This isnt the first time, nor is it the first person we have warned.
If you have a tough time keeping on topic and not making it personal, maybe this forum isnt meant for you.
When you disagree with someone, you quickly turn to bashing and personal digs. I hope you can modify this style and continue posting here going forward.
This isnt the first time, nor is it the first person we have warned.
If you have a tough time keeping on topic and not making it personal, maybe this forum isnt meant for you.
When you disagree with someone, you quickly turn to bashing and personal digs. I hope you can modify this style and continue posting here going forward.
Before arguing about the law, it is important to know what the law does and doesn't say.
The law doesn't refer to high school nor does it prevent deportation.
It merely deals with students applying to school in CA. Keep in mind that 95% of those illegals that are in colleges end up with citizenship. Thus, many of them have started the process before starting school. Most people would argue they shouldn't be working, they shouldn't receive government handouts, nor committing crimes. So, instead they are actually paying for school.
The law specifically states that you must attend a California high school for 3 years to be eligable for in-state tution
Before arguing about the law, it is important to know what the law does and doesn't say.
The law doesn't refer to high school nor does it prevent deportation.
It merely deals with students applying to school in CA. Keep in mind that 95% of those illegals that are in colleges end up with citizenship. Thus, many of them have started the process before starting school. Most people would argue they shouldn't be working, they shouldn't receive government handouts, nor committing crimes. So, instead they are actually paying for school.
The law specifically states that you must attend a California high school for 3 years to be eligable for in-state tution
dj....how many illegals does it take to overwhelm our schools?
Not a joke....we dont stop them, we cater to them, so they keep coming.
I think they say there is 2.5M illegals in Ca
Lets take 50% of them and call them the X's
Now all the X's have 2 kids who are 2 years apart and plan on attending college in Ca
So thats 2.5M illegal kids
lets take half of them and say they are enrolled in college at the same time
Thats 1.25 MILLION illegal kids in California schools
Do you have any facts or figures to back up this assertion? Does the criteria of college admissions allow for unlimited students?
But using your numbers, what if 1.25 million kids were in California colleges. What is the practical result? Well, for starters, there would be multiple new schools in Califorina (supply/demand) which means more revenue for the state. Not to mention the revenue of all of those attending the current schools. Plus, you would have 937,500 California residents upon graduation (look at the prior numbers) with a college education and paying taxes based on that higher education.
dj....how many illegals does it take to overwhelm our schools?
Not a joke....we dont stop them, we cater to them, so they keep coming.
I think they say there is 2.5M illegals in Ca
Lets take 50% of them and call them the X's
Now all the X's have 2 kids who are 2 years apart and plan on attending college in Ca
So thats 2.5M illegal kids
lets take half of them and say they are enrolled in college at the same time
Thats 1.25 MILLION illegal kids in California schools
Do you have any facts or figures to back up this assertion? Does the criteria of college admissions allow for unlimited students?
But using your numbers, what if 1.25 million kids were in California colleges. What is the practical result? Well, for starters, there would be multiple new schools in Califorina (supply/demand) which means more revenue for the state. Not to mention the revenue of all of those attending the current schools. Plus, you would have 937,500 California residents upon graduation (look at the prior numbers) with a college education and paying taxes based on that higher education.
Do you have any facts or figures to back up this assertion? Does the criteria of college admissions allow for unlimited students?
But using your numbers, what if 1.25 million kids were in California colleges. What is the practical result? Well, for starters, there would be multiple new schools in Califorina (supply/demand) which means more revenue for the state. Not to mention the revenue of all of those attending the current schools. Plus, you would have 937,500 California residents upon graduation (look at the prior numbers) with a college education and paying taxes based on that higher education.
Do you have any facts or figures to back up this assertion? Does the criteria of college admissions allow for unlimited students?
But using your numbers, what if 1.25 million kids were in California colleges. What is the practical result? Well, for starters, there would be multiple new schools in Califorina (supply/demand) which means more revenue for the state. Not to mention the revenue of all of those attending the current schools. Plus, you would have 937,500 California residents upon graduation (look at the prior numbers) with a college education and paying taxes based on that higher education.
Do you have any facts or figures to back up this assertion? Does the criteria of college admissions allow for unlimited students?
But using your numbers, what if 1.25 million kids were in California colleges. What is the practical result? Well, for starters, there would be multiple new schools in Califorina (supply/demand) which means more revenue for the state. Not to mention the revenue of all of those attending the current schools. Plus, you would have 937,500 California residents upon graduation (look at the prior numbers) with a college education and paying taxes based on that higher education.
Do you have any facts or figures to back up this assertion? Does the criteria of college admissions allow for unlimited students?
But using your numbers, what if 1.25 million kids were in California colleges. What is the practical result? Well, for starters, there would be multiple new schools in Califorina (supply/demand) which means more revenue for the state. Not to mention the revenue of all of those attending the current schools. Plus, you would have 937,500 California residents upon graduation (look at the prior numbers) with a college education and paying taxes based on that higher education.
Do you have any facts or figures to back up this assertion? Does the criteria of college admissions allow for unlimited students?
But using your numbers, what if 1.25 million kids were in California colleges. What is the practical result? Well, for starters, there would be multiple new schools in Califorina (supply/demand) which means more revenue for the state. Not to mention the revenue of all of those attending the current schools. Plus, you would have 937,500 California residents upon graduation (look at the prior numbers) with a college education and paying taxes based on that higher education.
So, again, where is the harm?
HOW ABOUT THE 937,5000 JOBS THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO AMERICAN CITIZENS? HOW ABOUT THE JOBS THAT ARE ILLEGALLY HELD BY THEIR PARENTS? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND A JOB. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE ON WELFARE... WHY SHOULDN'T THEY AS LEGAL CITIZENS BE ENTITLED TO THESE JOBS? WHY SHOULDN'T AMERICAN CITIZENS GET TO GO TO AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES INSTEAD OF ILLEGALS....
WHERE IS THE HARM? EVERYWHERE... OPEN YOUR EYES...
Do you have any facts or figures to back up this assertion? Does the criteria of college admissions allow for unlimited students?
But using your numbers, what if 1.25 million kids were in California colleges. What is the practical result? Well, for starters, there would be multiple new schools in Califorina (supply/demand) which means more revenue for the state. Not to mention the revenue of all of those attending the current schools. Plus, you would have 937,500 California residents upon graduation (look at the prior numbers) with a college education and paying taxes based on that higher education.
So, again, where is the harm?
HOW ABOUT THE 937,5000 JOBS THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO AMERICAN CITIZENS? HOW ABOUT THE JOBS THAT ARE ILLEGALLY HELD BY THEIR PARENTS? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND A JOB. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE ON WELFARE... WHY SHOULDN'T THEY AS LEGAL CITIZENS BE ENTITLED TO THESE JOBS? WHY SHOULDN'T AMERICAN CITIZENS GET TO GO TO AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES INSTEAD OF ILLEGALS....
WHERE IS THE HARM? EVERYWHERE... OPEN YOUR EYES...
bottom line is they are illegal and federal law should trump state laws on illegal immigration..............or so I have heard from the folks in Washington
bottom line is they are illegal and federal law should trump state laws on illegal immigration..............or so I have heard from the folks in Washington
The law specifically states that you must attend a California high school for 3 years to be eligable for in-state tution
The law defines residency. It doesn't have anything to do with an illegal being mandated to remain in high school. Thus the law does nothing to encourage or mandate an illegal being in high school. I'm quite certain you are bright enough to understand the distinction made whereas the law creates a standard by where a person acquires eligibility for college versus criteria to meet said eligibility.
For example, if the law said men of age 40 are eligible for a state subsidized baldness remedy, the law has nothing to do with men or age and everything to do with eligibility criteria.
The law specifically states that you must attend a California high school for 3 years to be eligable for in-state tution
The law defines residency. It doesn't have anything to do with an illegal being mandated to remain in high school. Thus the law does nothing to encourage or mandate an illegal being in high school. I'm quite certain you are bright enough to understand the distinction made whereas the law creates a standard by where a person acquires eligibility for college versus criteria to meet said eligibility.
For example, if the law said men of age 40 are eligible for a state subsidized baldness remedy, the law has nothing to do with men or age and everything to do with eligibility criteria.
bottom line is they are illegal and federal law should trump state laws on illegal immigration..............or so I have heard from the folks in Washington
What federal law exists that mandates how a state defines residency for purpose of in-state tuition? Please provide a link to the law.
bottom line is they are illegal and federal law should trump state laws on illegal immigration..............or so I have heard from the folks in Washington
What federal law exists that mandates how a state defines residency for purpose of in-state tuition? Please provide a link to the law.
Californian taxpayers getting hosed when shelving out the funds to educate illegal children. I'd rather fund a legal Nevadan that wishes to attend Stanford.
When its said and done, California can only hope that these college grads (if still illegal status then) stay back and pay back in taxes. A risky investment in my opinion that does not pay back its weight in gold.
The bottom line is some citizen from out of state will have to pay a huge amount of money to attend a school in California, but the illegal kids here get the breaks? Does this scenario not disturb you?
The law may be constitutional, but it sends the wrong message. Once again, we are a victim of our own tolerances. No thanks to the judicial system.
If anything why not charge the illegal kids here the foreign exchange student rate. Its much more fitting.
Californian taxpayers getting hosed when shelving out the funds to educate illegal children. I'd rather fund a legal Nevadan that wishes to attend Stanford.
When its said and done, California can only hope that these college grads (if still illegal status then) stay back and pay back in taxes. A risky investment in my opinion that does not pay back its weight in gold.
The bottom line is some citizen from out of state will have to pay a huge amount of money to attend a school in California, but the illegal kids here get the breaks? Does this scenario not disturb you?
The law may be constitutional, but it sends the wrong message. Once again, we are a victim of our own tolerances. No thanks to the judicial system.
If anything why not charge the illegal kids here the foreign exchange student rate. Its much more fitting.
Californian taxpayers getting hosed when shelving out the funds to educate illegal children. I'd rather fund a legal Nevadan that wishes to attend Stanford.
When its said and done, California can only hope that these college grads (if still illegal status then) stay back and pay back in taxes. A risky investment in my opinion that does not pay back its weight in gold.
The bottom line is some citizen from out of state will have to pay a huge amount of money to attend a school in California, but the illegal kids here get the breaks? Does this scenario not disturb you?
The law may be constitutional, but it sends the wrong message. Once again, we are a victim of our own tolerances. No thanks to the judicial system.
If anything why not charge the illegal kids here the foreign exchange student rate. Its much more fitting.
How does this law impact California taxpayers regarding paying funds to educate illegal children? What difference does it make to the taxpayer if an illegal is paying 15k per year or an in-state resident is paying 15k per year?
I've already posted statistics that show that currently, 75% of those who graduate in CA stay in CA and 75% of those who attend school in CA from other states, leave. Which is better for the CA economy?
Californian taxpayers getting hosed when shelving out the funds to educate illegal children. I'd rather fund a legal Nevadan that wishes to attend Stanford.
When its said and done, California can only hope that these college grads (if still illegal status then) stay back and pay back in taxes. A risky investment in my opinion that does not pay back its weight in gold.
The bottom line is some citizen from out of state will have to pay a huge amount of money to attend a school in California, but the illegal kids here get the breaks? Does this scenario not disturb you?
The law may be constitutional, but it sends the wrong message. Once again, we are a victim of our own tolerances. No thanks to the judicial system.
If anything why not charge the illegal kids here the foreign exchange student rate. Its much more fitting.
How does this law impact California taxpayers regarding paying funds to educate illegal children? What difference does it make to the taxpayer if an illegal is paying 15k per year or an in-state resident is paying 15k per year?
I've already posted statistics that show that currently, 75% of those who graduate in CA stay in CA and 75% of those who attend school in CA from other states, leave. Which is better for the CA economy?
How does this law impact California taxpayers regarding paying funds to educate illegal children?
None. This specific law doesn't. Like I stated, the law is constitutional, however it does send out the wrong message and should be amended.
What difference does it make to the taxpayer if an illegal is paying 15k per year or an in-state resident is paying 15k per year?
Once again, none. But why are illegal children getting preferential treatment over legal citizens from out of state?
I've already posted statistics that show that currently, 75% of those who graduate in CA stay in CA and 75% of those who attend school in CA from other states, leave.
Good sensible stats and I'm inclined to believe it, but still why are we fueling the fire by funding illegal children to attend California schools here by opening the welcoming mats to all illegals to bombard onto California, a known illegal haven?
Which is better for the CA economy?
Is this it? At the end of the day, its all about the money? Does morality not play a role in your decision making? And if generating money for the state is the sole purpose then why not eliminate the out of state fees for all?
How does this law impact California taxpayers regarding paying funds to educate illegal children?
None. This specific law doesn't. Like I stated, the law is constitutional, however it does send out the wrong message and should be amended.
What difference does it make to the taxpayer if an illegal is paying 15k per year or an in-state resident is paying 15k per year?
Once again, none. But why are illegal children getting preferential treatment over legal citizens from out of state?
I've already posted statistics that show that currently, 75% of those who graduate in CA stay in CA and 75% of those who attend school in CA from other states, leave.
Good sensible stats and I'm inclined to believe it, but still why are we fueling the fire by funding illegal children to attend California schools here by opening the welcoming mats to all illegals to bombard onto California, a known illegal haven?
Which is better for the CA economy?
Is this it? At the end of the day, its all about the money? Does morality not play a role in your decision making? And if generating money for the state is the sole purpose then why not eliminate the out of state fees for all?
The law defines residency. It doesn't have anything to do with an illegal being mandated to remain in high school. Thus the law does nothing to encourage or mandate an illegal being in high school. I'm quite certain you are bright enough to understand the distinction made whereas the law creates a standard by where a person acquires eligibility for college versus criteria to meet said eligibility.
You are incorrect
California Assembly Bill 540 (signed into law 2001)
Tuition rates are now more affordable for immigrant students interested in attending California's accredited public community college and universities. Under AB 540, students who meet ALL of the outlined requirements will qualify to pay in-state tuition.
To qualify a student must:
Attend a California high school for 3 or more years;
Graduate from a California high school or receive the equivalent general education diploma (GED);
Register or be currently enrolled in a California Community College, California State University, or a University of California;
Sign a statement with the college or university (NOT with INS) stating that he/she will apply for legal residency as soon as he/she is eligible to do so.
The law defines residency. It doesn't have anything to do with an illegal being mandated to remain in high school. Thus the law does nothing to encourage or mandate an illegal being in high school. I'm quite certain you are bright enough to understand the distinction made whereas the law creates a standard by where a person acquires eligibility for college versus criteria to meet said eligibility.
You are incorrect
California Assembly Bill 540 (signed into law 2001)
Tuition rates are now more affordable for immigrant students interested in attending California's accredited public community college and universities. Under AB 540, students who meet ALL of the outlined requirements will qualify to pay in-state tuition.
To qualify a student must:
Attend a California high school for 3 or more years;
Graduate from a California high school or receive the equivalent general education diploma (GED);
Register or be currently enrolled in a California Community College, California State University, or a University of California;
Sign a statement with the college or university (NOT with INS) stating that he/she will apply for legal residency as soon as he/she is eligible to do so.
California Assembly Bill 540 (signed into law 2001)
Tuition rates are now more affordable for immigrant students interested in attending California's accredited public community college and universities. Under AB 540, students who meet ALL of the outlined requirements will qualify to pay in-state tuition.
To qualify a student must:
Attend a California high school for 3 or more years;
Graduate from a California high school or receive the equivalent general education diploma (GED);
Register or be currently enrolled in a California Community College, California State University, or a University of California;
Sign a statement with the college or university (NOT with INS) stating that he/she will apply for legal residency as soon as he/she is eligible to do so.
Mandated as in prevention from deportation by State or Federal law..i.e. the law does not mandate that illegals remain in high school. I did think you were brighter than this, but reading this and the next post, I guess not.
Of course the law requires graduation from high school to determine residency. Yet again, please provide me one link in the bill that prevents deportation. Provide me one link or evidence as to who is harmed. I so look forward to that because you have done an amazing job of proving the bill requires a high school graduation, nothing that was ever in dispute.
California Assembly Bill 540 (signed into law 2001)
Tuition rates are now more affordable for immigrant students interested in attending California's accredited public community college and universities. Under AB 540, students who meet ALL of the outlined requirements will qualify to pay in-state tuition.
To qualify a student must:
Attend a California high school for 3 or more years;
Graduate from a California high school or receive the equivalent general education diploma (GED);
Register or be currently enrolled in a California Community College, California State University, or a University of California;
Sign a statement with the college or university (NOT with INS) stating that he/she will apply for legal residency as soon as he/she is eligible to do so.
Mandated as in prevention from deportation by State or Federal law..i.e. the law does not mandate that illegals remain in high school. I did think you were brighter than this, but reading this and the next post, I guess not.
Of course the law requires graduation from high school to determine residency. Yet again, please provide me one link in the bill that prevents deportation. Provide me one link or evidence as to who is harmed. I so look forward to that because you have done an amazing job of proving the bill requires a high school graduation, nothing that was ever in dispute.
Californian taxpayers getting hosed when shelving out the funds to educate illegal children. I'd rather fund a legal Nevadan that wishes to attend Stanford.
When its said and done, California can only hope that these college grads (if still illegal status then) stay back and pay back in taxes. A risky investment in my opinion that does not pay back its weight in gold.
The bottom line is some citizen from out of state will have to pay a huge amount of money to attend a school in California, but the illegal kids here get the breaks? Does this scenario not disturb you?
The law may be constitutional, but it sends the wrong message. Once again, we are a victim of our own tolerances. No thanks to the judicial system.
If anything why not charge the illegal kids here the foreign exchange student rate. Its much more fitting.
Kickin -- I dunno if it would apply to Stanford because Stanford is a private university. I could be wrong, but I thought this was only applicable to California's public university system.
Californian taxpayers getting hosed when shelving out the funds to educate illegal children. I'd rather fund a legal Nevadan that wishes to attend Stanford.
When its said and done, California can only hope that these college grads (if still illegal status then) stay back and pay back in taxes. A risky investment in my opinion that does not pay back its weight in gold.
The bottom line is some citizen from out of state will have to pay a huge amount of money to attend a school in California, but the illegal kids here get the breaks? Does this scenario not disturb you?
The law may be constitutional, but it sends the wrong message. Once again, we are a victim of our own tolerances. No thanks to the judicial system.
If anything why not charge the illegal kids here the foreign exchange student rate. Its much more fitting.
Kickin -- I dunno if it would apply to Stanford because Stanford is a private university. I could be wrong, but I thought this was only applicable to California's public university system.
Kickin -- I dunno if it would apply to Stanford because Stanford is a private university. I could be wrong, but I thought this was only applicable to California's public university system.
You're absolutely right, kap. I was just using a California school as an example. Stanford is a private institution, and a bad example in this case.
Kickin -- I dunno if it would apply to Stanford because Stanford is a private university. I could be wrong, but I thought this was only applicable to California's public university system.
You're absolutely right, kap. I was just using a California school as an example. Stanford is a private institution, and a bad example in this case.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.