California Illegal Immigrants Entitled To In-State Tuition, Court Says

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MrX8503

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2005
4,529
0
0
Illegal immigrants should not receive benefits of any kind as they are not our responsibility. If you're in this country, do it legally.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Oh no! They have to pay in-state tuition instead of out-of-state tuition. The sky is falling!

Not counting Books and other expenses UC Berkeley is $14K a Year for out of state ($56K for a degree), $6,500 in-state ($26K). So yes - That's a significant difference.

http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/admissions/cost_fees.shtml#1


...and right on that same page, they list the requirements to be considered a resident. So at worst, any not~completely~brain dead student would have to pay 1 year non-resident and would then convert to resident.

Legal Residency and Fees

Students are classified as residents or nonresidents after completing the Statement of Legal Residence shortly after being admitted to the university. Many graduate students (U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and some eligible non-immigrants) who enter UC Berkeley as nonresidents and establish residency for the required year may be classified as residents for tuition purposes within one year after their arrival. These students then receive the benefit of paying fees at the lower resident rate.

The classification process is not automatic. Continuing nonresident students who have made California their permanent home and believe that they are eligible for resident status must submit a residency classification petition, along with supporting documentation, to the Residence Affairs Office prior to established deadlines. Even though nonresident students will probably not submit a petition to change their residency status until the end of their first academic year at Berkeley, you must start the process of fulfilling the residency requirements as soon as you arrive. This includes documenting when you arrived, that your year of physical presence in this state is coupled with your intent to make California your home, and that you are financially independent.

What should you do once you arrive in California?

Document your presence in the state as soon as you arrive. Save your airline ticket or bank/credit card statements showing that you were physically present in California one year prior to the beginning of the term for which you are seeking resident classification.

Establish a California residence in which you keep your permanent belongings.
Obtain a California Driver’s License within 10 days of arriving in California. If you have never had a driver’s license in any state, obtain a California State Identification Card.

Surrender all out-of-state driver’s license and identification cards.

Register your vehicle(s) in California within 20 days of arriving in the state.

Register to vote in California, and vote in California elections.

- Pay California income taxes as a resident on all taxable income earned after your arrival in California, and file California resident or part-year resident tax returns.

- File nonresident or part-year resident out-of-state tax returns if you have out-of-state taxable income prior to arriving in California.

- Designate and use a California address as your permanent address on all records (e.g., school, employment, tax forms, military, etc.).

- Open a California bank account and close all out-of-state accounts. If your financial account is with an interstate or internet bank, change your permanent address to California.

- Remaining in California during non-academic periods is a strong indicator of your intent to make California your home. You will be required to document that you were physically present in California for at least 2 of the 3 months during the summer previous to the term for which you are petitioning for residency.

Financial independence is another factor in determining eligibility for residency for tuition purposes. If you will be over the age of 24 during the year that you are petitioning for resident status, then you have fulfilled the financial independence criterion. Otherwise, you should do the following:

- Claim yourself as a tax exemption on your state and federal tax returns, and make sure no other individual claims you as a tax exemption on his/her tax returns; or

- Work as a GSI/GSR at least 49 percent time for the semester for which you are petitioning for residency.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
If they can prove residency whats the problem?
If we aren't going to throw them out we might as well take their money and educate them!
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
If they can prove residency whats the problem?
If we aren't going to throw them out we might as well take their money and educate them!

Again, tuition for UCs and CSUs do not cover the cost of the education. They are heavily subsidised by taxes. Admitting people who should not be there costs California a shit-pile of money.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Again, tuition for UCs and CSUs do not cover the cost of the education. They are heavily subsidised by taxes. Admitting people who should not be there costs California a shit-pile of money.

Probably the best thing that could happen at this point is many thousands of Immigrant applicants at UC. :sneaky:
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,685
7,186
136
Pretty soon the California Board of Education will require all students to be fluent in a newly approved State of California second language: English.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,597
7,656
136
Wow, all the people who don't live in California and have never lived in California sure have a lot of interesting things to say!

And by interesting, I mean stupid.

Born and raised there. California is dead to me. I hope you stay there, you're in for a treat.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Again, tuition for UCs and CSUs do not cover the cost of the education. They are heavily subsidised by taxes. Admitting people who should not be there costs California a shit-pile of money.
According to this, for 2008-2009, the state provided $3.256 billion to the UCs. Total funding is "nearly $19 billion... from all sources at its 10 campuses".
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
As long as California is not rounding up illegals and deporting them, then they should have to allow them to go to school at the in-state rate. This is how it works. They could always round up all illegals and start to deport them all. You can not have it both ways.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,282
9,366
146
Illegals getting benefits while citizens in good standing get shoved to the side.

Thank you "progressives".

A unanimous state Supreme Court, led by politically conservative Justice Ming Chin, said the California provision was constitutional because U.S. residents also had access to the reduced rates

Don't let the facts get in the way of your bullshit political slander.

I challenge you to admit you were wrong. Even though the facts straight up contradict you, I doubt you will. You lack the personal honesty, troll.

Prove me wrong. Simply admit the appalling ignorance of your mistake.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,547
2,759
136
The California SCOTUS lacks the authority to rule wrt the issue of federal law, entirely. The law allowing illegal residents in state tuition does not violate the California constitution, per their ruling. If the anti- immigrant plaintiffs want to pursue the matter further, they can do it in federal court, or take it up with the California legislature. That issue has not been decided.

None of the usual raving means a damned thing, other than being illustrative of the ignorance of the ravers.

Ummmm....no. The CA appellate court ruled that the CA law violated the Constitution (ya know, the Federal one) by giving non-citizens rights not afforded to citizens. The CASC overturned that ruling (that the law violated the Constitution, the Federal one) on the basis that since the CA law never mentioned residency it was not in violation of the Constitution (the Federal one).

Challenges to the constitutionality of State laws brought by citizens begin in State courts and wind their way up to the State Supreme Court before being appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. This had absolutely nothing to do with CA's state Constitution. Did you even read the article?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,836
49,538
136
So much is wrong with this statement. Why dont we just let Mexico annex the US at this point. Jesus Christ.

I like how you were able to pinpoint there was something wrong with the statement, but your ability to figure out what exactly that wrong thing was needs some work.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
As long as California is not rounding up illegals and deporting them, then they should have to allow them to go to school at the in-state rate. This is how it works. They could always round up all illegals and start to deport them all. You can not have it both ways.

That's the federal government's job, not California's. Immigration is federal domain. Every time southwestern states try to do something about it they are cockblocked at the federal level.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,459
987
126
This case is never going to be granted cert. by SCotUS. The lawyer in this case goes around trying to get these state law overturned. He's batting .000.

Texas was the first state to do this in 2001. Kansas was the first to have its law challenged. Federal District Courts ok'ed the statute in the Kansas case as out of state students have no standing to bring suit about illegals getting instate tuition. It was then affirmed by 10th. Cert. denied by SCotUS.

The federal statute is meant to be about non-citizens getting federal aid. States have the right to say who gets in-state tuition not the federal government.

If anything would be unconstitutional it would be the CA Court of Appeals interpretation of the law. Fed. Govt. does not have a legal right to dictate terms of instate tuition.

Its the law of the land in CA, as well as Texas and 8 other states. This case will not be granted cert. There is no conflict amongst the states or the courts. I can see it getting taken up in other future cases if other courts disagree with the current prevailing sentiment amongst the state and federal courts who have ruled on this issue. Its not going to get overturned by the SCotUS.

Honestly, its a stupid issue to argue about. The number of hispanics going to college is extremely small. The subset who are illegal aliens/undocumented aliens are extremely tiny. In Texas it is less than 1% of college students. It cost Texas $33million of 4 years(2004-2008). I'm surprised twits aren't arguing about illegals in the public education system. Oh wait that was decided by SCotUS in 1982. Children of illegal aliens were not the ones who committed the crime of entering the country illegally. They should not be punished for their parents actions. They should not be forced to go to a place they have never lived, nor denied an education to be a productive member of society.
 
Last edited:

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,823
10,361
136
That's the federal government's job, not California's. Immigration is federal domain. Every time southwestern states try to do something about it they are cockblocked at the federal level.

please explain what is wrong with a state enforcing federal law. as long as the state is in compliance with federal law, why should it be left to *only* the feds, who are clearly not doing their job sufficiently, to process ICE-related issues?
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
While I am 100% against illegal immigration, if California voters want to elected politicians who enact these laws, that is well within the states prerogative.

When it comes down to it, this is a states rights issue. However, if the federal government has to jump in and bail the state out at a later date, this all changes.

The California voters get what they deserve. Jobs and wealth will continue to flow out of the state while the "progressive" majority vote for idiot politicians who enact such laws.
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
please explain what is wrong with a state enforcing federal law. as long as the state is in compliance with federal law, why should it be left to *only* the feds, who are clearly not doing their job sufficiently, to process ICE-related issues?

Do you know what the difference between a normative and positive statement is? I'm not saying it should be this way, but that it is. We can change the law but acting like California deserves all its illegals is silly (which is basically what the previous poster did). Californians have repeatedly tried to legislate against illegals but the feds have let them down.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
The California voters get what they deserve. Jobs and wealth will continue to flow out of the state while the "progressive" majority vote for idiot politicians who enact such laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187_(1994)

Please get a clue. Have you ever heard of Prop 187?

A FEDERAL court stopped California from enacting the statute:

The court said:

"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."

Again, Californians have long fought against illegal immigration. California might have been better off if it left the union but hey you can't just ignore federal courts...
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187_(1994)

Please get a clue. Have you ever heard of Prop 187?

A FEDERAL court stopped California from enacting the statute:

The court said:



Again, Californians have long fought against illegal immigration. California might have been better off if it left the union but hey you can't just ignore federal courts...

I am far from clueless on proposition 187 and very much support its intent..
That was in 1994 when California still had a clue.
The federal appeals court decision was going to be thrown out by the Supreme Court but then the "progressive" Gray Davis, decided not to file an appeal. We all know how much "progressives" liek Gray Davis hate states rights.

In any event, the mood of CA has shifted in the past 16 years and the people of CA clearly want to chalk out large chunks of money to support criminals.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |