Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
So you hold that the state of FL can in fact declare fat people non-residents? And then bar their children from in-state tuition?
Just because these children are us-born does not make them residents as per the state criteria for tuition. They are dependents of persons unable to actually claim legal status. If they were not dependents they would have a case. If we were to follow your logic, myself being a us-born (Texas) resident of California, I should be able to claim residency in Florida for tuition purposes immediately. According to State Criteria, if I were to move to Florida I could not claim residency for tuition purposes until I met the criteria of living there, 12 months of legal residence. Should I be able to sue for having to wait the 12 months? after all I am us-born an entitled to it, am I not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkit711
Kindly step up and deal with the obvious implications of what you write.
Where have I not? I don't suggest calling persons out, I would suggest you articulate your opinion much better.
Just because these children are us-born does not make them residents as per the state criteria for tuition. They are dependents of persons unable to actually claim legal status. If they were not dependents they would have a case. If we were to follow your logic, myself being a us-born (Texas) resident of California, I should be able to claim residency in Florida for tuition purposes immediately. According to State Criteria, if I were to move to Florida I could not claim residency for tuition purposes until I met the criteria of living there, 12 months of legal residence. Should I be able to sue for having to wait the 12 months? after all I am us-born an entitled to it, am I not?
Where have I not? I don't suggest calling persons out, I would suggest you articulate your opinion much better.
Won't answer the question will you?
Can Florida bar fat people from resident status for in state tuition?
Can Florida bar fat people from resident status for in state tuition?
First your question is incorrect in its terminology, nobody is being barred form anything. These students can still attend college as they are only being denied the entitlement of cheaper cost.
If the student can properly establish his or her lawful presence in the United States but the other statutory requirements for establishing eligibility for in-state tuition are not met, then yes they can be denied the entitlement.
If you wish to play the analogy games, at least get the analogy correct with the same terminology.
First your question is incorrect in its terminology, nobody is being barred form anything. These students can still attend college as they are only being denied the entitlement of cheaper cost.
If the student can properly establish his or her lawful presence in the United States but the other statutory requirements for establishing eligibility for in-state tuition are not met, then yes they can be denied the entitlement.
If you wish to play the analogy games, at least get the analogy correct with the same terminology.
Still ducking...as I thought you would. The parents of US citizens are being barred from residency for instate college tuition. No middle ground.
And the US citizen children are being barred from instate tuition by the immigration status of their parents. If, for instance, the parents were dead the kid qualifies.
So back to the question.
Can Florida bar fat people from residency for instate tuition?
Still ducking...as I thought you would. The parents of US citizens are being barred from residency for instate college tuition. No middle ground.
And the US citizen children are being barred from instate tuition by the immigration status of their parents. If, for instance, the parents were dead the kid qualifies.
So back to the question.
Can Florida bar fat people from residency for instate tuition?
Ducking? You're inept. No middle ground? So its your way or no way! moronic.
The students aren't being barred from residency, they don't qualify for in-state tuition residency (under 24 y.o.) on their own by their own admission, they are dependents and their parents status is what is the determining factor.
Your question is ignorant based on your own poor choice of words, but then again, you believe it is a win or lose argument.
And the US citizen children are being barred from instate tuition by the immigration status of their parents. If, for instance, the parents were dead the kid qualifies.
Let me fix your sentence: And the US citizen children are being denied instate tuition by the immigration status of their parents. If, for instance, the parents were dead the kid qualifies.
Your last sentence nullifies your use of the wording barred. If they were barred, even if their parents were dead they would still not get in-state tuition.
Discussing with someone who is inept doesn't make for a decent argument. You should really understand what you are stating so you don't look so inane.
Let me fix your sentence: And the US citizen children are being denied instate tuition by the immigration status of their parents. If, for instance, the parents were dead the kid qualifies.
Your last sentence nullifies your use of the wording barred. If they were barred, even if their parents were dead they would still not get in-state tuition.
Discussing with someone who is inept doesn't make for a decent argument. You should really understand what you are stating so you don't look so inane.
Well again you refused the question.
At this point it has been beaten too death.
So we wait and see. And one of us can come back and crow about how inane the views of the other were...
Another way to look at this.
Both parents are legal citizens. The mother is a naturalized citizen. Yet the child who is 24 can't get in state tuition because she is a foreign national. Even on a student VISA.
How is it right to reward the illegal immigrant parents with in-state tuition for their child?
Unlike the illegals the citizen parents have been paying all of their taxes and obeyed the law.
The children of these illegals can still get the education they want. They simply have to pay what any non-resident would pay.
The child of the legal citizen might not even be granted a VISA.
I am finding it really hard to feel bad for these anchor children in this case. They need to look at their parents and say thanks a lot for being criminals.
So we wait and see. And one of us can come back and crow about how inane the views of the other were...
I've answered the question more than once, you simply refuse to accept the answer. Barred is the wrong word to use, not even the lawsuit uses it. You've gone from denied to excluded to barred, in the context of the lawsuit they have different meanings, that is why denied was used by the SPLC vs the other words.
Here's a quick note: These students complain about paying higher tuition due to being dependents, yet once the turn 24 they can aply for in-state tuition as individuals and get in-state tuition. (From the COMPLAINT of the Lawsuit). If they were "barred" they couldn't even get in-state tuition then, thus they have simply been "denied" at this time. Your analogy should fit the scenario if you wish to have any credibility.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-26-2011 at 07:31 PM..
I've answered the question more than once, you simply refuse to accept the answer. Barred is the wrong word to use, not even the lawsuit uses it. You've gone from denied to excluded to barred, in the context of the lawsuit they have different meanings, that is why denied was used by the SPLC vs the other words.
Here's a quick note: These students complain about paying higher tuition due to being dependents, yet once the turn 24 they can aply for in-state tuition as individuals and get in-state tuition. (From the COMPLAINT of the Lawsuit). If they were "barred" they couldn't even get in-state tuition then, thus they have simply been "denied" at this time. Your analogy should fit the scenario if you wish to have any credibility.
As I said you lack the judgement to even know when the argument is over..
I will simply wait and point out your shortcomings when appropriate.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
