Defending the indefensible is not easy, which explains the legal contortions by Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler as he attempted to justify a new law granting in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants. In his May 9 letter to Gov. Martin O’Malley, Gansler bent logic to the breaking point by gamely insisting that SB 167 does not violate a 1996 federal law specifically banning the practice. Quoting the Supreme Court of California — which ruled that a similar tuition break there was based on “other criteria” besides residency — Gansler failed to explain how high school attendance invalidates the federal statute, or why it’s fair to give illegal immigrants preferential treatment over out-of-state U.S. citizens and legal Maryland residents who will now have to compete with them for a limited number of seats. Nor does he say what students legally ineligible to work in the U.S. will do with their newly minted Maryland degrees.
The law, which O’Malley signed after it passed the General Assembly by a slim majority, further cements Maryland’s reputation as a sanctuary state on a par with California. Illegal immigrants can qualify for in-state tuition simply by attending a Maryland high school for a few weeks, obtaining a GED, and filing a Maryland state income tax return before registering at the local community college. They’ll be charged just $8,416 to attend the University of Maryland at College Park, while out-of-state U.S. citizens are billed $24,831 annually — exactly what the federal law forbids.
Recommended Stories
However, a $5,000 grass-roots petition drive (mdpetitions.com) begun by Republican Dels. Patrick McDonough, Baltimore County, and Neil Parrott, Washington County, aims to halt enactment of Maryland’s version of the Dream Act until the issue can be put to public referendum on the November 2012 ballot. Organizers say the petition’s 80 percent signature validation rate exceeds expectations, and they believe they will easily surpass the 55,736 signatures required by the June 30 deadline to put the law on the 2012 referendum ballot.
Maryland has thus become the first state in the nation to use social media and technology directly linked to a State Board of Elections database to empower taxpayers to challenge a law they passionately oppose and that, in this particular case, will also cost them $3.5 million annually by 2016. Obstacles remain, including the Election Board’s stubborn refusal to make its signature-validation process transparent and a well-financed campaign by the law’s supporters to discredit this truly democratic effort. But so far, it’s off to a great start.
