Skip to comments.Judge: Florida cannot charge students non-resident tuition due to parents [10th Amendment Alert]
Posted on 09/04/2012 11:42:25 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
A federal judge in Miami has ruled that Florida students cannot be charged higher non-resident tuition simply because their parents may be in the U.S. illegally.
U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore says the rules violate the Constitution. The lawsuit was filed earlier this year by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of students who are U.S. citizens and Florida residents but whose parents cannot prove legal immigration status.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.orlandosentinel.com ...
Someone help me out...I can’t recall where the Constitution gives the federal judiciary the right to determine individual states’ schools tuition rates.
Do you know if this applies to anchor babies or Dream ACT students? Or both?
Don’t know. My objection is that the federal government is shoving its nasty nose into an affair that is NONE of its business.
I do not understand this story. If, as the summary indicates, the student is a US citizen and a long term resident of Florida, what is the issue? In Florida are all students with parents who are out of state, defined as out of state?
The libtards better be sorry what they wish for here. A lot of tenured professors in the high tuition states in the northeast may see their captive audiences flee to low tuition states in flyover country.
If the SPLC is involved, it is probably an anti American cause.
Figures,... the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is mixed up in this.
If they are not here legally then they are not “residents” but “long term transients”.
‘splain to me why then as a legal citizen of another state my child would still have to pay out-of-state tuition rate when an ILLEGAL would NOT have to pay?! WTH? Why bother being a citizen who pays taxes to uncle sam, or serving in the military, or abiding by the laws for let’s say registering a vehicle, owning a weapon, driving a car? Does this mean the ILLEGAL kid is given “preferential” status over my kid? Ok, then if that is the case, can I now sue over discrimination?
Just askin’ that’s all...grrrrrr!
If the student is 18 AND a citizen then ok.
If under 18 then custody follows the student.
The southern poverty (communist) law center is the biggest hate group there is.
this is forum shopping. No way they would have filed this in the northern district of FL.
Judge Moore also has his own mental challenges.
The federal judiciary isn’t determining individual states’ tuition rates. The federal judiciary is, however, telling dtates that they must set their tuition rates in a way that is consistent with the 14th amendment of the Constitution, which states that all persons born in the US (other than children of diplomats and similarly-situated people) are citizens, and that states may not deprive citizens of equal protection of the laws.
You may disagree with the judge’s interpretation of these provisions, but that’s what the judge did here.
OOPS should be if UNDER 18 THEN CUSTODY FOLLOWS THE PARENTS!
NOT the student.
under 18 then the child is subject to the claims of the parents not the minor.
I am a strong believer in the 10th Amendment and voracious critic of illegals, but I don’t see how the government can discriminate against a US citizen who is a Florida resident by nature of their parent’s illegal status.
Oh, I am well aware of how the 14th amendment has been abused by politicians for decades...doesn’t mean it is right. Thanks.
Illegal aliens PING
District Judge K. Michael Moore wouldn't know the Constitution if it jumped up and bit him on the ass.
The judge should merely be ignored. He is meddling where he has no jurisdiction. The states control their universities.
You pay the tuition or don’t go.
As I read it, this is the correct decision. A legal U.S. citizen’s residency doesn’t change just because they have criminals for parents. Heck, I’d give them free tuition in exchange for reporting their parents & helping to get them deported.
Me, neither. The students who sued are legal U.S. citizens.
Technically, colleges have been doing this for decades. I can move to another state and declare residency there, but if my parents are paying the college bills - and are not residents of that state - I don’t get to pay in-state tuition. Some schools even make you declare, under penalty, that your out-of-state parents are not paying for your schooling.
The entire reason we have in-state tuition is because it allows people who have been paying taxes in a state for many years to get a discounted rate on the schools in that state. More than likely, rulings like this will eliminate that deal.
I’m gonna claim I can’t prove my citizenship and my kid’s gonna get FL state tuition! Habla espanol?
I don’t get your point.
The student is a Florida resident and US citizen.
Why shouldn’t a US citizen get in-state tuition in the state he lives in?
He is neither a foreigner nor out of state student.
Now I am not defending illegals, because in California it is at the other extreme where you can be an illegal and not only get in-state tuition but a full ride grant to any public university and private money scholarships unconditionally, and you don’t have to demonstrate one cent of income earned or taxes paid.
I’m still constantly amazed that those on this site STILL omit the damning part of the 14th “..and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...”. Mommy & daddy aren’t legal = kids, no matter WHERE born, are illegal.
This is pandering, illegal and discriminating to the legal Citizenry of the U.S.A.
I don't think so. This case was about Florida residents who are U.S. citizens attending Florida colleges/universities. Not people moving from one state to another to attend college.
what do you mean?
I am still constantly amazed that there are some Freepers who can’t make a distinction between how the law actually operates and the way they think it should operate.
In theory, I agree with you, but what we want is the not same as what exists.
What cr@p, the 14th does not say that; it is what radical leftists want the 14th to say, so as to destroy our republic.
An illegal does not have the power to bestow citizenship on her offspring.
Newt was right. Congress should, for instance, disestablish the entire Ninth Circus and impeach about half a dozen judges per year.
Unless we get a few judicial scalps now and then, the blackrobes along with the administrative state will render the lawgivers, meaning us, into irrelevant serfs.
My son just started college at Texas A&M, and we live in California. We’re trying to figure out how to get him in state tuition.
We may make him independent of us at, and not declare him a dependent on our taxes.
He then has to work 8-10 hours a week at a job outside the college for a year.
The other way is for him to buy property. We’ve been thinking of giving him money, and then he can use that to buy property. We’re not sure about that right now. We need to really make sure about that.
We think we could give him money this year while he’s a dependent. Then next year, he can purchase property. He’ll have roommates, and he should be able to use that money to pay for college.
It doesn’t. They are pretending, rather shrewdly, that the states are denying them citizenship, since the criteria for lower rates is traditionally residency, which is associated with citizenship. But there’s nothing to say states can’t set standards for lower rates according to their own criteria. Why not residency and citizen parents?
I realize States have been penned in on all sides from “discriminating.” They can’t set standards according to race, gender, sexual preference, “disability,” ir a million other criteria. But there are all sorts of ways they do discriminate. Nit in tuition rates, maybe, but in who gets accepted or who gets and lians and what their terms are. Thid includes the feds, too, needless to say. How come age, academic ability, and your parental income determine how much you pay and whether you can get in? Ah, here we come to it. Because those are rational, PC, or whatever.
Parental citizenship status, contrarywise, judges plain don’t like. They’re icky or cryptically racist or something. And judges are free to chuck out laws that are icky
There is no good reason why foreigners violating our laws should get discounts. Jeesh.
This crap is mind blowing to me it is so absurd...I travel overseas on vacation, and have found places I would like to stay, live for 6-8 months a year and possibly even run a business - but there is NO WAY most of these countries will allow it; I’d be locked up in jail if I even tried....what part of ILLEGAL alien don’t people understand???
There is no 14 th amendment issue here, so far ad I know. You are gobblety-yoking it up just like the lib’s presumably on the basis that it sounds bad. But what’s actually going on? Florida is not denying citizenship status. Tuition rates are not set according to state citizenship in any case, but rather residency. Residency may traditionally go along with slciyizenship, butnit by definition.
Now, who says a state is allowed to set tuition rates lower for residents but not other criteria of their own design? Residence alone may be traditionally associated with lower rates, but that doesn’t mean States can’t add to it. I don’t see legally why Florida can’t include the citizenship status of your parents in determining eligibility for lower tuition rates.
So far as I can see they’re not saying you’re not a citizen of Florida. It’s just that that’s not enough. It never was, actually. It was always residency, not citizenship. And recently it was residency plus something else.
“Why shouldn’t a US citizen get in-state tuition in the state he lives in”
I can think of one good reason: state legislators have decided that’s not enough. Just because residence has been traditionally associated with lower tuition doesn’t mean States can’t add criteria. You may think they’re wrong or stupid or secretly racist for doing so, but that does not mean you or a set of judges can tell Florida otherwise.
I have no problem if the kid (who is a citizen of that state) is self-supporting, and getting in-state tuition. The problem is that most 18-year-olds are not self-supporting. If this kid is relying on money from his illegal (and non-tax-paying) parents for tuition, he is taking money from other tax payers to support his in-state tuition rate.
In-state tuition is a reduced fee for the taxpayers of that state because they partially fund the public schools of that state. Sure, the kid is a resident, but that’s irrelevant if the money supporting him comes from someone that doesn’t pay taxes.
This isn’t sustainable. If people can just declare residency in any state and then have their parents pay their bills, in-state tuition will be a thing of the past, especially in states that have a lot of public universities, where people migrate to for school (particularly from the northeast, where there aren’t a lot of public universities).
I have one little question for you. Are lower tuition rates part of state citizenship status? In the very least all across the country residence is also required. So no. No one is being stripped of citizenship. There is no 14th amendment issue. This law us not unconstitutional. It’s none of the judges’ business.
I mean the original intent of the 14th amendment was to stop bigoted Democrats in the south from denying citizenship to recently freed black slaves.
The original intent of the 14th amendment has been abandoned and has been abused.
For more on the original intent of the 14th amendment, I’ll refer you to this fine essay by Edward Erler of the Claremont Institute:
So a student whose parents are legal residents of Mexico is entitled to lower tuition in Florida than a student whose parents are legal residents of Alabama? Only a liberal could believe this makes sense.
I’m not sure about the federal constitutional issue, but why should an 18-year-old citizen be charged higher tuition because their parents aren’t in the country legally? Shouldn’t each person be judged by their own actions?
How does the state even do this? Would the student get in-state tuition if the parents flew back home? What if they then fly back to the state? Does this change the tuition back to a higher value?
I understand not giving in-state tuition to students who are illegally in the state, but I’m not sure I understand this parent thing.
Actually, the 14th amendment didn’t free anybody. It actually enslaves everybody who calls themselves “U S Citizens”.
There is a difference between a “U S Citizen” and an “American Citizen”.
Which one are you???
Fourteenth Amendment explained / Eric Williams
The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited
First - forget everything you ever knew about the Fourteenth
Amendment - then carefully read the below expose:
Take the Amendment’s opening clauses, “All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
Now, consider the same clauses with the central, explanatory clause
removed, and it then reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the
United States are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside...”
Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second
clause, “and under the jurisdiction thereof, “ is an explanatory
clause. Explanatory clauses do not add to nor in any way change or
alter the meaning of the writing in which they are included; their
purpose is to explain. As it is self evident that naturalized
persons volunteer into the jurisdiction of the United States as an
inherent aspect of their voluntary naturalization, the explanatory
clause obviously was not relevant thereto. Therefore the inclusion
of this explanatory clause is to clarify that persons born in the
United States, in deference to the Thirteenth Amendment, do not
become and are not, at the moment of their birth in the United
States, automatically citizens thereof because such newborn persons
are incapable of personally volunteering themselves into servitude.
I contend that the inclusion of “persons naturalized” was somewhat
Please note that when the explanatory words (”, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, “), are omitted, the entire impact and meaning
changes, or rather (and more correctly), the true meaning become
obfuscated. The explanatory clause, (”, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, “), clearly adds a second criteria necessary to
establishing citizenship and clearly indicates that there are two
distinctly separate criteria both of which must be met in order for
persons born in the United States to be classified or designated as
The words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “ clearly
provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the
United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not
automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United
(I strongly content that this includes all persons born in the United
States of parents when the parents themselves are citizens of the
United States. That is, no one becomes a citizen of the United States
just because the person is born in the United States. “Born in the
United States” and “born under the jurisdiction thereof” are not one
and the same as is commonly misunderstood. If the two statements
meant the same thing then only one would have been needed. Moreover,
the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude
prevents anyone from being designated to be a citizen of the United
States based merely on the location of the person’s birth in the
In regard to persons born in the United States there are two criteria
which must be met and complied with in order for persons born in the
United States to be designated as citizens of the United States, and
the second of the two preclude such citizenship from
being “automatic” or based on the mere “accident” (or contrivance,
as in the case of so called “anchor babies”), of the persons birth
in the United States. The two required criteria are (1), that the
persons be born in the United States (obvious), and, (2) that the
person born in the United States must also be subject to the
jurisdiction thereof (this criteria is universally, incorrectly and
erroneously presumed - read on:).
This second criteria is not and cannot be met merely by the location
of the persons birth, because, as set forth in the Fourth Article of
the Fourteenth Amendment, there is a requirement that citizens of the
United States not question the validity of the national debt. This
mandated provision clearly constitutes a condition of servitude,
therefore, in deference to and in recognition of the prohibition of
involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth Amendment, it becomes
abundantly clear that a person’s birth in the United States, by
itself, does NOT and cannot establish U.S. citizenship. Please read
An examination of the two subject amendments will expose a diabolical
plot; understand that the same legislators who wrote the Fourteenth
Amendment had, two years earlier, also written the Thirteenth
Amendment, wherein these same legislators prohibited involuntary
servitude - I am not aware of any claim by anyone or any court that
the Fourteenth Amendment in any way revoked or abolished any of the
provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Bearing in mind that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary
servitude; and while keeping this thought in mind, then consider this
wording contained in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment,
(in reference to citizens of the United States):
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by
law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties
for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
Or, to paraphrase the relevant part, “Citizens of the United States
shall not complain about being required to pay the public debt of the
United States, authorized by law...”.
Or, to cut to the chase, “Citizens of the United States - SHUT UP and
As paraphrased (but NOT wrongly interpreted), it becomes abundantly
clear and indisputable that this mandate in the Fourth Article of the
Fourteenth Amendment constitutes a condition of servitude - that is,
U.S. citizenship constitutes a condition of servitude - and, because
of the prohibition of involuntary servitude in the Thirteenth
Amendment, US citizenship must be voluntarily entered into and cannot
be acquired merely by birth.
So, with the foregoing examination and understanding in mind, it then
becomes clear why the citizenship clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
are phrased in the manner they are (implying U.S. citizenship by
birth but clearly unable to state such to be the case). If those
legislators who created the wording of these two amendments had been
honest, they would have written the Fourteenth Amendment somewhat as
“All persons born in the United States, who thereafter, upon
attaining the age of reason, then voluntarily elect to place
themselves under the jurisdiction thereof, such persons, by such
voluntary act, thereby voluntarily become citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside and in so volunteering,
such citizens agree to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the
United States in every respect and agree to pay the national debt
thereof, without complaint.”
The opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, “All persons
born or naturalized, “. Bear in mind that those who were held in
slavery had been kidnapped in their homeland and drug to the United
States against their will, in chains, and then forced into slavery
for many generations. Such acts as these, perpetrated on these
innocent kidnapped Africans, could not in any way be expected to
engender an attitude of gratitude and loyalty to the Government of
the United States - what would be your attitude if you were among
those who were freed at the end of Lincoln’s unconstitutional and
undeclared war (just in case you thought Bush was the first to ignore
the applicable Constitutional provisions)??
Due to the conditions the African slaves had been subjected to
preceding their emancipation, the former slaves had every reason to
despise the United States. Additionally, naturalization (also
included in the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment),
requires a renunciation of the candidates former foreign sovereign
and a willingness to take an oath swearing an allegiance to the
United States. Naturalization requires a study of and a knowledge
of the Constitution. The vast majority of the former slaves were
totally illiterate, so, for the most part, none of them were in any
way desirable as candidates for naturalization and it would have been
ludicrous to expect that any of them would seek naturalization, and I
am not aware of even one instance where such occurred. And none of
this has even the slightest bearing on the fact that the former
slaves were black.
In response to the foregoing there are those who claim that the
former slaves gained U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment
because, during the so called reconstruction period, imposed upon the
Southern States after the end of Lincoln’s illegal war, the former
slaves were then under the jurisdiction of the United States and that
is what made them U.S. citizens. This claim is spurious at best as
the purported applicable clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
addressing “those persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof [of the
United States]”, is specifically limited to and is only applicable to
those persons BORN in the United States - and is not applicable those
who found themselves under the jurisdiction thereof due to the result
of an unconstitutional and illegal war. (All of the adult former
slaves had been born (albeit - as a result of kidnapping), under the
jurisdiction of the (southern) state wherein they were born. Some
may have even been born in a foreign country where from they were
As to those babies actually born of freed slaves during the so called
reconstruction period, such children could still not be classified as
citizens of the United States (due to their birth) because of the
servitude mandated in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment
as a specific condition of U.S. citizenship; all this in deference to
the prohibition of involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth
Amendment. Before such children could become U.S. citizens they
would have to wait until they reached the age of reason and then they
would have to volunteer themselves into such status. I contend that
none ever did so, certainly not knowingly.
I cannot imagine that any sane former slave who fully understood the
provisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments would freely
volunteer into a condition of servitude which is part and parcel of
United States citizenship. For that matter, neither can I imagine
such would be the freewill choice of any sane white person born in
the United States (this disparagement is not in any way applicable to
foreign nationals who immigrate to the U.S. and apply for
Having unraveled the insidious intent hidden in the Fourteenth
Amendment it becomes abundantly clear that the purpose of the
Fourteenth Amendment was/is to con persons of all races into
volunteering themselves into a condition of servitude under the
jurisdiction of the United States
There is widespread belief that the purpose and intent of the
Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a citizenship status for the
freed slaves and at the time of the promulgation of the Fourteenth
Amendment such purpose was even publicly claimed by those who drafted
the citizenship clauses - but if such was the case then why is any
suggestion or implication thereof totally absent from the said
clauses?? Why did the framers thereof not write:
“All persons born in the United States or any territory thereof, or
born in any of the several states, being of African extraction, who
desire to become citizens hereof, shall be accorded every
opportunity to meet and comply with the rules of naturalization on
the same basis of any white immigrant, without any restriction due to
their former condition of involuntary servitude or slavery, nor shall
such applicants be subject to any naturalization quotas.”
And, just to make sure that it is clearly understood, there is no
such thing as an “anchor baby” (babies born in the United States of
illegal alien mothers).
So, if persons born in the United States do not volunteer into U.S.
citizen servitude status - what then is their political status??
Well, as for me, I am of the Posterity of the People of the United
States. “People of the United States” and “citizen of the United
States” are not in any way the same!!! This begs an examination as
to what it is that constitutes a republican form of government - and
that will be the subject of a future discussion.
I suggest skeptics read Chief Justice John Jay’s dicta in Chisholm
vs. Georgia (2US 419 - 1794), the Preamble to the Constitution, and
the First and Second amendments, paying particular attention to the
use of the words “joint tenants in the sovereignty”,
“people”, “ourselves and our posterity”, and, the absence of the
Now let’s see what the supreme court says about the 2 different types of citizens.....
The Three United States
In the previous chapter, a handy matrix was developed to organize the key terms which define the concepts of status and jurisdiction as they apply to federal income taxation. In particular, an alien is any individual who is not a citizen of the “United States**”. The term “citizen” has a specific legal meaning in the Code of Federal Regulations (”CFR”) which promulgate the Internal Revenue Code (”IRC”):
Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.
[26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]
What, then, is meant by the term “United States” and what is meant by the phrase “its jurisdiction”? In this regulation, is the term “United States” a singular phrase, a plural phrase, or is it both?
The astute reader has already noticed that an important clue is given by regulations which utilize the phrase “its jurisdiction”. The term “United States” in this regulation must be a singular phrase, otherwise the regulation would need to utilize the phrase “their jurisdiction” or “their jurisdictions” to be grammatically correct.
As early as the year 1820, the U.S. Supreme Court was beginning to recognize that the term “United States” could designate either the whole, or a particular portion, of the American empire. In a case which is valuable, not only for its relevance to federal taxes, but also for its terse and discrete logic, Chief Justice Marshall exercised his characteristic brilliance in the following passage:
The power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States* than Maryland or Pennsylvania ....
[Loughborough v. Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317]
[5 L.Ed. 98 (1820), emphasis added]
By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall’s singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term “United States” can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:
The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses.  It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.  It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, or  it may be the collective name of the states*** which are united by and under the Constitution.
[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]
This same Court authority is cited by Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of “United States”:
United States. This term has several meanings.  It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations,  it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or  it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]
In the first sense, the term “United States*” can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The “United States*” is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where “U.S.*” refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this “United States*” as follows:
1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a “Citizen of the United States*.” This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital “C” in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
Secondly, the term “United States**” can also refer to “the federal zone”, which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term “United States**” is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, “The United States** is ...” or “Its jurisdiction is ...” and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:
2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the “United States**” the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
Thirdly, the term “United States***” can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term “United States***” does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term “United States***” is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, “These United States***” or “The United States*** are ...” and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these “United States***” as follows:
3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.
[Which One Are You?, pages 11-12]
Author and scholar Lori Jacques summarizes these three separate governmental jurisdictions in the same sequence, as follows:
It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States** and sovereign states of the United States*** of America are NOT joined under the title of “United States.” The president represents the sovereign United States* in foreign affairs through treaties, Congress represents the sovereign United States** in Territories and Possessions with Rules and Regulations, and the state citizens are the sovereignty of the United States*** united by and under the Constitution .... After becoming familiar with these historical facts, it becomes clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(9), the term “United States**” is defined in the second of these senses as stated by the Supreme Court: it designates the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends.
[A Ticket to Liberty, Nov. 1990, pages 22-23]
sorry, that post was too long. you should have summarized it and provided a link.
Unfortunately I didn’t bookmark the link to the first part.
That was captured during my infant stages of using a computer.
It is well worth reading though.
Sounds to me like you want to perpetrate a fraud on the school and Texans. He’s clearly not a resident. Stop looking for ways to game the system. If you can afford to give him money to buy property you can certainly afford to pay Texas A&M the actual out of state tuition its rightfully due.
The kid is an American citizen and a legal resident, whatever you think of the parents. FL’s law doesn’t make sense in light of prior court rulings.
We are not trying to perpetuate a fraud. Those are the rules for being a resident of Texas.
My son wants to live in Texas after graduating. His bank account is in Texas. He’s gonna be voting in Texas. He’s transferring his car to be registered in Texas.
He has to wait a whole entire year, and actually it will probably be more like a year and a half before he applies to be a Texas resident.
Personally, I think it’s strange that he will be going through the legal steps for establishing residency, but someone can can be in Texas illegally and get in-state tuition.
Moore also noted that undocumented parents help pay for education through state sales and other taxes just as do parents who are U.S. citizens.
State Rep. Hazelle Rogers, a Lauderhill Democrat who sponsored legislation to scrap the policy, said the ruling comes as welcome news.
“The bottom line is simple: a U.S. citizen should be treated like a U.S. citizen no matter who their parents are,” Rogers said.
If his parents were felons he would get in state tuition. In state tuition should be for US American citizens which is what this student is. He is also a Florida resident.
The law, if it cannot be followed by the simple English, is moot and ineffective. It is either the sum or nothing at all.
I don’t recall reading, so someone may be able to school me proper, of any case/appeal where (like the 2nd) the ‘meat’ of the clause was blatantly misconstrued or misapplied....
If the judges ‘finally’ rule the 2nd to be nothing more than words, would you still also say “Well, it is what it is”??
If twisted logic and personal feelings can continued to be made ‘law’, law stands for nothing. I guess I’m going to have to start calling/mailing some State positions to find why Apples != Apples....