The referendum on the Maryland "Dream Act" cleared its first legal hurdle on Friday after an Anne Arundel judge upheld the Maryland Board of Elections's ruling that the legislation can appear on ballots this November.
Anne Arundel Circuit Court Judge Ronald A. Silkworth ruled on Friday that the Dream Act—which would allow certain illegal immigrants to pay in-state rates at Maryland colleges—meets the state constitution’s standards for legislation that is subject to referendum.
The Maryland legislature passed the Dream Act in the final moments of the 2011 legislative session. Opponents immediately launched a statewide petition aiming to put the issue on the ballot this November. They collected nearly twice the minimum 55,736 signatures within two months, blocking the Dream Act’s July 1 start date.
In August, a coalition of immigrant advocates and labor and teachers’ unions challenged the Maryland Board of Elections’s decision to allow a referendum.
Dream Act supporters based their courtroom challenge on one of the legislation's primary critiques: that it will add to the state's financial burden. The Maryland Constitution bars fiscal appropriations from being subject to referendum.
Attorneys hired by Dream Act supporters—the D.C.-based law firm Sandler, Reiff & Young & Lamb—argued that the Dream Act is not subject to referendum because the increase in students paying in-state rates will require the state to allocate funds to cover the difference. (According to legislative researchers, Maryland taxpayers will pay an additional $788,000 in fiscal 2014 and up to $3.5 million in fiscal 2016 for the hundreds of illegal immigrants projected to enroll as in-state students thanks to the Dream Act.)
In his 13-page opinion, Silkworth opined that those costs are "incidental" to the Dream Act, not its main intent.
"The primary object of the Maryland Dream Act is to change the policy for in-state tuition rates, not to make an appropriation," Silkworth wrote. "If merely affecting an appropriation became the test for determining if a law actually makes an appropriation, the result would deprive voters of the important constitutional right of referendum."
If a referendum is wanted, I think it should only be on a state by state basis. So no.....I don't think there should be a nationwide referendum.
Thank you for your courteous reply.
- Paying Taxes for Three Years as a Student - Proving your Parents Paid Taxes for Three Years - Getting into a Community College and Successfully obtaining an Associates Degree - Maintaining an academic record sufficient enough to get into a Maryland University. Your analogy makes zero sense.
"Your analogy makes zero sense." Depends on your point of view.
What point of view makes that claim?
No...you stated Will's analogy made zero sense. My comment concerned that and nothing else. Now if you want to add some "fluff" and your personal opinions, then remember......that's all they are....
Th MD Dream Act law which has the provisions I specified. If his analogy makes sense to someone then they're being willfully ignorant of the actual law. If you choose to be ignorant of the actual law while having an opinion on it you should be called out for doing so and your opinions should be judged accordingly.
You appear to be unable to understand the concept and meaning of the word "viewpoint". If you wish to inject your own "viewpoint" supported by your own opinions based on only half the issue, then so be it. The provisions you site are fine, but you omit much. Your opinions will be judged accordingly...........by whom you ask.....maybe 5 or 6 people.
You figure it out......
Thank you! As for being vague, not sure if directive could be any clearer.....
If by "undocumented" student you mean, illegal alien, the fact is the illegal alien is not supposed to be here in the first place.