U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-24-2011, 10:26 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 755,589 times
Reputation: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkit711 View Post
I would suspect the state has the right to allow green eyed ladies with good boobs to attend college at a reduced rate if they can get it throught the legislature. Though I think they would get sued.

But as soon as they try to differentiate between Jose and Joe based on parental parameters they are going to lose.

This is still a reasonably dull argument. There is no real money or outcome involved. Much more of we will fix those....whatevers...

Dull acutally. We can do better.
Your argument stems from the claim of discrimination and would be valid if they were denied college entry. They are not being denied college entry, thus there is no discrimination. As I stated, the State has the authority to determine who is and is not accepted for in-state tuition based on criteria as set by the state. It is the students responsibility to prove they meet that criteria.

From the Florida Residency Guidelines for Tuition Purposes
Quote:
2.1 Residency for Tuition Purposes
U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and aliens lawfully present in the United States who are in an eligible Visa category may be classified as a Florida resident for tuition purposes if the applicant or the dependent applicant's parent/legal guardian has established legal residence in the State for at least 12 consecutive months immediately prior to the first day of classes of the term for which Florida residency is sought.
http://files.facts.usf.edu/pdfDocuments/manuals/Residency_Guidelines_October_2010.pdf (broken link)

Higher education is not a right afforded by the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-24-2011, 10:55 PM
 
3,114 posts, read 4,955,178 times
Reputation: 954
I would think being denied in-state tuition is still a form of discrimination if it is denied on improper grounds.

While the state has the authority, it must delegate the authority appropriately under the watch of the feds. Or else the feds can sue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Your argument stems from the claim of discrimination and would be valid if they were denied college entry. They are not being denied college entry, thus there is no discrimination. As I stated, the State has the authority to determine who is and is not accepted for in-state tuition based on criteria as set by the state. It is the students responsibility to prove they meet that criteria.

From the Florida Residency Guidelines for Tuition Purposeshttp://files.facts.usf.edu/pdfDocuments/manuals/Residency_Guidelines_October_2010.pdf (broken link)

Higher education is not a right afforded by the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2011, 06:45 AM
 
9,122 posts, read 3,413,704 times
Reputation: 2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Your argument stems from the claim of discrimination and would be valid if they were denied college entry. They are not being denied college entry, thus there is no discrimination. As I stated, the State has the authority to determine who is and is not accepted for in-state tuition based on criteria as set by the state. It is the students responsibility to prove they meet that criteria.

From the Florida Residency Guidelines for Tuition Purposeshttp://files.facts.usf.edu/pdfDocuments/manuals/Residency_Guidelines_October_2010.pdf (broken link)

Higher education is not a right afforded by the Constitution.
Yes students must meet the criteria. Students should sue the parents or be angry with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2011, 07:49 AM
 
3,114 posts, read 4,955,178 times
Reputation: 954
Hmm.. the students would then say:
* Hey Mr./Mrs. States, my parents did a bad thing, so why are you punishing me for their failure!?
And the states will lose their case.
It's the same reason why Plyler v. Doe ended up the way it did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
Yes students must meet the criteria. Students should sue the parents or be angry with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2011, 07:51 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 755,589 times
Reputation: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
I would think being denied in-state tuition is still a form of discrimination if it is denied on improper grounds.

While the state has the authority, it must delegate the authority appropriately under the watch of the feds. Or else the feds can sue.
The Feds have no say as it is a state matter, the only ones that could sue are doing so, the students.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2011, 07:54 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 755,589 times
Reputation: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
Hmm.. the students would then say:
* Hey Mr./Mrs. States, my parents did a bad thing, so why are you punishing me for their failure!?
And the states will lose their case.
It's the same reason why Plyler v. Doe ended up the way it did.
In Plyler the children were going to be denied a primary education. Plyler also states that education is not a right.

These students are not being denied a college education, they are simply being denied the cost savings the State chooses to give as per their discretion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2011, 07:57 AM
 
9,122 posts, read 3,413,704 times
Reputation: 2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
Hmm.. the students would then say:
* Hey Mr./Mrs. States, my parents did a bad thing, so why are you punishing me for their failure!?
And the states will lose their case.
It's the same reason why Plyler v. Doe ended up the way it did.
Its not the states fault they are denied which you are making it to be.

If their parents were legal citizens & they are denied then it would be the states fault.

But thats not the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2011, 08:26 AM
 
3,114 posts, read 4,955,178 times
Reputation: 954
The full quote from the Cornell site says:
* Plyler v. Doe
"Public education is not a "right" granted to individuals by the Constitution. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973). But neither is it merely some governmental "benefit" indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child mark the distinction."

So the court believes that education is to be treated differently than other sorts of social welfare.

[quote=Liquid Reigns;21425901]In Plyler the children were going to be denied a primary education. Plyler also states that education is not a right.

1. I'm certain the feds will find a way of saying "this is discrimination on national origins" or some other manner.
2. The state may not even want a lawsuit and quietly drop it. Frankly I think that's a smart thing for the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
The Feds have no say as it is a state matter, the only ones that could sue are doing so, the students.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2011, 08:29 AM
 
9,122 posts, read 3,413,704 times
Reputation: 2121
[quote=Vicman;21426281]The full quote from the Cornell site says:
* Plyler v. Doe
"Public education is not a "right" granted to individuals by the Constitution. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973). But neither is it merely some governmental "benefit" indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child mark the distinction."

So the court believes that education is to be treated differently than other sorts of social welfare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
In Plyler the children were going to be denied a primary education. Plyler also states that education is not a right.

1. I'm certain the feds will find a way of saying "this is discrimination on national origins" or some other manner.
2. The state may not even want a lawsuit and quietly drop it. Frankly I think that's a smart thing for the state.

Is the case you referring to regarding higher education such as college?

College is voluntary and can be included as a luxury. Its not necessary or required after K-12
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2011, 08:42 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 755,589 times
Reputation: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
The full quote from the Cornell site says:
* Plyler v. Doe
"Public education is not a "right" granted to individuals by the Constitution. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973). But neither is it merely some governmental "benefit" indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child mark the distinction."

So the court believes that education is to be treated differently than other sorts of social welfare.



Is the case you referring to regarding higher education such as college?

College is voluntary and can be included as a luxury. Its not necessary or required after K-12
You contributed vicmans comment to me above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicman
1. I'm certain the feds will find a way of saying "this is discrimination on national origins" or some other manner.
Again, the Feds have nothing to do with this lawsuit, it is college students suing based on tuition rates, for which Martinez v. Regents would be the case to look at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicman
So the court believes that education is to be treated differently than other sorts of social welfare.
The court believes that "public education" (K-12) is the primary vehicle for transmitting "the values on which our society rests." A college/university is not a mandated "public" vessel, it is a "secondary" education that is chosen to further ones own goals.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-25-2011 at 08:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:03 PM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top