $5 million for an educational campaign it will launch with the help of 25 other organizations, Torres said.

Maryland Republicans, many of whom voted against the law, say the successful petition drive indicates a high level of public opposition. They argue that the law will cost taxpayers money to educate students who cannot be legally hired in the state.

Of the first 47,000 people who signed the petition, nearly 30% were Democrats and 11% were unaffiliated, according to data from the Maryland State Board of Elections.

"Clearly, this is not a partisan issue as far as the population," said Neil Parrott, a Republican state delegate who organized the petition and referred to the legislation as the "False Hope Act." "They understand it costs too much; they understand it breaks federal immigration laws."

Although immigration laws are largely a federal matter, Washington has left it to states to decide whether undocumented students have the right to pay resident tuition rates in the states where they attend high school.

Illegal immigrants are eligible for in-state tuition in 13 states. On one side of the spectrum lies California, where the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to hear an appeal to a law that grants in-state tuition to illegal immigrants who meet specific criteria. In Alabama, lawmakers passed a law in June that not only denies in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, it bans them from even enrolling in public colleges.

The Maryland law sets eligibility requirements for undocumented students: They must complete three years of high school in Maryland and prove that their parents file tax returns. After completing two years of community college, a student can transfer to a public university.

The law also stipulates that students who are not permanent residents must provide the community college with an affidavit stating that they will apply to become one within 30 days of becoming eligible. Male students must register with the Selective Service.

The difference in cost for students is substantial: In-state tuition and fees at the University of Maryland run $8,655 annually, but for out-of-state residents they rise to $26,026.

"Marylanders are misinformed about the intent and content" of the law, said Bishop Douglas Miles, pastor of Koinonia Baptist Church in Baltimore. Opponents make it seem like a "free ride, when in truth the law specifically states parents have to be tax-paying Marylanders," he said.

Democratic state Sen. Richard Madaleno Jr. said the law simply seeks to ensure that children are not held accountable for their parents' actions.

"I think the opponents of the law have tried to mischaracterize the bill from the beginning and tried to scare people into thinking that it does a lot more than it actually does do," Madaleno said.

Miles' church, along with more than 120 other parishes across the state, is part of Maryland's Industrial Areas Foundation, a robust community-organizing network that supports the law. With 85 member institutions in the state, the network has enough resources to mobilize its members to the polls, said Alisa Glassman, lead organizer of Action in Montgomery, a nonpartisan alliance of 30 congregations and neighborhood organizations in Montgomery County.

"Many African Americans forget that just two generations ago, it was legal in the state of Maryland for African Americans to pay taxes and yet not be able to attend the University of Maryland. So this is not just about what's legal — it's about what's just," Miles said.

Maryland is the first state to put the tuition question before voters.

"I think Republicans will use this issue to try to mobilize voters to the polls," Stella Rouse, professor of political science at the University of Maryland who specializes in minority politics, said in an email. "How well Democrats [and] immigration advocate groups … can counter-mobilize will showcase a mini-national referendum on this issue similar to what occurred with [Proposition] 8 in California," which banned same-sex marriage.

andrew.seidman@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 9034.story

The difference in cost for students is substantial: In-state tuition and fees at the University of Maryland run $8,655 annually, but for out-of-state residents they rise to $26,026.

"Marylanders are misinformed about the intent and content" of the law, said Bishop Douglas Miles, pastor of Koinonia Baptist Church in Baltimore. Opponents make it seem like a "free ride, when in truth the law specifically states parents have to be tax-paying Marylanders," he said.

It most certainly IS a free ride if LEGAL tax-paying Marylanders are forced to subsidize each illegal alien to the tune of $17,361!!

Disinformation is being passed out already. The law says they had to have filed a tax form, not paid.

The law is written in such a way that it pays any legal immigrant parents here to become illegal, potentially getting a tax break for tuitiion for their kids.

In addition, it is nearly impossible to prove parentage of illegals. Any legal or illegal immigrant can claim the kid is theirs and get them the tuition break.

Even though the law says they have to have graduated from high school here, how would the college know if someone uses the same name? If you aren't going to college, just let someone else use your name. There is no mechanism to check. With the networking that goes on, virtually any illegal can get a networker to get them the tuition break by falsifying parentage and showing their tax form.

Not to mention, being here is ILLEGAL!

[edit] and the update is we have twice the validated signatures than required...

Illegal immigrant tuition referendum certified for 2012 ballot

State Board of Elections validated nearly double the number of signatures needed

By Julie Bykowicz, The Baltimore Sun

7:19 p.m. EDT, July 22, 2011

The State Board of Elections notified petitioners Friday that they have succeeded in their effort to have Maryland voters weigh in on a new law enabling illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.

But advocates of the tuition bill have until Aug. 1 to file a lawsuit challenging the referendum.

Elections officials have been counting and validated signatures over the past few weeks. In all, the board accepted 108,923 signatures, nearly double the approximately 55,000 needed to secure the referendum a spot on the November 2012 ballot.

"Today the voters of Maryland have achieved a huge victory," Del. Neil Parrott said in a statement. The Washington County Republican led the petition effort.

"When we started this petition drive, we knew that Maryland voters wanted more financial responsibility in Annapolis and wanted the enforcement of our immigration laws, not ways to skirt around the law. Today marks the beginning of the end for an illegal alien benefits bill that simply does not make sense."

Kim Propeack of immigrant advocacy group Casa de Maryland said Casa and other groups are considering a lawsuit.

"We don't agree with the State Board of Elections on a lot of their decisions," she said.

Specifically, Casa and the Maryland chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union believe it is illegal for petitioners to have used a website that links with the state voter registration database to fill in names — citing the potential for fraud.

Also, Casa officials believe the board should not have accepted petitions that were stapled to the full text of the law; the board required petitioners to sign a form with the law printed on the back.

www.baltimoresun.com

By ANDREW SCHOTZ

July 22, 2011

MARYLAND— Voters in 2012 will decide whether a new law benefiting illegal immigrants attending Maryland colleges will stand, after elections officials ruled that a petition drive had nearly twice as many valid signatures as needed to put the question on the ballot. The Maryland State Board of Elections told petition drive organizer Del. Neil Parrott in a letter on Friday that 108,923 signatures were accepted, well over the 55,736 that were required. Another 23,148 signatures were rejected, for an approval rate of about 82 percent.

The law, giving in-state college tuition rates to illegal immigrants, was scheduled to go into effect July 1, but will be on hold pending the outcome of next year's referendum. Supporters say the law will help guarantee access to higher education for people who have grown up in Maryland, regardless of their immigration status. To qualify, people must meet certain benchmarks, such as graduating from a Maryland high school, going to a community college and paying income tax or filing a return for three years. Critics call it an unfair reward for people living in the state illegally, forcing other taxpayers to subsidize their college education.

Parrott, R-Washington, was a central figure in the petition drive, which lasted about two months. He put up $2,500 of his own money for upfront expenses. Del. Patrick L. McDonough, R-Baltimore/Harford, an outspoken critic of illegal immigration, also was a guiding force for the petition drive. "When we started this petition drive, we knew that Maryland voters wanted more financial responsibility in Annapolis and wanted the enforcement of our immigration laws, not ways to skirt around the law. Today marks the beginning of the end for an illegal alien benefits bill that simply does not make sense," Parrott wrote in a news release distributed Friday, About 30 percent of the people who signed petitions were Democrats, and 15 percent were unaffiliated, the release said.

A distinctive feature of this petition drive was a website that let people tap into a voter-registration database. The computer system retrieved each user's name as it appears in voter records, cutting down on the possibility of errors. The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland last month asked the state to examine the online petition system, alleging that it was susceptible to fraud and violates a law prohibiting "pre-filled" petition forms. At first, McDonough guessed that the website could lead to as many as 90 percent of the group's signatures. The final count was far less. Elections board records show that about 33 percent of the valid signatures in the final count were obtained with the help of the website. The board didn't provide a breakdown of how many rejected signatures were obtained through the website.

The ACLU sent its challenge to Linda Lamone, Maryland's election administrator, in a May 31 letter. The elections board forwarded the challenge to the state attorney general's office. David Paulson, a spokesman for the Maryland Attorney General's Office, said Friday that the office's advice to the board was that the website system was a valid process.

http://www.herald-mail.com/news/local/h ... 9610.story

"However, just a mere three months ago, the ACLU took an exactly opposite position on online petitioning in Utah. In fact, the ACLU so strongly supported the online petitioning, which, unlike the petition in Maryland, allowed for electronically produced signatures, as to sue the State of Utah and bring it to the Utah Supreme Court.

The ACLU used the case of an out-of-state student who says she was disenfranchised from signing the petition because of the inability to sign online. They also reference soldiers and missionaries as other individuals who are subject to possible disenfranchisement.

In reference to the Utah ban on e-signatures, the ACLU stated, “...the legislature condemned Utah voters to using ancient technology when attempting to exercise their constitutional right to check the legislature’s power through initiatives and referenda.â€

ACLU in MD vs Utah reported here

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-242144.html