CA supreme court: illegal aliens entitled to in-state tuition

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 6:37 PM GMT
    Should we expect any less from California?

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/undocumented-students.html

    So much for controlling the budget.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 6:51 PM GMT
    Oh yes, Judge Ming, who is also against redefining marriage judicially and is a Conservative/Republican.

    Nice to see you guys criticize him. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 7:53 PM GMT
    meninlove said Oh yes, Judge Ming, who is also against redefining marriage judicially and is a Conservative/Republican.

    Nice to see you guys criticize him. icon_wink.gif


    Of course I'll criticize. And I'm also against his stance on that as well! I could care less if someone considers themselves "conservative" or not.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 8:03 PM GMT
    Well, that makes you pretty unique, Mock, and perhaps the first true Libertarian we've seen on here; neither Liberal or Republican. Your empathy and consideration of the human condition is still a contradiction though.

    We're tempted to call tongun18 a libertarian with a true heart and true empathy but feel he doesn't care for labels.

    We notice others clang the libertarian bell, but only critique liberals. Interesting, eh?

    Now we really do have to get ready for Aunt Kathie's funeral. Our bro-in-law's in next after this one. Rough week.

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 8:33 PM GMT
    meninlove said Well, that makes you pretty unique, Mock, and perhaps the first true Libertarian we've seen on here; neither Liberal or Republican. Your empathy and consideration of the human condition is still a contradiction though.

    We're tempted to call tongun18 a libertarian with a true heart and true empathy but feel he doesn't care for labels.

    We notice others clang the libertarian bell, but only critique liberals. Interesting, eh?

    Now we really do have to get ready for Aunt Kathie's funeral. Our bro-in-law's in next after this one. Rough week.

    -Doug



    In this situation we are talking about people who should not be in the country to begin with receiving tuition money so they can have a nice education. Does that not seem disorderly to you? Does it seem healthy for the budget and fair to the citizens who pay taxes?

    Now regarding your inability to distinguish between "having a heart" -- I assume you mean individually doing our best to help others less fortunate and a system that literally destroys the concept of freedom through, in actuality, endless coercion and eventual authoritarianism by a group of individuals or one individual deciding what is "fair" economically for everyone else -- I don't really think I can help you there.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Nov 15, 2010 9:44 PM GMT
    For those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.

    The true revelation we need at the federal level is to move civil crimes over to the criminal side. Make using federal dollars to support someone in America illegally a felony.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 9:54 PM GMT
    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/26/prison-brewer/
    http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=1157For the first time, many of those picked up were charged with crimes such as falsifying identity documents or identity theft that carry long prison sentences, rather than misuse of a social security number, a misdemeanor.

    This single change in enforcement of existing law created a potential “market” of over 10 million new felons almost overnight, multiplying the lucrative incarceration market for the private prison industry and sending a shock wave through immigrant-related communities across the country...

    Through this change in how federal law is enforced, CCA and GEO suddenly had a huge pool of captive clients, and began to rake in millions of dollars in public funds to house, transport, feed and control immigrants.

    Predictably, costs to taxpayers skyrocketed. From 2006 to the present, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) budget for the identification, custody, transportation, detention and removal of immigrants has increased 51%. The U.S. Marshall budget for the custody and transportation of immigrants over the same period has increased 15%, and the Bureau of Prisons budget for detention of immigrants over the same period has gone up 9%. The billions of dollars in increased expenditures have provided the primary source for the billions in increased revenue for CCA and GEO.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 10:06 PM GMT
    conservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.



    To comment, I would need to know which level of government has responsibility for education.

    In Canada, the provinces have jurisdiction over education and are VERY hostile to federal encroachment into their jurisdiction.

    I thought Conservatives were really into the federal government keeping their hands out of State's business.




    this is another of those situations where I cannot figure out the fundamental worldview that informs these opinions. If it were well thought out I don't see how a thoughtful conservative could even make the original proposition.

    If you can propose something so inconsistent with your most fundamental beliefs - how honestly do you believe them - or rather how well have you thought it out?

    Do you just "go by gut" on an issue by issue basis without need of a consistent philosophy?

    It is the the very quintessence of irrationality.icon_surprised.gif



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 10:07 PM GMT
    Not unless the federal hand is giving to corporations. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 10:21 PM GMT
    UpperCanadian said
    conservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.



    To comment, I would need to know which level of government has responsibility for education.

    In Canada, the provinces have jurisdiction over education and are VERY hostile to federal encroachment into their jurisdiction.

    I thought Conservatives were really into the federal government keeping their hands out of State's business.




    this is another of those situations where I cannot figure out the fundamental worldview that informs these opinions. If it were well thought out I don't see how a thoughtful conservative could even make the original proposition.

    If you can propose something so inconsistent with your most fundamental beliefs - how honestly do you believe them - or rather how well have you thought it out?

    Do you just "go by gut" on an issue by issue basis without need of a consistent philosophy?

    It is the the very quintessence of irrationality.icon_surprised.gif





    Who said anything about the government interfering with state business? This has to do with observing a state crash and burn itself.

    By your response I guess we can all assume that you think it's a wonderful idea for a state to be giving education money to people who aren't even citizens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 10:30 PM GMT
    same articleThe court observed that the state law also benefits U.S. citizens who reside in other states but attend and graduate from high school in California.

    "It cannot be the case that states may never give a benefit to unlawful aliens without giving the same benefit to all American citizens," Chin wrote.


    It's not them receiving tuition money, it's just that they are getting a lower in-state tuition if they had 3 years of HS in California and graduated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 10:40 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    UpperCanadian said
    conservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.



    To comment, I would need to know which level of government has responsibility for education.

    In Canada, the provinces have jurisdiction over education and are VERY hostile to federal encroachment into their jurisdiction.

    I thought Conservatives were really into the federal government keeping their hands out of State's business.




    this is another of those situations where I cannot figure out the fundamental worldview that informs these opinions. If it were well thought out I don't see how a thoughtful conservative could even make the original proposition.

    If you can propose something so inconsistent with your most fundamental beliefs - how honestly do you believe them - or rather how well have you thought it out?

    Do you just "go by gut" on an issue by issue basis without need of a consistent philosophy?

    It is the the very quintessence of irrationality.icon_surprised.gif





    Who said anything about the government interfering with state business? This has to do with observing a state crash and burn itself.

    By your response I guess we can all assume that you think it's a wonderful idea for a state to be giving education money to people who aren't even citizens.


    Actually, no.

    Who said anything about it? I'll show you:
    "cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education."

    Now let's look up and see who wrote that?

    Hmmm....

    Oh yeah.
    YOU.

    And I thought I had short-term memory problems.
    icon_lol.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 10:46 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    same articleThe court observed that the state law also benefits U.S. citizens who reside in other states but attend and graduate from high school in California.

    "It cannot be the case that states may never give a benefit to unlawful aliens without giving the same benefit to all American citizens," Chin wrote.


    It's not them receiving tuition money, it's just that they are getting a lower in-state tuition if they had 3 years of HS in California and graduated.


    I know what the article says. I can't even believe they are eligible to begin with, it's totally outrageous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 10:58 PM GMT
    UpperCanadian said
    mocktwinkie said
    UpperCanadian said
    conservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.



    To comment, I would need to know which level of government has responsibility for education.

    In Canada, the provinces have jurisdiction over education and are VERY hostile to federal encroachment into their jurisdiction.

    I thought Conservatives were really into the federal government keeping their hands out of State's business.




    this is another of those situations where I cannot figure out the fundamental worldview that informs these opinions. If it were well thought out I don't see how a thoughtful conservative could even make the original proposition.

    If you can propose something so inconsistent with your most fundamental beliefs - how honestly do you believe them - or rather how well have you thought it out?

    Do you just "go by gut" on an issue by issue basis without need of a consistent philosophy?

    It is the the very quintessence of irrationality.icon_surprised.gif





    Who said anything about the government interfering with state business? This has to do with observing a state crash and burn itself.

    By your response I guess we can all assume that you think it's a wonderful idea for a state to be giving education money to people who aren't even citizens.


    Actually, no.

    Who said anything about it? I'll show you:
    "cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education."

    Now let's look up and see who wrote that?

    Hmmm....

    Oh yeah.
    YOU.

    And I thought I had short-term memory problems.
    icon_lol.gif



    But I didn't write that, so you must be the one having memory problems.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 11:06 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    UpperCanadian said
    mocktwinkie said
    UpperCanadian said
    conservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.



    To comment, I would need to know which level of government has responsibility for education.

    In Canada, the provinces have jurisdiction over education and are VERY hostile to federal encroachment into their jurisdiction.

    I thought Conservatives were really into the federal government keeping their hands out of State's business.




    this is another of those situations where I cannot figure out the fundamental worldview that informs these opinions. If it were well thought out I don't see how a thoughtful conservative could even make the original proposition.

    If you can propose something so inconsistent with your most fundamental beliefs - how honestly do you believe them - or rather how well have you thought it out?

    Do you just "go by gut" on an issue by issue basis without need of a consistent philosophy?

    It is the the very quintessence of irrationality.icon_surprised.gif





    Who said anything about the government interfering with state business? This has to do with observing a state crash and burn itself.

    By your response I guess we can all assume that you think it's a wonderful idea for a state to be giving education money to people who aren't even citizens.


    Actually, no.

    Who said anything about it? I'll show you:
    "cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education."

    Now let's look up and see who wrote that?

    Hmmm....

    Oh yeah.
    YOU.

    And I thought I had short-term memory problems.
    icon_lol.gif



    But I didn't write that, so you must be the one having memory problems.



    wait a minute -i thought I was answering conservative jock.

    So since it was actually you, mock, who asked "who said that," , i correct my response to read: " look up - "It was conservative jock who said it.

    Sorry for the confusion.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 11:11 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    I know what the article says. I can't even believe they are eligible to begin with, it's totally outrageous.


    What would you want:
    1. Uneducated illegal immigrants sapping resources and working menial jobs, with high crime rates and clogging up the prison system, to the benefit of prison corporations
    2. Educated illegal immigrants who are contributing to the economy by paying taxes and using less state resources

    I want 2.

    http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/05/immigration.phpIn a perfect world, he says, they would all be rounded up and forced out. But 13 million people is a lot of flesh to move -- about as many folks who live in Illinois and nearly 5 percent of the nation's population. Using computer modeling and data analysis, Gerwitz recently completed a year-long study examining just how practicable it would be to ship every illegal immigrant home.

    His conclusion: not very.

    Assuming law enforcement could round up every illegal immigrant, Gewirtz says, it would take 166,666 buses to do the job, more than 13 billion gallons of fuel and about 48 million pounds of food to simply carry them to the nearest border. And that's not to mention the cost to rent the buses or to detain the immigrants while waiting to be transported.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 11:19 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    mocktwinkie said
    I know what the article says. I can't even believe they are eligible to begin with, it's totally outrageous.


    What would you want:
    1. Uneducated illegal immigrants sapping resources and working menial jobs, with high crime rates and clogging up the prison system, to the benefit of prison corporations
    2. Educated illegal immigrants who are contributing to the economy by paying taxes and using less state resources

    I want 2.

    http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/05/immigration.phpIn a perfect world, he says, they would all be rounded up and forced out. But 13 million people is a lot of flesh to move -- about as many folks who live in Illinois and nearly 5 percent of the nation's population. Using computer modeling and data analysis, Gerwitz recently completed a year-long study examining just how practicable it would be to ship every illegal immigrant home.

    His conclusion: not very.

    Assuming law enforcement could round up every illegal immigrant, Gewirtz says, it would take 166,666 buses to do the job, more than 13 billion gallons of fuel and about 48 million pounds of food to simply carry them to the nearest border. And that's not to mention the cost to rent the buses or to detain the immigrants while waiting to be transported.


    If illegals did not receive any form of subsidization then there would be no issue and they would be knowingly putting themselves in that position.

    Your multiple choice is absurd.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 11:27 PM GMT
    Rick Perry (a Republican Texan!) didn't think it was so absurd:
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/0315dnmetimmigcount.3d35b14.htmlEven so, Gov. Rick Perry supports the law aiding illegal immigrant students. In a recent debate, he said the students are on the path to citizenship. However, they actually won't be on that path unless the Dream Act passes.

    Illegal immigrants entering Texas' higher education system are direct beneficiaries of a 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler vs. Doe. Parents in Tyler sued after the state began charging tuition for illegal immigrant children. The court ruled that Texas and the rest of the country must educate illegal immigrant children free of charge in public schools.

    ...University of Houston law professor Michael A. Olivas said federal law clearly allows states to draft their own policies, and he believes the Texas case is similar to the Kansas one.

    "It is a matter for states to determine," he said. "In-state status is a state issue."

    Illegal immigrant students were never barred from enrolling in Texas colleges, but the higher tuition price tag for nonstate residents often meant they couldn't afford to attend.

    The Texas law requires students to attend school in the state for at least three years before graduation from a Texas high school. Students also must file an affidavit saying they plan to apply for permanent residency as soon as possible. State officials have argued that the treatment is not preferential in comparison to residency requirements for other students.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._DoeThe court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 11:31 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidRick Perry (a Republican Texan!) didn't think it was so absurd:
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/0315dnmetimmigcount.3d35b14.htmlEven so, Gov. Rick Perry supports the law aiding illegal immigrant students. In a recent debate, he said the students are on the path to citizenship. However, they actually won't be on that path unless the Dream Act passes.

    Illegal immigrants entering Texas' higher education system are direct beneficiaries of a 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler vs. Doe. Parents in Tyler sued after the state began charging tuition for illegal immigrant children. The court ruled that Texas and the rest of the country must educate illegal immigrant children free of charge in public schools.

    ...University of Houston law professor Michael A. Olivas said federal law clearly allows states to draft their own policies, and he believes the Texas case is similar to the Kansas one.

    "It is a matter for states to determine," he said. "In-state status is a state issue."

    Illegal immigrant students were never barred from enrolling in Texas colleges, but the higher tuition price tag for nonstate residents often meant they couldn't afford to attend.

    The Texas law requires students to attend school in the state for at least three years before graduation from a Texas high school. Students also must file an affidavit saying they plan to apply for permanent residency as soon as possible. State officials have argued that the treatment is not preferential in comparison to residency requirements for other students.


    And you think I agree with him because he's a republican? I don't think I need to mention that he's a total homophobe.

    If it was up to me there would be no form of subsidization or benefit whatsoever. That is the problem and the only problem with illegal immigration -- otherwise it really doesn't matter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 11:33 PM GMT
    The Supreme Court also didn't think so.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 11:38 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidThe Supreme Court also didn't think so.icon_rolleyes.gif


    And I completely disagree. It's disastrous for the budget. I also share Ron Paul's belief that the supreme court should not be able to override state supreme court decisions. It maximizes freedom that way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 11:41 PM GMT
    Let's give the CA Supreme Court their freedom then. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2010 11:42 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidLet's give the CA Supreme Court their freedom then. icon_razz.gif


    Of course! I'm just saying it's a terrible decision. Is that hard for you to comprehend?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2010 3:43 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    conservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.

    The true revelation we need at the federal level is to move civil crimes over to the criminal side. Make using federal dollars to support someone in America illegally a felony.

    Be honest here---you'd be so much happier living in a dictatorship.


    Actually, you would.