Sunday, March 06, 2005

Beebee Hides as HB 1525 Controversy Rages

By Debbie Pelly (click "comments" below for article and to comment).


Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:46 PM, March 06, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Meredith Oakley's article in Arkansas Democrat Gazette said Beebee gave his legal advice to lawmakers concerning HB 1525 to give scholarships and in state tuition to illegal aliens as to whether it violated federal law. Did he give this advice to all of them? If he did, how could it possibly not be public information by now? We know how secrets are kept. Did he pick and choose the legislators to whom to give his opinion? That doesn't seem legal or ethical to me either. Also, don't the taxpayers pay his salary? Does he not owe anything to them. Don't the lawmakers even owe their constituents the facts regarding the legality of a matter if they know it. And has he given legal counsel to Governor Huckabee on this bill. The governor included it in his legislative package and is supporting it.

I am not that concerned about Beebee's opinion in one way because I think the facts are there, and that is violates federal law. (See discussion of the two major aspects below). I heard an opponent of the bill tell the news media in a television interview that a lawsuit was already planned to be filed if HB1525 passes. It does concern me that taxpayers' money will have to be used to fight the legality of it out in the courts if Beebee could help prevent that. I thought that was his job, to represent the citizens' interest in legal matters. And I am concerned about the secrecy aspect of it. That doesn't seem to be right.

I wanted to pass this the following on to you in case you get the same response I received this week. An e-mail was forwarded me from a legislator accusing us of being deceptive and telling us we should retract our statements about HB1525 violating federal law. He sent me the wording of a law that seemed to make 1525 legal.

However, The law I used on Section 1623 to show HB1525 was illegal was purposely designed to close the loophole in the section of the law the representative who thought we were being deceitful used. The representative was referring to Section 1621. Section 1623 was passed about a month or six weeks after Section 1621 in order to close the loophole that the representative was referring to. The language “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law” in Section 1623 simply means that it doesn’t make any difference what any other law says (i.e., 8 USC Section 1621(d)).

Furthermore if a law existed that refuted the one we pointed out, wouldn't it have been brought out at the Committee hearing by Rep. Elliot, the sponsor and those favoring the bill? The attorney speaking against the bill was prepared to show the fallacy of the section of the law that the legislator referred to if it were brought up at the hearing. Also why would Rep. Elliot say she had purposely crafted the law so as not to violate the federal law we referred to? Rep. Elliot also said that senators were attempting to change the federal law. Why would federal laws need to be changed if federal law supported HB1525.

Law the irate reprehensive used: Title 8 - Chapter 14 - Subchapter II - Section 1621 - Subsection (d) says:

A State may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present in the
United States is eligible for any State or local public benefit for which
such alien would otherwise be ineligible under subsection (a) of this
section only through the enactment of a State law after August 22, 1996,
which affirmatively provides for such eligibility.

Law we used. TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 1623 Prev | Next

§ 1623. Limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment of aliens not lawfully present on basis of residence for higher education benefits

Release date: 2004-02-11
(a) In general
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

Law we are using:

Debbie Pelley

5:49 PM, March 06, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's a great story. Waiting for more. » »

12:32 PM, February 22, 2007  
Anonymous how to increase sperm count said...

increase your semen count, volume - count raise sperm, pill sperm volume, aumentar volumen semen.

2:37 AM, October 31, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home