U.S.-born children take fight over tu...

U.S.-born children take fight over tuition to court

There are 178 comments on the WBIR-TV story from Nov 3, 2011, titled U.S.-born children take fight over tuition to court. In it, WBIR-TV reports that:

State governments have been grappling with the question of whether to provide in-state college tuition rates to illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WBIR-TV.

Junaita

De Soto, KS

#150 Nov 19, 2011
Juan wrote:
<quoted text>
High school students couldn't do my job, I'm an electrician.
You're a worthless piece of chit with an imagination. Rolling up drop cords, does not an electrician make!
bob

Phoenix, AZ

#151 Nov 19, 2011
Juan wrote:
<quoted text>
All children, I say again, all children deserve an education and the opportunity for a better life.
And you pay nothing to educate anyone. so who pays ?/ why should anyone pay for your kids?? make more money or dont have kids . They arent yours anyone . have that deadbeat ex pay for those kids . or get that lazy girlfrind out to work. But if shes illegsl you both need to go.
ima

El Paso, TX

#152 Nov 20, 2011
Juan wrote:
<quoted text>
High school students couldn't do my job, I'm an electrician.
High school kids are learning everything now adays so do the noble thing and let one of them have your job and return to Mexico so that some young man can save his money for books and college, how's that? they have more right to the job you have than you do. They are American citizens.
Juan

Pearland, TX

#153 Nov 20, 2011
bob wrote:
<quoted text>And you pay nothing to educate anyone. so who pays ?/ why should anyone pay for your kids?? make more money or dont have kids . They arent yours anyone . have that deadbeat ex pay for those kids . or get that lazy girlfrind out to work. But if shes illegsl you both need to go.
I have no kids .......yet. My girlfriend is due in April.
Hoo-else

United States

#154 Nov 20, 2011
Tuition in California's colleges is being raised for the ninth time in nine years.

Somebody needs to explain to me how the state can take money from folks who have been paying taxes for thirty or forty years and give it to individuals who have been here illegally for ten or fifteen years.

A UC education is now 25k a year.

If people want to pay for the education of illegal aliens, then let them put their money where their mouth is and start a fund. Have all their like minded friends to pay into it, but stop raising the tuition on families who are here legally.
Hoo-else

United States

#155 Nov 20, 2011
annie wrote:
<quoted text>
ONLY K-12; they also said because it would not hurt Americans. With the recession and the costs; they can't say that anymore
The vast majority never make it to 12, despite dumping incredible amounts of resources into retention. It's the mentality of welfare entitlement that seems to be becoming more widespread among Latins.
barry

Henagar, AL

#156 Nov 20, 2011
David wrote:
<quoted text>
Look it up yourself,and get educated.The SCOTUS for k-12 was PYLER VS DOE. Just to make that easy for you.
you use plyler vs doe when you obviously have to dissagree with plyler vs doe? you obviously didn't qoute from it but i will.

"Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish."

now how about, that the supremes over and over again in plyler vs doe confirm that it is their opinon that illegals are within our jurisdiction.

so if you want to prove that Plyler vs Doe some how elliminates undocumented children from recieving instate tuition, then you'll just have to post the quote or shut up.

what is even funnier is that Plyler vs Doe even quotes Sen. Howard

"Senator Howard, also a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, and the floor manager of the Amendment in the Senate, was no less explicit about the broad objectives of the Amendment, and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a State:[p215]"
[the words of howard follow here]
"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another.... It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."

and it goes on to say; con't
barry

Henagar, AL

#157 Nov 20, 2011
con't
and Plyler vs doe goes onto say:

"The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply [p220] with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977). Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.

[V]isiting ... condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the ... child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the ... child is an ineffectual -- as well as unjust -- way of deterring the parent.

Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 (1972)

so how about that. the supremes have already ruled that the children brought here by their parents are not criminals and are in fact protected by the 14th and other laws.

so go ahead use Plyler vs Doe. even though you believe that the decision of that court has to be wrong.
barry

Henagar, AL

#158 Nov 20, 2011
Hoo-else wrote:
<quoted text>
The vast majority never make it to 12, despite dumping incredible amounts of resources into retention. It's the mentality of welfare entitlement that seems to be becoming more widespread among Latins.
so they wouldn't be part of the subject of this thread now would they? could go to college. instate tuition doesn't apply.
David

Seattle, WA

#159 Nov 20, 2011
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you use plyler vs doe when you obviously have to dissagree with plyler vs doe? you obviously didn't qoute from it but i will.
"Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish."
now how about, that the supremes over and over again in plyler vs doe confirm that it is their opinon that illegals are within our jurisdiction.
so if you want to prove that Plyler vs Doe some how elliminates undocumented children from recieving instate tuition, then you'll just have to post the quote or shut up.
what is even funnier is that Plyler vs Doe even quotes Sen. Howard
"Senator Howard, also a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, and the floor manager of the Amendment in the Senate, was no less explicit about the broad objectives of the Amendment, and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a State:[p215]"
[the words of howard follow here]
"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another.... It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."
and it goes on to say; con't
You lack the intelligence to understand it,and I am tired of trying to educxate you about the Constitution,and activist courts.The 14th limited who it pertained to,so read the actual amendment sometime,as well as the debate on it.
barry

Henagar, AL

#160 Nov 20, 2011
David wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2...
There is the proof Barry,that the SCOTUS ruled against illegals,then turned against Americans and lets it happen.
proof that fair has an opinion nothing else. did they even quote the law in their opinion? not really. did they address the fact that the supremes already dissagreed with them and that in fact the california court was agreeing with the supremes? no.
i posted the rulings of the supremes. now it's your turn to post a ruling from the supremes that agrees with you.
you have failed to post a single court ruling that agrees with you.
barry

Henagar, AL

#161 Nov 20, 2011
David wrote:
<quoted text>
You lack the intelligence to understand it,and I am tired of trying to educxate you about the Constitution,and activist courts.The 14th limited who it pertained to,so read the actual amendment sometime,as well as the debate on it.
greater minds seem to dissagree with you.
so please, one more time, quote the 14th where it limits who it applies to.
this ought to be interesting since all the rulings that dissagree with you quote the 14th and seem to quote Sen Howard also to dissagree with you.
barry

Henagar, AL

#162 Nov 20, 2011
Hoo-else wrote:
Tuition in California's colleges is being raised for the ninth time in nine years.
Somebody needs to explain to me how the state can take money from folks who have been paying taxes for thirty or forty years and give it to individuals who have been here illegally for ten or fifteen years.
A UC education is now 25k a year.
If people want to pay for the education of illegal aliens, then let them put their money where their mouth is and start a fund. Have all their like minded friends to pay into it, but stop raising the tuition on families who are here legally.
now if an undocumented child could come up with 25k cash to attend the university that would be a good thing for all including the tax payers of cal. why would you want to deny them that money?
Hoo-else

United States

#163 Nov 20, 2011
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so they wouldn't be part of the subject of this thread now would they? could go to college. instate tuition doesn't apply.
Come back with a cohesive statement and we'll talk about it.

While the majority never make it past 10th grade, the number of illegal aliens of Latino decent benefitting from instate tuition represents an enormous amount of misdirected state resources. Until and unless every American citizen or legal alien is protected from annual tuition hikes, no illegal alien should receive a dime in assistance.
Hoo-else

United States

#164 Nov 20, 2011
barry wrote:
<quoted text>now if an undocumented child could come up with 25k cash to attend the university that would be a good thing for all including the tax payers of cal. why would you want to deny them that money?
With due respect, are you illiterate?

If you want to write a check for an illegal alien to attend college, knock your socks off. get your friends to write checks, too. When I believe in a cause, that's what I do, I support the cause with time and treasure. I don't expect the government to fund my causes.

I advocate for the prohibition of illegal aliens receiving any type of taxpayer funding.
David

Seattle, WA

#165 Nov 20, 2011
Hoo-else wrote:
<quoted text>
With due respect, are you illiterate?
If you want to write a check for an illegal alien to attend college, knock your socks off. get your friends to write checks, too. When I believe in a cause, that's what I do, I support the cause with time and treasure. I don't expect the government to fund my causes.
I advocate for the prohibition of illegal aliens receiving any type of taxpayer funding.
He loves illegals,and like the dumb politicians,pay to send them to school for an education for a job they can not do,and if they are hired,they are breaking the law,and the employer wil lbe fined,have to fire them,making their education worthless,and the money spent on it wasted as well.barry is just another mindless liberal.
Harrisson

Stamford, CT

#166 Nov 21, 2011
Juan wrote:
<quoted text>
All children, I say again, all children deserve an education and the opportunity for a better life.
Not those things, they are the product of criminal activity. Their parents are using the kids as free tickets to the US, so we can't let them get away with it. If anything, the illegal immigrants are responsible for denying their children an education as well as making them criminals. The children of AMERICANs matters in the US, not the children of illegals. Get the F*** out and take your little F*** faces with you!!
barry

Henagar, AL

#167 Nov 21, 2011
Hoo-else wrote:
<quoted text>
Come back with a cohesive statement and we'll talk about it.
While the majority never make it past 10th grade, the number of illegal aliens of Latino decent benefitting from instate tuition represents an enormous amount of misdirected state resources. Until and unless every American citizen or legal alien is protected from annual tuition hikes, no illegal alien should receive a dime in assistance.
ok, let me make it simple for you.
#1 this thread is supposed to be about children born here in this country to illegal or undocumented parents, who as a result of their birth are legally recognized as citizens. these are the children suing for the instate tuition and probably will win.
#2 you and others are expanding it to children who are not documented/illegal who would want to go to college. and you have pointed out that they aren't real likely to complete hs. my point was that if they don't complete hs then they really aren't a part of this conversation as they are not going to be able to go to college anyway.
so my question then was, what was your point in bringing that up?
barry

Henagar, AL

#168 Nov 21, 2011
Hoo-else wrote:
<quoted text>
With due respect, are you illiterate?
If you want to write a check for an illegal alien to attend college, knock your socks off. get your friends to write checks, too. When I believe in a cause, that's what I do, I support the cause with time and treasure. I don't expect the government to fund my causes.
I advocate for the prohibition of illegal aliens receiving any type of taxpayer funding.
apparently you don't know how colleges function financially. if an illegal/undocumented student could come up with
$25k cash [which appears to be the rate for instate students] to pay for his education, that would benifit everyone's cause from the university to the students and even the tax payers.
unless california has some statefunding or loans available to them that is what they would have to do. pay cash. no loans no debt no sallie mae, just cash.
it would help your kid who happened to be attending that school.

now the reality of the situation is that $25k cash is going to be next to impossible so not too many of them will be attending UC.
Hoo-else

United States

#169 Nov 21, 2011
barry wrote:
<quoted text>ok, let me make it simple for you.
#1 this thread is supposed to be about children born here in this country to illegal or undocumented parents, who as a result of their birth are legally recognized as citizens. these are the children suing for the instate tuition and probably will win.
#2 you and others are expanding it to children who are not documented/illegal who would want to go to college. and you have pointed out that they aren't real likely to complete hs. my point was that if they don't complete hs then they really aren't a part of this conversation as they are not going to be able to go to college anyway.
so my question then was, what was your point in bringing that up?
Let me make it simple for you. You misread or lack the comprehension ability to understand the subject matter. Here is the premise of the thread, taken from the introductory sentence, "State governments have been grappling with the question of whether to provide in-state college tuition rates to illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children."

Now how about you debate the subject matter instead of interjecting your own bias?

California's dream act will cost taxpayers 40 million dollars at a time when the state is broke and taxpaying citizens have had to absorb nine tuition hikes in nine years. Dump the dream act and lower the tuition with that 40 mil, IMHO.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Steve King Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Donald Trump's comments on immigration complica... (Jul '15) Feb 3 we need reform 62
News Republicans embrace building of Mexico border w... Jan '17 Quirky 3
News Trump has always had a soft heart for illegal i... Dec '16 Wildchild 3
News Hispanic Evangelicals Threaten To Abandon Repub... (May '15) Nov '16 Senior Moment 72
News Ted Cruz in Iowa: - I'm Here Campaigning for Do... Nov '16 YouDidntBuildThat 3
News PHILLIPS: The last days of the Republican Party (Oct '13) Oct '16 My daughters shame 2,201
News Ben Carson Warns Gay Couples Against Pushing Ba... (Jan '15) Oct '16 Gloria Alreds Cane 78
More from around the web