AZ Supremes vote awakens ‘Dreamers’ ’to nightmare

In a unanimous 7 – 0 vote, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against the Maricopa Community College District (MCCCD) Board over whether Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients can receive in-state tuition.

In this press release, Attorney General Mark Brnovich noted Monday’s ruling of Arizona’s high court agreed with a 2017 Court of Appeals 3 – 0 decision which declared, “existing federal and state law do not allow MCCCD to grant in-state tuition benefits to DACA recipients.”

Engaging in political straddle, Brnovich said, “While people can disagree what the law should be, I hope we all can agree that the attorney general must enforce the law as it is, not as we want it to be. As Attorney General, my duty is to uphold the law and the will of more than one million voters who passed Proposition 300 in 2006.”

This was Senate Concurrent Resolution 1031 which gave rise to the popular law. Scroll to Page 5, line 11.

On the 2006 ballot as Proposition 300, it passed overwhelmingly — 71.4% to  28.6% — by Arizona voters a dozen years ago, and was pivotal to the court’s decision.  The ballot that year was filled with numerous propositions, but voters were not confused. Take time to read the pro and con arguments linked under Proposition 300, and you’ll see why this issue took precedence among the others.

Arizona’s high court heard arguments last week in the case.

Those covered by the generous, taxpayer funded DACA program, now alternatively known by the soft term “dreamers,” claim they’ll have to drop out of school without the lower tuition rates. They’ll be joining American citizens with similar stories, working — sometimes more than a single job — while in school. These illegals with perks were also displacing American citizens hoping to attend community college prior to transferring to a university.

There is a widespread fallacy that DACA simply protects young foreign nationals who claim they were brought to the U.S. by their illegally invading parents. In fact, the scheme which requires not a scintilla of verifiable evidence even protects 36-year-olds, many of whom are grandparents.

The program was put in place through an executive order that even facilitator Barack Obama, admitted was unconstitutional. (Video)

A written opinion from the court is expected by May 14. When it is made public, we will link to it here.

In a statement, University of Arizona President Robert C. Robbins — a retired cardiac surgeon and now an educrat bleeding heart —- announced his disappointment in the court’s decision though acknowledging the university will comply with the ruling. Dr. Robbins should know there is a right and wrong way to accomplish goals. Sneaking into the U.S. in violation of our sovereign border and rule of law, and expecting your unwilling hosts to fund your aspirations is decidedly wrong.