“The Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing the state of Illinois for providing in-state tuition rates to illegal alien students, marking the first time the administration has targeted a blue state for the practice,” reports Campus Reform:
Illinois became the fifth state targeted by the administration over tuition benefits for noncitizens, joining Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, and Minnesota. Unlike the others, Illinois stands out as the first Democratic stronghold to be targeted.
In each case, the DOJ argues that offering reduced tuition rates to non-citizens violates federal immigration law, discriminates against American citizens, and incentivizes further illegal immigration.
Last month, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed House Bill 460 into law, granting illegal aliens “access to taxpayer-funded scholarships, grants and stipends.”
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The U.S. Attorney there said, “Illinois has an apparent desire to win a ‘race to the bottom’ as the country’s leading sanctuary state. Its misguided approach mandating in-state tuition, scholarships, and financial aid to illegal aliens plainly violates federal law.”
Progressive journalists tend to support tuition discounts for illegal aliens, who they refer to as as “undocumented immigrants.” Some of these journalists falsely claim that the term “illegal alien” is not a valid legal term, even though the words “illegal alien” are found in the United States Code.
As LU contributor and lawyer Jerome Woehrle noted in 2019:
[T]he Chicago Tribune was criticized by readers because it falsely claimed [on October 4] that the term illegal alien isn’t “used in statutes and in legal circles.” It approvingly quoted a professor wrongly claiming “The term illegal alien isn’t a term that comes up in our laws,” in discussing New York City’s threat to fine people up to $250,000 for using the word “illegal alien” in workplaces, rental housing, or public accommodations.
But “illegal alien” is a term that comes up again and again in federal and state laws and regulations. Two examples of laws using the words “illegal alien” are 8 USC 1365 and 6 USC 240.
In response, the Tribune thumbed its nose at those readers. It reposted the article prominently on its web site [on October 9], so that a fresh crop of readers could read it and be deceived by it. “The quote claiming that ‘illegal alien isn’t a term that comes up in our laws’ is still there,” notes Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review. … At the same time, it added the word “frequently” before the words “used in statutes and legal circles.”
The claim that “illegal alien” isn’t used “frequently” in statutes and legal circles is just wrong. Experts on immigration law have pointed out that it is used many times in the U.S. Code. The Cato Institute’s pro-immigration scholar Alex Nowrasteh has written about immigration law for years. He testified before Congress, and favors allowing more immigrants and refugees into the country. As he noted, the term “illegal alien” is frequently used in the law, more often than competing terms like “unauthorized alien” and “undocumented alien.” He reviewed the federal “laws on citizenship, nationality, and immigration” — and found that “illegal alien” is the most commonly used term for people in the country illegally:
The term “illegal alien” was mentioned most of all – 33 times. … The second most common term was “unauthorized alien,” which appeared 21 times or about a quarter of the time. Interestingly enough, “undocumented alien” was the third most common with 18 uses. My preferred term of “illegal immigrant” was used only six times.
Contrary to the Chicago Tribune’s claims, the term “illegal alien” is frequently used in legal circles. The Justice Department routinely uses the term in its court briefs. It is the term used by the Supreme Court in cases such as Arizona v. United States. The term is also used by judges in lower court rulings, such as Texas v. United States. Judicial use of the term “illegal alien” is well known, as lawyers Hans Von Spakovsky and John Hinderaker explained.
As Woehrle points out, the Tribune made these false claims in its slanted coverage favoring New York City’s controversial “immigration guidance” issued under leftist mayor Bill DeBlasio. That guidance restricts the use of the term “illegal alien” in workplaces, housing, and schools, threatening those who use it with $250,000 fines. Lawyers have criticized such restrictions, saying they violate the First Amendment. One of their many objections is that “illegal alien” is simply legally accurate terminology that the government lacks a valid interest in targeting based on its viewpoint. As Woehrle observes, it “is easier to defend such restrictions” if you falsely assume that “‘illegal alien’ is not a legal term” than if you admit it is indeed a commonly-used term found in laws.
Others have argued that New York City’s restriction on using the term “illegal alien” violates free speech regardless of whether “illegal alien” is the best term to use. That’s because the First Amendment generally protects speech regardless of its “truth, popularity, or social utility.” But there is no question that many ordinary people reading the Tribune will be more sympathetic to banning an abnormal term than a normal one.
The Tribune article, which was written by Cindy Dampier, was very slanted. Legal experts have said that New York City’s restrictions on using the term “alien” are so overly broad as to be “unconstitutional.” One of them is a progressive lawyer who has “dedicated” his “career to fighting the deportation of immigrants.” But the Tribune did not cite or mention any of these lawyers, even though they criticized the speech restrictions well before the Tribune published its article, and were quoted by publications that Tribune columnists read and publish in.
Instead, the Tribune quoted only supporters of New York City’s restrictions on speech about illegal aliens. That included a liberal law professor’s claim that they were a welcome “reaffirmation that New York City is a welcoming place.” The Tribune did admit that “social media commenters” objected to them. But to many readers, “social media commenters” may just seem like a euphemism for “right-wing trolls on Facebook and Twitter.” In short, this concession by the Tribune does nothing to dispel the misimpression created by its article about the legal propriety of using the term “illegal alien.”
