Quote of the Day - I learned law so well, the day I graduated I sued the college, won the case, and got my tuition back.
Kansas has a law that allows illegal aliens who live in Kansas to pay in-state tuition rates at its public colleges, while out-of-state U.S. citizens must pay higher, out-of-state tuition rates. The Tenth Circuit avoided addressing the merits of this law, but denied a challenge to the law by several out-of-state students based on the lack of any effect on them if the law was successfully overturned based on standing.
In other words, the Court told the out-of-state students, "You're not the right ones to challenge this law."
Call me silly, but if the illegal aliens are not Kansas residents and the out-of-state U.S. citizens are not Kansas residents, but are treated differently than the illegal aliens, then it seems there's an equal protection violation. Simple as that. People in the same class but treated differently. The harm is readily apparent, too. The out-of-state citizens pay more while the in-state aliens pay less. But then again, I'm not admitted in Kansas.
The Tenth Circuit doesn't place the aliens and out-of-state residents in the same class, however, and views them quite differently, according to the opinion: "None of these [student] Plaintiffs would be eligible to pay resident tuition ... even if the allegedly discriminatory test ... favoring illegal aliens were stricken, because none attended Kansas high schools for at least three years and either graduated from a Kansas high school or received a Kansas GED certificate." The illegal aliens met those criteria, and were thus eligible for in-state tuition, according to the Circuit Court.
The real question, it seems is more fundamental, and one that's even harder to answer. Should we provide different and better benefits to illegal aliens than to citizens based on where you live?