Seems there are too many homeless across the bay in SF and there just aren’t enough services for everyone. So the city’s proposed solution?

Require that the homeless show proof of SF residency before recieving service. Kind of like how the city has been a leader in the effort to make sure that those applying for state and federal services prove their legal residency first.

Oh, wait, nevermind.

BART had to shut down three stations this morning after dozens of students heading to an immigration protest in SF jumped fare gates.

A California Court of Appeal in Sacramento has sent back to Yolo County Superior Court a case which challenges the legality of in state tuition for undocumented residents. The case had been thrown out of superior court.

The Volokh Conspiracy has posted the basic findings of the opinion:

[T]he most significant issue [in this case] is whether California’s authorization of in-state tuition to illegal aliens violates a federal law, title 8 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) section 1623, which provides as pertinent:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

The respondents argue the federal statute is not violated for two reasons:

1. Respondents say in-state tuition is not a “benefit” within the meaning of the federal law. For reasons we shall explain, we conclude in-state tuition, which is some $17,000 per year cheaper than out-of-state tuition at UC, is a “benefit” conferred on illegal aliens within the meaning of the federal law.

2. Respondents argue in-state tuition is not granted “on the basis of residence within a state” as required by federal law. Respondents point to the fact that in-state tuition for illegal aliens is based on a student’s having attended a California high school for three or more years and on the student’s having graduated from a California high school or having attained “the equivalent thereof.” As we shall explain, the three-year attendance requirement at a California high school is a surrogate residence requirement. The vast majority of students who attend a California high school for three years are residents of the state of California. Section 68130.5 thwarts the will of Congress manifest in title 8 U.S.C. section 1623.

While not directly related to the legality of the in-state tuition, this raises a significant question for the UC/CSU/State of California respondents that will be trying this case in the Superior Court.

Is the state actually willing to suggest that making college education much cheaper is not a benefit? If it is not, then isn’t the logical extension that college education as a whole is not a benefit to me? If so, then why am I in the process of spending four years of my life here at UC Berkeley? Am I wasting my time? If the state’s argument is true, then I must be.

It seems that the state has clearly been caught with its pants down violating the clear intent of the federal law.

The city of San Francisco is a self declared sanctuary city for illegal immigrants. Now the city is considering giving identification cards to people who are there illegally. The story about the proposal of Supervisor Tom Ammiano is in the San Francisco Chronicle .

Ammiano said the impetus for the city cards came from the immigrant community, which asked for his help. Illegal immigrants who are victims or witnesses of crime often do not report the incident because they have no identification and fear deportation. Identification also is needed for many services, such as city health care.

With San Francisco’s current immigration stance, I don’t see how people having an ID card will make them more likely to go to the authorities for help. People who are really that afraid will not suddenly line up to get ID cards.

Mayor Gavin Newsom has been resolute in defending San Francisco’s sanctuary status, and on Thursday his spokesman said Newsom supports Ammiano’s idea for a card, which could be used for libraries, golf courses, public transportation and other services.

Anyone who has the time to play golf does not need city help. Unless the city wants to give these people so many services on the public dime they have nothing better to do than hit the links.

The only way an immigration policy is going to work in the U.S. is uniform enforcement of the law. When San Francisco announces itself as a sanctuary city it is undermining the federal policy. Giving out special cards to people does not excuse their lawbreaking and might encourage more people to enter the country illegally.