Skip to comments.
In-state tuition for illegal immigrants is preserved with California Supreme Court ruling [Updated]
LA Times ^
| 15 NOV 2010
| Maura Dolan
Posted on 11/15/2010 11:06:45 AM PST by Hoodat
The California Supreme Court decided unanimously Monday that illegal immigrants may continue to be eligible for in-state tuition rates at the state's colleges and universities rather than pay the higher rates charged to those who live out of state.
In a ruling written by Justice Ming W. Chin, one of the panel's more conservative members, the state high court said a California law that guarantees the lower tuition for students who attend California high schools for at least three years and graduate does not conflict with a federal prohibition on giving illegal immigrants educational benefits based on residency.
California is one of several states that permit illegal immigrants to take advantage of lower college tuition for students who attend high school and graduate in state. About 25,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to receive in-state tuition rates in California.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: aliens; bloggers; california; education; illegals; instatetuition; judicialfiat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 last
To: DAC21
The cesspool formerly known as Kalifornia continues it's descent into Hell. Tell Wing Wah or whatever his name is to come up with the cash to pay for his outrageous decision.
61
posted on
11/16/2010 3:54:28 AM PST
by
RU88
(Bow to no man)
To: ully2
How could they prove you are not illegal?
To: umgud
Only if cut off by the Congress.
To: TitansAFC
So if they can document that they have been illegal for three years, they get in-state tuition? In other words, the longer they have been breaking the law, the better.
64
posted on
11/16/2010 6:04:10 AM PST
by
stayathomemom
(Beware of cat attacks while typing!)
To: Hoodat
65
posted on
11/16/2010 6:36:39 AM PST
by
Alberta's Child
("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
"But note the court's amazing sophistry. Instead of "residency" requirements, they have the requirement of attending Cal. high schools instead." It's exactly like allowing the burglar to keep what he's stolen because - in the Court's opinion - how he entered the home is immaterial and whatever he "possess" (steals) his rightfully his just because he's there. Yes, it's sophistry.
Plyler v. Doe was a horrible decision 47 years ago, and its effects continue to ravage the nation.
To: RU88
The cesspool formerly known as Kalifornia continues it's descent into Hell. Texas has the exact same law regarding In-State Tuition for illegal aliens.
67
posted on
11/16/2010 8:49:52 AM PST
by
dragnet2
To: Bodleian_Girl
Campbell's has gone "halal." That means that meat used in their soups must come from animals slaughtered in an Islamic ritual; cut by a knife from neck artery, through the wind pipe and escophogas, and finally through the other neck artery, all the while chanting "Alluh ackbar." Think Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg. In other words, these animals are savagely, painfully sacraficed to their moon god, then introduced to our soups. This is certified by the Islamic Society of North America, number one partner of the Muslim Brotherhood, in thier effort to force absolutely everyone to live under Shariah law, irrespective of their stated belief. Please see the free, downloadabe PDF, Shariah, the Threat to America, published by the Center for Security Policy at www.shariahthethreat.com
68
posted on
11/16/2010 8:50:36 AM PST
by
Excellence
(Buy Progresso, take off the label, write "not halal," mail to Campbell's soup company.)
To: Steelers6; GunsAndBibles
Texas has the exact same law regarding In-State Tuition for illegal aliens.
69
posted on
11/16/2010 8:54:49 AM PST
by
dragnet2
To: OldDeckHand; stephenjohnbanker
It's exactly like allowing the burglar to keep what he's stolen because - in the Court's opinion - how he entered the home is immaterial and whatever he "possess" (steals) his rightfully his just because he's there. Yes, it's sophistry. Plyler v. Doe was a horrible decision 47 years ago, and its effects continue to ravage the nation.You got that right. Here is a joke in need of a punch line:
What's the difference between so called "Constitutional Law" and sophistry?
To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
Picture 1 and picture 2 ;-)
To: stephenjohnbanker
Actually, a lot of picture 1 agrees with picture 2. “Constitutional Law” contains many anti-Constitutional principles.
The Constitution is something that fits in your pocket, written by brilliant patriots. “Constitutional Law” is not the same thing.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson