Big Education!
Big Law Suit Abuse!
Big EPA green regulations!
Perry Doctrine: "We Stand with our Allies"
Posted on 09/23/2011 6:54:44 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
It's because the families of non-residents don't pay the state taxes that subsidize the higher education system.
They punish slower students with higher rates. Now what the devil theory is that one?
“And once we reward them even more for breaking the law there will be no border and no sovereignty left.”
And, because of their votes, Democrats will have control of our government for the rest of our lives.
See http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/1528.PDF for a brief discussion of this, and the reason for changing the Texas law.
The same provision you noted, relating to an affidavit, now appears at section 54.053(3) of the Texas Education Code.
54.053. INFORMATION REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH RESIDENT STATUS.Also, See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0732 (2009) for the Texas AG's legal opinion on the conflict between the Texas law and the federal law. The below blockquote is from the Summary section of the report.A person shall submit the following information to an institution of higher education to establish resident status under this subchapter: ...
(3) if the person applies for resident status under Section 54.052(a)(3):
(A) a statement of the dates and length of time the person has resided in this state, as relevant to establish resident status under this subchapter; and
(B) if the person is not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States, an affidavit stating that the person will apply to become a permanent resident of the United States as soon as the person becomes eligible to apply.Amended by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 888, S: 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.
However, the terms "postsecondary education benefit" and "residence" are not defined in the federal law. In addition, no Texas or federal court has construed these terms or considered the substantive application of the federal law to a statute similar to the Texas statutes. Thus, while a federal or state court in Texas, following the reasoning of an intermediate California state appellate court decision, could find that 8 U.S.C. 1623 preempts Education Code sections 54.052(a)(3) and 54.053(3) to the extent of the conflict with the federal law, given the paucity of judicial precedent, this office cannot predict with certainty that a court would so find. ...The United States Supreme Court has "approved bona fide residency requirements in the field of public education." Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321, 326-27 (1983). Additionally, the Court has recognized "that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving the quality of its colleges and universities and the right of its own bona fide residents to attend such institutions on a preferential tuition basis." Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 452-53 (1973). "This 'legitimate interest' permits a 'State [to] establish such reasonable criteria for in-state status as to make virtually certain that students who are not, in fact, bona fide residents of the State, but who have come there solely for educational purposes, cannot take advantage of the in-state rates.'" Bynum, 461 U.S. at 327 (quoting Vlandis, 412 U.S. at 453-54).
Accordingly, a federal or state court in Texas would likely conclude that Education Code sections 54.052(a)(3) and 54.053(3) do not facially violate the federal Equal Protection Clause because the statutory prerequisites for in-state tuition are reasonable requirements that serve Texas's legitimate or substantial interest in assuring that only bona fide residents that graduate from Texas high schools or receive the diploma equivalent from this state are eligible for in-state tuition. However, no court has addressed whether a statute similar to the Texas statutes conforms to the mandates of the Equal Protection Clause.
The point you are making still stands, but you were using dated (and no longer existing) authority as a basis.
Those sentence work just fine together. They milk the cow for free milk any cow. It just happens we have the best cow around. If Canada was on one side and we were on the other they do to Canada just what they are doing here if Canada would let them.
No, and sometimes.
Those I believe heartless are; all three branches of our government, those who hired the illegals, and the illegals themselves. None of them care what they have done to us and our country. They don't care that they have taken away our birthright. It does not bother them that the decedents of those killed fighting for this country have been pushed aside for people who broke our laws. People who insult us by not speaking the language of the documents written by our founders.
Yes, I have insulted people who don't agree with me, especially on this issue. It's the least I can do for my kinsman who fought to make this country GREAT. The least I can do for those who died on foreign soil so I could be free. My insulting them is a lot less than they deserve.
When I think of all those who died defending our country, I ask myself, "Would they have risked their lives had they known their government would force their posterity to be subservient to foreign invaders?"
If you want to be silly, be my guest. Building a fence or physical barrier does not change national borders.
Yes. The power vacuum in Rome allowed for its demise.
Sort of like the U.S. today, as Obama puts us out to dry in front of the rest of the world, while at the same time cripples our economy.
I don’t believe in a fence... I believe in a minefield. Does that make me a RINO?
I also believe that mmost illegals would self-deport themselves if we ended all their benefits. No welfare, no Medicare/MedicAid, no foodstamps, NOTHING.
But the logic here is that a fence is the ONLY true way to deal with this issue... and anyone that doesn’t agree is a illegal-loving RINO scumbag.
Which means that we must continue to give benefits to illegals to be true Conservatives.
And I say BULL!
Texan children and adults live on this side of the river that forms our 1200 mile border with Mexico. I personally would do everything I could to prevent mining my back yard - let”s do yours first.
Illegal aliens do not legally get welfare,Medicare,Medicaid, or foodstamps in Texas. We give them emergency medical care and K-12 educations with free meals, because the Feds force us to. I’ll bet your home town and state does too.
Newt Gingrich is not going to be on the Republican ticket and neither is Herman Cain. They certainly aren't going to be on a ticket together since they're both from Georgia and can't both get Georgia's electoral votes. Newt is utterly undisciplined. He's good at spinning off ideas but he has no capacity for separating the good ones from the bad ones. “Right-wing social engineering” alone is disqualifying, and lets not even talk about Dede Scozzafava or Nancy Pelosi and global warming. Newt is a valuable member of the chattering class, but he has no business running for President and he won't get very far. Herman Cain just doesn't have a presidential resume. That may not be fair. It doesn't matter. He will never break out of single digits.
You just aren't grappling with reality here in a number of respects. There is no alternative to Perry and the immigration issue is both substantively and politically immaterial.
Immigration is substantively immaterial because it doesn't distinguish Perry from any other candidate. Perry has a soft spot for illegals. So does every other member of the political class. This is one thing all the players agree on. Nobody with a shot at the White House in either party would deal with our illegal immigration problem more aggressively than Rick Perry would. You won't see serious action from any of them.
Politically, immigration is immaterial because it doesn't move enough votes to count. How many times to the immigration zealots have to be disappointed at the polls before they get the message. Almost nobody cares.
Those of us expecting this issue to hamper Perry are going to be disappointed, yet again.
Let's deal with reality. We either have to find a serious alternative or reconcile ourselves to Perry. There is no third option.
The river is the border. Does the fence go on our side of the river or Mexico’s side of the river. Or put the fence in the middle of the river?
I didn’t think I was being silly. Just looking at doing the actual placement of the fence and who gets cut off from the water.
Who should get cut off from water. The USA or Mexico?
The real issue is that Rick Perry just isn't much of a conservative. I guess for people who measure conservatism by being bombastic and inarticulate, he's a conservative, but for those of us who look for someone who will advance policies and causes that will move the country in the right direction, Rick Perry doesn't have the right stuff. You can be as snippy and sarcastic as you want, but you aren't making him into a conservative. If he has a strong enough Congress behind him, he may not be a bad president, but Obama will have to fall even farther before Rick Perry can win the general election.
Big Education!
Big Law Suit Abuse!
Big EPA green regulations!
Perry Doctrine: "We Stand with our Allies"
Have always looked forward to this type of view. I fully understand your opinion and point of view though, in the view of the law and Rule of Law your understanding is invalid. These persons were brought into this nation by their parents. The parents came illegally as did their children. I realize it is difficult for some to understand and have given up (mostly) on arguments due to my view; the American people will decide when they (the American people) decide. Do not desire to argue with you, though some people have finally seen what is taking place is an invasion and a loss of taxpayer funds to those who broke our laws and are rewarded. Breaks my heart for the taxpayers who are robbed by rewarding the lawbreakers with the taxpayers' money, and this is what is currently fashionable with politicians seeking to remove your money to reward someone undeserving. Why not give your money to legals and citizens? Are the legals and citizens less deserving?
I was not. Good for Texas!
Guess many people believe in rewarding bad behavior and law breakers. This is true of politicians who reward people who are not citizens with citizens’ money. While it would be best and perfect to not reward anyone, but rather instead cause those here legally and citizens to be responsible for themselves, the politicians continue with the game of pitting one group against another group; Choosing winners and losers. That method is not the method of the Founders. Few will read, fewer will know the truth.
Actually it would be more like Venezuela.
Well if you are so invested in a Perry presidency then I suggest you have a little one on one with him and tell him its a bad idea to call your own base heartless. And he needs to know that instate tuition for illegals is a non starter with conservatives. He turned a lot of people off Thurs night.
Here's hoping and praying for a DeMint candidacy.
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.