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.
That's nothing but a cop-out. Did the black citizens of this country wield wealth and power? Absolutely not! Yet, they were willing to fight and die for their rights. Obviously, Mexicans are not. It's just easier to flee their country and make demands from OUR government. Funny, they're cowards at home, but quite arrogant and brazen while here. If they don't have enough courage to remain in Mexico and fight for change, then let them suffer the consequences IN MEXICO.
I quoted it above, but here it is again: the court defined the in-state tuition of illegal alien children to fit the law criteria of the California Education Code: The state law based the preferential tuition award on criteria other than the student’s state of residence, the state high court said. The in-state tuition is granted on the basis of attendance at and graduation from a California high school. Although most graduates from California schools do, in fact, reside in California, the high court reasoned that not all graduates are residents.....The California law’s criteria (graduation from a California high school and three years attendance) are not the same as residence, nor are they a de facto or surrogate residency requirement, Mr. Schulman wrote, echoing the California Supreme Court decision. The state court opinion continues: “Congress specifically referred to residence – not some form of surrogate for residence – as the prohibited basis for granting unlawful aliens a postsecondary education benefit.” In-state tuition for illegal immigrants survives, Supreme Court declines case - CSMonitor.com
You know it is kind of weird. I keep reading the title of this thread as dealing with lawful residents. You apparently see illegal residents.
You know it is kind of weird. I keep reading the title of this thread as dealing with lawful residents. You apparently see illegal residents.
What does the title actually say?
Whether they are us-born or not makes no difference, what matters is if they meet the "criteria" as set by Florida's Education Code. Their argument Attorneys filed a federal suit arguing that scores of American students — who were born in the United States as children of undocumented immigrants — are being wrongly denied the right to pay in-state tuition at Florida’s colleges and universities.is the fact that they should get in-state tuition based on their being us-born, not on the criteria as set forth by Florida.
Martinez vs Regents merely shows that the State can set a criteria for in-state tuition, it is the student that must meet that criteria or be denied in-state tuition, legal status has no bearing on the matter. So, please explain where "You apparently see illegal residents" comes from in your assumptions.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-24-2011 at 08:14 PM..
Whether they are us-born or not makes no difference what matters is if they meet the "criteria" as set by Florida's Education Code. Their argument Attorneys filed a federal suit arguing that scores of American students — who were born in the United States as children of undocumented immigrants — are being wrongly denied the right to pay in-state tuition at Florida’s colleges and universities.is the fact that they should get in-state tuition based on their being us-born, not on the criteria as set forth by Florida.
Martinez vs Regents merely shows that the State can set a criteria for in-state tuition, it is the student that must meet that criteria or be denied in-state tuition, legal status has no bearing on the matter. So, please explain where "apparently see illegal residents" comes from in your assumptions.
Well yeah. The state can set legal residency requirements. But they cannot discriminate.
See the problem?
You ain't as good as American as I am.
they might even lose this one on illegal children.
Well yeah. The state can set legal residency requirements. But they cannot discriminate.
See the problem?
You ain't as good as American as I am.
they might even lose this one on illegal children.
Where/what is the discrimination?
Martinez vs Regents is already done, illegal aliens can attend college in California at in-state tuition rates provided they meet the "criteria" as set forth in the California Education Code.
There is no discrimination in disallowing persons that do not meet the "criteria" from paying in-state tuition.
Two perfectly equivalent 18 year olds. Matched in all demographics...except one is parented by an illegal couple and one has a couple of n'nth generation Americans.
If they differentiate between the two they discriminate.
Not that you can't differentiate...you can. But it has to be something like grade point.
Two perfectly equivalent 18 year olds. Matched in all demographics...except one is parented by an illegal couple and one has a couple of n'nth generation Americans.
If they differentiate between the two they discriminate.
Not that you can't differentiate...you can. But it has to be something like grade point.
“‘[A] State has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving . . . the right of its own bona fide residents to attend [its colleges and universities] on a preferential tuition basis.’” (Martinez v. Bynum, supra, 461 U.S. at pp. 327-328 [75 L.Ed.2d at p. 886]
So show discrimination, but you can't as Martinez v. Bynum shows, the State has the right to determine who it allows to attend at in-state tuition rates.
A US citizen has to be considered a bona fide resident.
There's no ifs, ands, or buts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
“‘[A] State has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving . . . the right of its own bona fide residents to attend [its colleges and universities] on a preferential tuition basis.’” (Martinez v. Bynum, supra, 461 U.S. at pp. 327-328 [75 L.Ed.2d at p. 886]
So show discrimination, but you can't as Martinez v. Bynum shows, the State has the right to determine who it allows to attend at in-state tuition rates.
“‘[A] State has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving . . . the right of its own bona fide residents to attend [its colleges and universities] on a preferential tuition basis.’” (Martinez v. Bynum, supra, 461 U.S. at pp. 327-328 [75 L.Ed.2d at p. 886]
So show discrimination, but you can't as Martinez v. Bynum shows, the State has the right to determine who it allows to attend at in-state tuition rates.
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...
A US citizen has to be considered a bona fide resident.
There's no ifs, ands, or buts
A us-born child does not have the gaurantee to in-state tuition, unless they meet the criteria as set by the state. The State has the authority to determine what that criteria is. For this there is no if's, and's, or but's. http://files.facts.usf.edu/pdfDocuments/manuals/Residency_Guidelines_October_2010.pdf (broken link)
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 10-24-2011 at 10:27 PM..
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.
