Michael CrowArizona State University president Michael Crow said Friday he came to the aid of Arizona high school graduates who have to pay expensive, out-of-state tuition rates because they aren’t in the U.S. legally. But Crow also is essentially thumbing his nose at Arizona voters who said overwhelming last year they didn’t want higher education tax dollars to support such people.In the 2006 general election, voters approved Proposition 300, which requires all state universities and community colleges to verify legal residency for anyone receiving in-state tuition as well as tuition waivers and other public scholarships.Crow basically bragged at a luncheon Friday about a new financial aid program that helps some illegal immigrants attend ASU anyway, according to an Associated Press story in Sunday’s Tribune. The program connects people who have Arizona high school diplomas with privately funded scholarships so they can afford to pay out-of-state tuition. Crow estimated 150 to 200 students have received help so far to the tune of $1.8 million.Prop. 300 was tough issue last year for the Tribune Editorial Board. On the one hand, such a policy punishes people who are in the United States through no fault of their own. Usually, such students were brought here by their parents at a young age, educated in Arizona schools and immersed in American culture. And part of that culture these days is most high school graduates go on to some kind of higher education.On the other hand, it makes sense that limited government resources should be directed to U.S. citizens and legal residents who have better chance of staying here for the long haul. (An illegal immigrant in college, even with an Arizona high school diploma, has a good chance of being deported as we’ve seen with some high-profile cases recently.)The Editorial Board said Prop. 300 strikes a decent compromise. Immigrants could still attend a state-funded college. But they would have to figure out how to pay for tuition themselves without extra assistance from state taxpayers. In-state tuition is heavily subsidized by the state, which is why that issue was targeted along with tax-funded financial assistance.By using only private scholarships, ASU’s financial aid program doesn’t appear to violate Prop. 300. But the use of university personnel and other resources to specifically help immigrant students find and receive those scholarships certainly violates the voters’ intent.Crow might think Prop. 300 is mean-spirited and counterproductive. Heck, I’m not that fond of it myself. But Crow has a duty as a state official to respect policies approved by voters and taxpayers who fund his institution. He should not look for means to circumvent the law and then boast about it.Besides, he’s probably done more damage to overall future of immigrant students. With the passage of Prop. 300, it appeared that immigration enforcement activists were satisfied and would leave alone those who still could afford to attend college.But the next step could be to ban illegal immigrants from attending a state-funded college altogether. Given what Crow has done, I won’t be surprised if that idea is pushed hard in time for the 2008 general election.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard (right)Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has taken a lot of criticism for opposing the Protect Arizona Now initiative in 2004 before it was approved by voters as Proposition 200, and then for taking a far narrower view of the law than some immigration enforcement activists. But time and again, Goddard and his office have ably defended the voters’ intent in court from attacks offered by immigrant rights advocates who want Prop. 200 thrown out entirely.Goddard won another victory Wednesday as a U.S. district judge again upheld the photo identification and proof of citizenship requirements related to registering to vote and to casting ballots in person, Capitol Media Services is reporting.This is at least third time the attorney general’s office has convinced the federal courts to uphold this portion of Prop. 200 (plus receiving approval from the Justice Department before the law went into effect). As far as I know, Goddard’s office has successfully defeated every challenge to his legal interpretation of the measure. If Goddard really wanted to undercut Prop. 200, it’s likely he would have settled at least some of the lawsuits filed against the state instead of continuing to defend the law in court.Besides various legal challenges intended to block the law, state Republican Party chairman Randy Pullen is still pursuing a separate case in which he argues the state is being too restrictive about what "public benefits" require proof of legal residency under another section of Prop. 200.The people who wrote Prop. 200 would prefer to deny almost any government service or benefit to illegal immigrants. But they knew the federal courts would strike down such law if they tried to apply to grade-school education and emergency health care, and they were worried about obscure places in federal law that might protect other state or local government programs as well. So they tried to make Prop. 200 as broad as possible with a general reference to restricting access to "public benefits," but recognize that its provisions don’t apply to those areas where federal law has intervened. But the language they used is so tortured that even the leading proponents during the 2004 election campaign couldn’t agree on what it really means.Once Prop. 200 became law, Goddard decide to take a narrow interpretation of "public benefits" in an effort to keep the law intact. The problem is Arizona accepts federal funding for so much of what it does (and all of the strings that are attached), that Goddard said only a handful of minor general welfare programs were affected. The state Legislature has had additional areas in the past few years, primarily state-funded child care and college tuition. But Pullen insists the state can, and should, apply Prop. 200 to more government services.Originally, Goddard’s office convinced a Superior Court judge that Pullen didn’t have a good reason to file a lawsuit and to dismiss the case out of hand. But the Arizona Court of Appeals later ruled that Pullen should have the opportunity to make his case before a trial judge.Pullen is actually suing Gov. Janet Napolitano and the state agencies he thinks should be enforcing Prop. 200. But the validity of Goddard’s legal reasoning is at the heart of the dispute. So far, Goddard’s approach has been validated by the courts. On this issue, Goddard appears to be doing the job that voters expect from the attorney general.

In the past year, one of the subtexts of the immigration debate has been the issue of children born to foreign workers, both legal and illegal. The traditional interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been virtually anyone born within the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen with full privileges and voting rights when they come of age, regardless of whom their parents are. Critics contend this has become a powerful incentive for pregnant mothers to enter the U.S. any way they can. Once their children are born, foreign parents automatically move up the priority list when applying for permanent residency visas or "green cards." Many critics use the somewhat pejorative term "anchor babies" to describe this situation.A possible solution would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to remove automatic citizenship for children born to foreign nationals, which would mirror the policy of many other countries around the world. However, passage of such an amendment would be rather difficult and hasn’t garnered much political support to date.So some critics have suggested we should re-examine the common understanding of the 14th Amendment. In a historical context, automatic citizenship was supposed to apply to former slaves and their descendants, and native Indians, not to people who migrate to the U.S. after the amendment passed, the argument goes.After giving the issue a great deal of thought, I have to admire the creativity of the argument but have come to conclude it’s fatally flawed. Here’s why.First, consider the first sentence of the 14th Amendment that’s the focus of this issue:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."The key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The traditional belief is that Congress wanted to make clear that children of foreign diplomats who might be born here don’t gain immediate U.S. citizenship. Foreign dignitaries who, by treaty, are protected by diplomatic immunity are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and so are excluded by the amendment.The federal courts have ruled the same phrase also protects children of U.S. diplomats and those serving in the military overseas. Since those U.S. citizens are still "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government when serving abroad, any children born in a foreign country immediately gain U.S. citizenship.Some legal experts believe the phrase also can apply to just about every foreign national in the U.S. Their position is easiest to understand in relation to illegal immigrants. Those who enter the country without permission are entitled to none of the privileges of a U.S. citizen. Illegal immigrants should be afforded the same humane rights of any person (emergency medical care, due process of law, etc.), but the only authority the U.S. should have over them is to punish them for any crimes committed against the U.S. and then to deport them, these critics contend.Some believe "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof" also could apply to legal foreign tourists and immigrants, at least those who don’t have permanent residency visas. Such legal visitors are here strictly at the benevolence of the U.S. and can be ordered to leave at anytime for any reason. Their argument is "subject to the jurisdiction" implies someone who not only must answer to the U.S. government but also is entitled to certain rights and privileges beyond humane treatment. The right to live here permanently and to eventually apply for U.S. citizenship might be the touchstones of this approach. Children of a foreign national lacking those two rights wouldn’t be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government and therefore wouldn’t gain automatic citizenship.I think the flaw in the argument as applied to legal foreign visitors is somewhat obvious. If they aren’t subject to U.S. authority, then how can the U.S. government grant them permission to be live and work here temporarily in the first place? The two would seem to go hand-in-hand.But what about illegal immigrants? The real problem with this new interpretation of the 14th Amendment is it would treat such people a lot like foreign diplomats. Being subject to the authority of the U.S. touches on a lot of issues other than citizenship for children. We wouldn’t be able to force illegal immigrants to comply with any contracts they sign, demand they pay their debts or sue them for wrongful injury. We couldn’t compel them to pay taxes on any income they earn (which U.S. citizens are supposed to do, even if their income comes from illegal activities). We couldn’t draft them into the military during a foreign invasion or a time of national crisis.I don’t know if illegal immigrants would be willing to give up citizenship for their children if they could forego these other obligations as well. But I imagine many U.S. citizens would have trouble with the trade off. And it’s not like we can take away automatic citizenship for children but demand these other obligations without a constitutional amendment. Either illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. or they aren’t. I don’t think there’s much ground in-between.

First it was the Basic Pilot Program. Then it was the Employment Eligibility Verification System. Now, we have E-Verify.On Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff revealed a new name for the do-it-yourself check for the legal status of employees, as part of new set of policies to crack down on illegal immigration. The national computer database is designed to allow businesses to instantly verify that a new hire can legally work in the U.S. by comparing names and Social Security numbers. We in Arizona have heard more about this program than other parts of the country because on Jan. 1, a new law will essentially force more than 130,000 employers in the state to use it. Routinely using E-Verify will be the best protection against accusations that a business "knowingly" hired an illegal immigrant, which could cost that business its government-issued operating licenses. Until now, use of the E-Verify program has been largely voluntary. So only a tiny number of businesses have signed up, about 19,000 right now, despite the relatively low cost. That’s one reason business groups are suing to block the new Arizona law, claiming the program can’t possibly handle such a dramatic expansion of users until Congress spends millions to reduce errors in the computer records.But Homeland Security officials insist they have been improving E-Verify for nearly two years in anticipation that Congress would require businesses nationwide to use it. Congress has failed to act. But Chertoff said Friday that President Bush will issue an executive order requiring all businesses who contract with the federal government to use E-Verify. That affects thousands of employers across the U.S., implying a strong belief that E-Verify will work as advertised on a much larger scale.Of course, the Bush administration was confident it could handle the crush of passport applications for people traveling to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean, and look how that turned out.But an effective method for employers to verify their workers, with few legal residents getting trapped by bureaucratic red tape, and tamper-resident identification cards for legal immigrant workers, would go a long way toward reducing the demand for illegal workers.I’m convinced the vast majority of business owners don’t seek to hire illegal immigrants. But document fraud is rampant, and the Justice Department has imposed severe restrictions on challenging questionable workers to avoid discrimination. So many employers have little choice but to hire whomever walks through the door and flashes what appears to be valid driver’s licenses and Social Security cards.As reported Saturday in the Tribune by the Los Angeles Times, Chertoff expects expansion of E-Verify and the other new measures will hurt the economy, at least in the short run. The Tribune Editorial Board noted Saturday that probably Bush’s best strategy at this point to get Congress to work past its impasse on comprehensive immigration reform — make real progress on slowing the tide of illegal immigration while demonstrating a clear need for more legal foreign workers.