DACA kiddies in Georgia took that state to court after being denied access to state colleges for being illegal aliens. Individuals “who are not ‘lawfully present’ (are barred from) from enrolling in selective state colleges and universities, even if they otherwise qualify for admission.”
The students argued, wait for it,
“that they were lawfully present under federal law, which preempted state law. They also claimed that the admissions bar violated their right to equal protection, as Georgia treats aliens who are paroled into the U.S. or granted asylum as lawfully present.”
I’m no lawyer but if Federal law preempts state law then isn’t every sanctuary city and state in the country is breaking the law? Yes? No?
It turns out it does. “DACA recipients do not have “lawful presence” as defined anywhere in the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
The court agreed, finding that Georgia’s determination that they lacked lawful presence tracked federal law. And because the court held that DACA recipients are not lawfully present, but are illegal aliens, it did not apply “strict scrutiny” to Georgia’s admissions policy under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Instead, the court upheld the policy as rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
According to the circuit, DACA recipients are “inadmissible and thus removable” under federal law. According to the Court, their deportation has merely been “reprieved” by an Obama-era policy that “encouraged” government officials to “exercise prosecutorial discretion and focus on higher-priority cases.”
But isn’t it good to see illegal aliens arguing that the Federal Government has authority over the states on immigration law?
We should expect some other judge somewhere to contradict this as soon as possible.
