NEXSTAR-Students who are not documented in public universities in Texas will lose the ability to receive tuition fees within the country, and he spent a federal judge on Wednesday in an unexpected settlement.
This change comes after a lawsuit against the US Department of Justice in the state of Texas for the 2001 law, known as the Texas Dreams Law, which allowed these students to receive tuition fees within the country if they meet some qualifications. The lawsuit claimed that the Dreams Law violated federal law, and the Texas Packstone Public Prosecutor issued a statement on Wednesday announcing that he would not go into the lawsuit, which caused the abolition of the law through a virtual ruling.
“The end of this discriminatory and non -American ruling is a great victory for Texas,” Pakston wrote.
The Legislative Council in Texas looked at draft laws during this year’s session to cancel the dream law, but it failed to pass. The initial dream law was supported by the two parties and was signed to become a law by former Republican ruler Rick Perry.
This step by the Trump administration and the Pakston Agreement, Republican, is a way to remove law enforcement without the approval of the legislative body. Josh Blackman, a professor of law in the Law College in South Texas, said that although the strategy is not common, it has not heard of it.
For example, you will sue a democratic environmental group [Environmental Protection Agency]”Oh, we agree with you. Blackman said:” We will settle the litigation, it is not common. [for] Conservatives, but I think we are seeing it now. “
Blackman added that the settlement occurred very quickly – just hours after the lawsuit was filed.
Blackman said that the decision is effective. He said that a relevant party could have signed the lawsuit after submitting it, but because of the speed that was identified, no group did this.
“There was no intervention here. It happened very quickly,” Blackman said. “I don’t see how … another group may interfere. I think the case has ended.”
But Barbara Heinz, a professor of the immigration law that helped formulate the First Texas Dreams Law, did not participate in the evaluation of Blackman that it was the end of the road to the law. She said that in the previous lawsuits related to the Dreams Law or the postponed procedure for the childhood arrivals program, the other parties were allowed to intervene. In this case, it is not immediately clear whether the other party can still intervene since the case has been settled.
The legal basis for the challenge of the Texas Law of Dreams in Article 505 of the Law on illegal Immigration Reform and the responsibility of migrants for 1996. The law states that non -employees cannot obtain the advantages of higher education, based on residency, which is not granted to all American citizens. Since the tuition fees within the state for the universities of Texas are not available to all American citizens-only the residents of Texas-the Ministry of Justice argued that Texas was violating federal law.
But Heinz said that the alternative solution to prevent the violation of federal law is that the qualification of academic fees within the state was dependent on other factors alongside the resident in Texas.
“They had to graduate from a secondary school in Texas, and they had to make efforts to obtain permanent residence in Texas … according to immigration laws,” Henns said.
Henz said, although it has not provided specific evidence, that it believes that the Trump administration and state officials have colluded to cancel the law without the approval of the Legislative Council after trying to cancel the Texas dream law during the session this year. She said that the initial law in 2001 was approved by an installed majority of the two parties.
“It has been 25 years ago, and the effort failed in this legislative body, and this indicates that the majority of the elected officials, who were elected by the inhabitants of Texas, thought that this law was a good thing for Texas,” Henz said.
Regardless, you face a problem with the way the issue is decided. She refused that the case had been intentionally submitted in a conservative court, and that Paxon did not defend the current state law and settled immediately.
“In general, the state prosecutor has been assigned to defend the laws of the state, which is not signing a decree of the approval of Pro Forma after hours of prosecuting, saying that the state law is unconstitutional,” said Heinz.
Uncomfortable students who want to attend the Texas General Universities will now see a significant increase in cost. The cost of the tuition fees in the country and fees at the University of Texas in Austin, which was previously available for uncomfortable students, is $ 11768, according to US News and World Report. But the cost of a student’s presence outside the state is $ 42,778-nearly four times.
Heinz said that the law was initially passed because it provided the opportunity for higher education for immigrants who may not be able to reach it in another way. Heinz said that the absence of this law in Texas does not mean that immigrants will choose to stay in their homeland. She would only lead to the least taught population of Texas.
“People come to this country because they are looking for better economic opportunities. They flee violence, and they touch with their families,” Heinz said. “The idea that taking this benefit will make you think that I will stay in my mother when there is a violent civil war that is ridiculous. This means only that we will have a number of learners in Texas.”
Blackman said that it is consistent with the decision, but the political environment that once allowed this law to receive the approval of the two parties is no longer the reality in Texas.
“I think the states were avoiding federal law on this issue. For decades, everyone seemed somewhat in the other direction,” Blackman said. “This is a law in the Perry era, and I think there has been a shift in the Republican policy, and it is a truly a shift in the policy of Texas in this issue over the past two decades.”