Posted on 09/03/2011 4:04:09 PM PDT by jessduntno
Texas Gov. Rick Perry called in to Mark Levin's radio show and the two had a wide-ranging conversation. Levin ended by saying, while he is not endorsing anyone yet for the GOP Nomination, Perry is "up there with candidates acceptable to me."
He should have! romney is plain evil. I despise dog abusers.
LLS
When a TEA Party candidate challenges hatch... if one should... Palin will help to defeat hatch in every way.
LLS
I have 4 in Publik Skoolz, and can tell you verbatim, why teachers bitch about it bc I hear it constantly.
Teddy may have loved it, but it prohibits Publik Skoolz (not to a great enough degree, but...) from teaching claptrap, because it makes them responsible for children acquiring real knowledge.
Thats just a fact.
And AYKM?
Detroit, Cleveland and Los Angeles...?
I would say the issue with those schools is the ocal administration, not NCLB.
(and I’m pretty sure you know that)
None of us wants to help the enemy... “US” being real Conservatives. You are doing fine! Here is some food for thought.
Ronald Reagan 1975 CPAC Speech
(snip)
“Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.”
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
“I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”
Use these words as your guide... this is to progressives in both parties... as garlic is to a Vampire. You will know them by their fruits.
GOD bless,
LLS
Someone should ask Mark Levin this question — he’d be able to explan the law and the consequences.
I remember this discussion came up when California was doing this. And I believe the state laws don’t violate the federal law, because they don’t grant in-state tuition based on RESIDENCE.
Instead, they grant in-state tuition on the basis of attending and completing X number of years of high school within the state.
Now, anybody COULD attend high school in a state without living in the state, if they were willing to pay money. And since the college benefit wouldn’t have anything to do with residence, the US code would not apply.
i’m not justifying the laws, I oppose in-state tuition for illegals, but the laws, if written as I stated above, would not violate the federal statute.
Here is a writeup from the California Supreme Court ruling that California’s law was OK. The Supreme Court refused to review this decision, which means it is the law of the land. This is all from a court report, not my words:
“The California Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that the state law did not confer a benefit on illegal immigrants based on their residence in California.”
“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.”
“Minor children of out-of-state parents who attend boarding schools in California qualify for resident tuition rates. So do students who live in an adjoining state or country and attend high school in California.”
“The state supreme court said if Congress intended to impose a ban on illegal immigrants receiving in-state tuition it could have done so. Instead, Congress restricted only the use of residence as a criterion, the court said, but it did not bar states from identifying other criteria to award the in-state discounts.”
Also, sometimes people ask how the texas law (and other state laws) can have a provision that requires the children to be seeking to legalize their status, when illegals “can’t do that”. But the fact is that a minor who is illegal on the basis of their parents action CAN apply for legal status, and their illegal residence is not held against them (because they are minors, and therefore had no control over their illegal status).
If these illegal minors apply for residency when they become adults, their requests are considered as if they were any other alien seeking to enter the United States.
The argument for that treatment is clear — they couldn’t themselves go back to their “home country” to apply legally, so it makes no sense to treat them as if they could have.
The argument AGAINST that treatment is that it gives incentives to the PARENTS to be here illegally, in order to help their child get legal status. However, that is only the case if there is an indication that children in the country illegally applying for legal status get preferential treatment in consideration because they are already here.
If it wasn’t for the problem of incentivizing people to commit illegal acts, I would say that to the degree we are going to have immigrants, I would prefer 18-year-olds who grew up in our culture, over 20-year-olds who can’t hold a job in their own country and so they come here to take our jobs but ignore our culture.
But that’s an argument that is outside the scope of the discussion at hand, illegals getting college tuition (which I oppose, but support the rights of other state residents to do what they want with their own money).
Note that a state deciding to give in-state tuition to children of illegals does NOT do anything to help the illegals stay in-country. That’s the federal government’s job, to deport them, and if they aren’t being deported, if a state decides it’s better to have the illegals at college learning something useful, rather than hanging out on street corners causing trouble, that’s up to the residents of that state.
Thanks for providing the legal research showing how the states are getting around the federal law. It gives a good illustration of how the courts and legal establishment as currently constituted will subvert and undermine the intent of almost any statute they choose.
I actually don’t mind this ruling, because as the court noted, if the elected representatives want, they can easily change the law to change what the court ruled.
The problem is when the courts tell us that our elected representatives can’t be trusted to do the right thing, so they will do it for them.
Well said. On that we are in complete agreement.
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.