The court & illegals: Two rulings

June 9, 2011

Two rulings issued Monday suggest the U.S. Supreme Court still has a way to go in understanding -- and sticking to -- the plain meaning of "illegal" in the context of immigration.

The high court:

• ordered the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to reconsider whether Hazleton can enforce rules that would deny permits to businesses that hire illegals and fine landlords who rent to them -- and cited its own on-target ruling upholding Arizona's employer-sanctions law in doing so. Now, the northeastern Pennsylvania city at least has another chance to make its commonsense case against illegals. Hopefully, Hazleton ultimately will prevail.

• upheld California's policy of allowing illegals to pay in-state tuition at its state colleges and universities, saying eligibility is tied to students graduating from California high schools, not to their residency. It's a ruling that begs an obvious question: How is it OK for illegals to attend, much less graduate from, California high schools in the first place?

Such inconsistency on immigration-related cases is a disservice to American taxpayers, workers and national security -- and raises questions about how firmly the Supreme Court grasps what "illegal" truly means.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 41119.html