Children of Illegal Immigrants Sue Florida Over State’s College Tuition Policy

By Candice Leigh Helfand

MIAMI, Fla. (CBS Tampa) — Children of illegal immigrants living in Florida are suing the state for charging them out-of-state tuition.

Wendy Ruiz, a sophomore at Miami Dade College, is one of those behind the lawsuit.

She is paying $5,000 more than she technically has to, because her college insisted upon charging her out-of-state tuition when her parents were unable to produce legal immigration documents.

Ruiz was born in the United States, and has lived in Florida her entire life. As such, she is both an American and Florida citizen in the eyes of the law.

“It’s so unfair,” she told CBS Tampa. “I was born here. This makes no sense.”

Rather than keeping quiet, Ruiz chose to take action. She and five other college-age Floridians are now involved in a class-action lawsuit that seeks to overturn the rule.

Miriam Haskell of the Southern Poverty Law Center is working on the case.

“We believe strongly that young people … should be treated equally, and have a right to access education,” Haskell stated to CBS Tampa. “(This policy) is deterring not just Wendy and the four other plaintiffs, but scores of others in Florida.”

Gerard Robinson, the Florida Commissioner of Education, and Frank T. Brogan, the Chancellor of the State University System, are listed as the defendants in this case.

When CBS Tampa called the Florida Department of Education, the press office said they could not comment on pending litigation.

Haskell said that the case has been filed in federal court.

“This policy violates the federal constitution. This is not a state statute,” she said. “It violates the equal protection clause, which guarantees equal rights for all United States citizens. The constitution doesn’t make exceptions based on who the parents are.”

In the meantime, Ruiz is doing her best to continue with her education despite the thousands of dollars she must now pay in tuition costs.

“I have financial aid … (but) the rest I pay out of pocket,” she said. “During the week I work at the school in administrative services, and on the weekends I tutor, I babysit … I’ve been a waiter, and had other jobs.”

To make time for her jobs, Ruiz said that she has assumed part-time student status, and is presently taking eight credits in the form of three courses.

Haskell noted that, though her schedule is sometimes grueling, Ruiz is still fortunate.

“Some are able to make ends meet. Some try to do later education, or take a longer time with their education,” she said. “But hundreds are completely deterred from going at all. Three of the plaintiffs (in this case) are unable to attend at all.”

The hope is to resolve the issue and see this rule reversed before it reaches trial.

“We’ve reached out to them, and given them the opportunity to talk with us before moving forward,” Haskell said. “(They have not done so) yet, but it hasn’t been too long.”

According to NPR, State Rep. Reggie Fullwood (D-15) has introduced legislation that would grant access to in-state tuition rates to qualifying citizens, regardless of the immigration status of his or her parents.

“You know I would be extremely happy if we didn’t have to push this legislation, if there was some policy fix or some administrative fix that could be done,” Fullwood told NPR. “I would be one of the happiest people around.”

Ruiz is optimistic that the situation will resolve itself in a way that allows for more affordable opportunities for her and others in her situation. Until then, she’s not backing down.

“This is not stopping me from coming to school. I want to have a bright future ahead of me,” she said. “This (situation) is making me strong and more independent, and more willing to speak my voice.”

Added Ruiz, “It makes me more determined to what I want to become.”

Comments

One Comment

  1. paolo says:

    F them, charge them double and then deport them!

      1. Gibbs Bentley says:

        Freeze all of Mexico’s assets in US banks to pay for this and all other costs … now.

        http://911essentials.com

      2. Ladyvarn says:

        Agree! If Mexico not only encourages but is a co-conspirator with the coyotes to get their citizens here illegally, We COULD AND SHOULD take all mexican assets i this country to mediate the damage done byillegal aliens.

    1. Ben says:

      We have gone stark raving mad it seems……………..

      1. VIVA LA RAZA! SI SE PUEDE! says:

      2. MaPe1024 says:

        Stark raving mad is Perry shelling out $100k PER ILLEGAL to go to college in Texas. Call me heartless, but that makes absolutely no sense. I say we all go take a squat in his yard and ask him for tax-payers dollars while he “creates jobs” to clean up the mess.

        Preposterous!

      3. roger parry says:

        RWP

        Immediately deport the parents and then charge the daughter in-state tuition

    2. ChangoMango says:

      Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Although you can’t deport this student she is a U.S. citizen (by law only as I’m willing to bet she hates this county, people and traditions and blesses her parents homeland) you can certainly deport her illegal parents. Unfortunatly we’re sewing the seeds of our own destruction becuase when she graduates and earns an advanced degree, she, along with thousands of other anchor babies with American college education, will work to legalize their family members and further flood our country with millions of citizens from failed countries with failed traditilons, failed cultrues, failed ethics and failed morals.

      1. Horice Sheet says:

        She is NOT a legal citizen by law. Merely being born here does not qualify one for automatic citizenship. One of the parents must be a legal citizen.

      2. Daniel says:

        No, Horace, read the Fourteenth Amendment; being born here makes her a citizen.

        On the other hand, I was born within the United States, but if I tried to go to school in Florida (or any of 48 other states) then I’d have to pay out-of-state tuition.

      3. NY9Solyndra says:

        Horace said: “She is NOT a legal citizen by law. Merely being born here does not qualify one for automatic citizenship. One of the parents must be a legal citizen.”

        False. As Daniel says, read the 14th Amendment.

        However, 14 was enacted to provide citizenship to slaves and their children. It was NOT intended to apply to those who came here of their own free will and without going through the legal process.

      4. Frank says:

        No Daniel, you read the 14th. Both parents have to be US citizens in order for the child to be a US citizen. It’s be subverted by the progressives who hate this country.

      5. bh says:

        The issue has never beeen decided by the Supreme Court and the Constitution does not give automatic citizenship upon birth.

      6. Daniel says:

        here it is, Frank: “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 they reside.” The only people born here not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are the children of those with diplomatic immunity.

      7. Todd says:

        14th Amendment applied to slaves, not illegal aliens. Writings from Congress and from the times prove it. She should be deported along with her family.

      8. Sterling says:

        You sir, are correct! It was also upheld in US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, where the US Supreme Court ruled that if parents who are here illegally, without visa, have children, those children do not receive citizenship.

      9. Nosympathyforillegals says:

        Deport her parents, she just made the Government aware of where they are.

      10. The1 says:

        Yelling fire in a movie theater is not freedom of speech nor is committing a crime protected by the constitution.

      11. Daniel says:

        Sterling—

        The practice of claiming that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says leaves with people rewriting to suit themselves. Sometimes those people are on the Supreme Court, which has more than once reversed itself, so let’s not pick-and-choose court cases to suit ourselves.

        Each of the authors may have differing intents, and each of the ratifying legislators may have different intents. What counts are exactly the actual words with the prevailing definitions at the time of passage. If you think that the authors expressed themselves so badly as to have said something quite other than they meant, then your recourse is another Amendment.

      12. chowthen says:

        What do you mean by citizen by law? Are you pertaining to the 14th amendment of the constitution? Read it carefully and I think it should go to the supreme court and actually make an interpretation of this clause:

        “Section. 1. 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 they reside.”

        The part that says subject to the jurisdiction is the key to the interpretation of citizenship. Since the parents are not US citizens an not under the jurisdiction of the US thus the child is also not a US citizen. As an example a foreign person traveling thru the US and gave birth does that mean is a US citizen? What about foreign diplomats giving birth in the US does it mean the child is a US citizen?

      13. Daniel says:

        chowthen—

        To be *subject* to a jurisdiction is not the same as being *citizen* of that jurisdiction (otherwise, the 14th Amendment would circularly define citizens as citizens). To be *subject* to a jurisdiction is to be *subject* to its laws. Anyone in a jurisdiction *except* those with diplomatic immunity is subject to that jurisdiction, as has repeatedly been noted.

        So, yes, someone just passing through could bear a child, and that child would be a citizen, unless the person passing through had diplomatic immunity.

      14. Fritz Lentz says:

        if she was born here where is the birth cert

      15. John says:

        To horice sheet the constitution states born or naturalized to be a citizen. Nothing about the parents is needed to be a citizen. In fact if her parents were deported when she was a baby and she lived her whole life in another country then came to the US and lived in FL long enough to claim citizenship she would be entitle to in state rates just as if she had moved from Nebraska or Kansas. Birth = citizen but that does not give the parents a right to stay.

      16. chowthen says:

        Daniel I disagree with your interpretation of under the jurisdiction. A foreign person traveling thru the country has to obey the laws of the country but they are not necessarily under the jurisdiction (or subject as in under the command of the king) of the US.

        I’m sorry we can argue about this till we’re blue but we’ll never be able to resolve it. The only solution to me is to have congress make an amendment either to abolish the 14th amendment or to clarify the meaning.

      17. Daniel says:

        chowthen—

        Illegal immigrants are indeed legally required to obey the legal commands of officials in the US. They are *subject* to its jurisdiction while in it. And, as I said, an Amendment that said that used “subject” to mean “citizen” and declared that any subject were a citizen would accomplish absolutely nothing.

        I don’t need you to concede anything; I just want some of the other readers to see that you’re quite wrong.

      18. b says:

        Arrogant Daniel refuses to concede that there is another reasonable view. In fact, the author of the 14th Amendment’s text regarding citizenship, Sen. Howard, said that it specifically excluded foreigners like today’s Mexican illegals. This was keeping perfectly in line with previously passed laws. Go look it up on Wikipedia if you don’t believe me.

        What happened is that judges simply incorrectly interpreted the plain language and history of the 14th Amendment and related US laws. So now we are stuck with the idiotic situation of people who hate this country and who have no ties to it getting to claim citizenship based on birth tourism and anchor babys. Outrageous!

        The fundamental fact that open borders advocates cannot avoid is that the modern welfare state is incompatible with uncontrolled immigration. You can’t have both leftists. Pick one way or the other to ruin the country.

      19. BadWhisky says:

        The 14th amendment grants citizenship if one is born here. It need to be changed though. The 14th amendments purpose was to patriate slave after the civil war, all those who needed to be patriated are long since dead and buried. No other country on earth will allow you to enter the country simply to bear a child for the purpose of obtaining that child citizenship. We have a real problem with this, the Mexicans doing this are a minor issue in comparison to the middle easterners coming in on medical visa’s for this express purpose, at least the Mexicans are Christian (Oh my I will get plugged for that one).

      20. Adam says:

        In regards to whether or not the children of illegals born in the US are citizens, the facts are that under constitutional law they are not, but under case law they are.

        In a footnote by a supreme court justice on a dissenting opinion a reference was made to that justice’s personal opinion that birth within the borders of the US grants citizenship. I believe this was in the early 80’s.

        Prior to that footnote, there was no such thing as birthright citizenship. The liberals, however, saw the opportunity for a significant increase in potential voter ranks and quickly pushed this as Supreme Court opinion and it has since taken on the status of case law, upheld in court, without any legislative law to support it.

        Judges legislating from the bench are an epidemic in this country that just adds to the corruption of the political system. I agree that the intent of the founders should be respected and these students deported, allowed back in only after they have acquired a student visa. The law, however, due to this corrupt system grants them US Citizenship. It does not, however, grant them state citizenship as the state laws would come into play there. As such out of state tuition would be appropriate unless Florida law regarding citizenship has been met by these students.

      21. Sterling says:

        I believe US v. Wong Kim Ark settles the whole thing. Wong’s parents were in the United States LEGALLY. They were conducting business in the San Fran area, which means they had some kind of visa or whatever was necessary in the 1860-70s. IMHO, I believe that if someone is here on a visa, and they happen to have a child, then that child is a citizen. However, it the parents come here illegally, and have a child, then the child is a citizen of whatever country the parents are from.

      22. Adam says:

        In the end if these types of behaviors continue the schools will have little choice to abolish in-state vs out-of-state tuition, and just charge a higher rate for all the in-state students to compensate. The left in their attempt to champion the cause of a perceived “victim” will make all those trying to do what is right suffer to accommodate their confused vision of social justice.

      23. Daniel says:

        b—

        As I already noted, the *intents* of the authors and the *intents* of the legislators who voted for ratification can be at odds each with the other. And if any *intent* counted, it would be that of the latter — if they could be made to agree. The intentions of those who actually ratified the Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) aren’t really observable; their words suggested that supporters did not agree amongst themselves.

        That leaves us with the actual words of the Constitution. And it is *plain* language that declares that anyone born here and not insulated from the laws of the US is a citizen. Calling me arrogant won’t change that.

        You are, at least, absolutely correct that the modern welfare state cannot endure open borders. And it cannot long endure anything like the present immigration policy of the US.

      24. krp says:

        @chowthen
        About 20 years ago on the local news in Miami there was a human interest story about a German couple that was on vacation in Miami and the woman went into pre-mature labor and gave birth in Miami.
        At the end of the story the reporter reported, that the baby was granted U.S. citizenship.
        So yes, children born to parents traveling through the United State ARE automatically given U.S. Citizenship.

        Foreign diplomats on the other hand are under the jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns – on official government business – and so are NOT given citizenship. The embassies are technically foreign soil anyway, and they diplomat fall under the “foreign juristdiction” clause of the 14th amendment.

      25. Exton1 says:

        Dan,,,For almost 150 years there was no question what the 14th Amendment means, and it does not apply to illegal aliens and their children. The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. They only gained any status, when out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” If you are right this means that an illegal mother gives citizenship to her child by the mere fact of crossing the border illegally. You are also saying that you can gain benefits from breaking a law. Your view, and all Liberal/Marxist, basically dilutes American Citizenship. If the illegal voted Republican, the borders would be closed within a week.

      26. Daniel says:

        Exton1—

        Your bad analysis includes bad arithmetic. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868; 1982 was 114 years later, not “almost 150 years”.

        I have repeatedly explained why invocation of alleged *intent* cannot resolve the question of the effect of this amendment. Again: If any intent is relevant, it is the intentions of the ratifiers (not of the authors, who could not themselves amend the Constitution), and the intentions of the ratifiers were diverse and are largely unrecoverable. We must go with the plain language of the Amendment. There is little question that it was provoked in the first place by the issue of former slaves and of their children, but the Amendment, which could have been written very specifically (to refer only to former slaves and to their descendants as such), was instead written very broadly. You may regret that, but that’s simply how it is.

        Indeed, a pregnant woman can come to the United States just in time to give birth to a child, and thereby grab US citizenship for that child. The fact that you actively *dislike* that doesn’t make it not so. Even if everyone here agreed that it were a Bad Thing, that wouldn’t make it not so. (The Constitution has had various Amendments that I’m sure were bad, such as the 16th, 17th, and (for a time) 18th Amendments. They are or were none-the-less active parts of the Constitution.)

        Your need to imagine that your opponents are “Liberal/Marxist” does you no credit.

      27. The Basics says:

        “Indeed, a pregnant woman can come to the United States just in time to give birth to a child, and thereby grab US citizenship for that child.”

        Assuming they came legally then that is true but when their visa is up, they have to leave and take their child with them. They can apply for citizenship just like any other immigrant does.

        If immigration laws were followed, this young girl would not be in this bad situation.

      28. Daniel says:

        The Basics—

        Insisting that the law is whatever you wish it to be won’t get you very far; and that point includes the highest formal law, the US Constitution.

        The Fourteenth Amendment is perfectly silent about visas except in-so-far as they may acknowledge diplomatic status (which would deny, rather than confer, citizenship to the child). The rest of the legal apparatus accepts that a child born here to an illegal immigrant is a citizen, even if the mother came here for the sole purpose of grabbing that status for her child.

      29. Gremlin says:

        She probably has the Mexican flag hanging proudly at her house.

      30. Joe says:

        Daniel is completely incorrect:

        “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 they reside.[3]“
        Not so fast, the men who wrote this said very plainly that people born here, who were under the jurisdiction of another nation, unless their parents were naturalized, are not citizens.
        Read the actual debate: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

        During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding Indians, who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[3]

        Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now”[3] and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment.[4][5][3]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

      31. american says:

        SHE IS NOT A CITIZEN THE DOCTRINE OF THE FRUIT OF THE POISOMOUS TREE STATES THAT ANYTHING FLOWING FROM THE POISONOUS TREE I.E. CRIMINAL FEDERAL FELON ILLEGALS IS ALSO ILLEGAL .IE. THEIR CHILDREN ARE ALSO ILLEGAL!!!!!! THIS LAW IS PRECEDENT AND APPLIES TO EVERY CRIMINAL ILLEGAL FEDERAL FELON AND EVERY ONE OF THEIR KIDS. THIS IS CALDERONS PROBLEM AND RESPONSIBILITY NOT AMERICAS = WE NEED TO SUE MEXICO FOR THE $400 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR THESE CRIMINAL ILLEGAL FEDERAL FELONS RAPE STEAL ROM AMERICA AND AMERICANS. SHE NEED S TO GO BACK TO MEXICO AND GET HER OLLEGE MONEY FROM CALDERON IN MEXICO,

      32. JD says:

        He birth in the US by illegal immigrants is not what the Fedearl law on citizenship means. She is not a citizen and should have NEVER been given that status, along with hundreds of thousands of others like her. She, along with her parents, should be coutner sued, arrested and be deported. This madness MUST stop and NOW! I hope you hear me Gov. Perry!!!! And Mr. Obama. I do not have a President.

      33. drljr says:

        She is not a citizen. Amendment 14 requires one to be subject to the jurisdiction. She is not since her parents are illegal aliens. The whole family is comprised of illegal aliens.

        These cases are important to understanding Amendment 14

        Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
        United States v Wong Kim Ark 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898)

      34. drljr says:

        To the comments in this subthread. “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to citizenship and allegiance to the country not criminal law. This is common mistake people make. Illegal aliens, visitor, and diplomats do not produce citizens. They are fall under the same issue – they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. This issue was discussed in detail in

        Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
        United States v Wong Kim Ark 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898)

        In particular Elk, a native American, renounced his citizenship/allegiance to his tribe and said he was now a US citizen. It was determined that just because he was born in the US and left his tribe (a subjugated nation) he was not a citizen. To become a US citizen he would have to be naturalized. Note:This changed in 1924 when Congress passed a law under the provisions of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4.

        Based upon the information in the article she is an illegal alien and should never have been admitted in the first place. She and her siblings are illegal aliens and would be citizens of the parents country of origin depending upon the laws of the parents country. The children may even be stateless – having citizenship of no country.

        The only way she could be a citizen if she can point to an Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 law.

      35. Restless says:

        Well said!

      36. krp says:

        The Page Act of 1875 was the first federal immigration law and it was targeted at Chinese in California. While there were previous laws that dealt with NATURALIZATION, this was the first law in U.S. history that dealt with IMMIGRATION. What means that prior to 1875 the concept of “illegal immigrant” was not even a consideration. There was no such thing as “illegal immigration” at the time, Either a person was a citizen, a visitor, or they hadn’t yet been naturalized. “Unlawful presence” in the country did not exist.
        Therefore, there was “no intent” of the 14th Amendment to restrict citizenship from children of illegals, because the idea didn’t even exist at the time.

    3. meeester says:

      and check whoever comes to the hearing with them

      1. NY9Solyndra says:

        They’ll have their Dem voter registrations with them.

      2. Gremlin says:

        ICE will have to round up the whole courtroom for deportation…..oh, I forgot….the Obamunist & company are so busy shipping guns for drugs, that they have no time to round up & deport illegals. The Obamunist & company need the illegals here to sell the drugs and commit crimes so Obamunist and his minions can use the Mexican crime wave to outlaw gun ownership and enslave the people.

    4. db says:

      Where do they get balls to claim such entitlements? Should say “thank you” for not being deported so far and get the f out.

      To save $5,000 she wants to bring spot light to illegal status of her parents and to deport them!? Wow!

      P.S. I went through immigration process legally and I feel when illegals get more slack then legal immigrants it undermines the whole immigration process. Stick to the current laws or rewrite them for all, not just for illegals!

      1. alnga says:

        I was living in the Miami area when Jimmy Carter opened the doors to any Cubans that could make it here. This part was not a bad situation but because many that did make it here were prisoners direct from prison and put on boats by Fidel. Now I loved our Cuban employees but the criminal group was not vetted and never became citizens. She needs to be vetted to insure all rules were followed.

      2. lisa pell says:

        take take take take take- being a consumer is not being a citizen.

      3. Lilith says:

        We had a friend in the Navy who had to be able to read, write, and speak English. 2 Middle Eastern men behind him could do none of that and were still given citizenship as well. The laws needs to be applied equally in that process too. The 14th Amendment needs to be removed and no more anchor babies idc what race you are. These college idiots need to learn to shut up since they just spotlighted their illegal parents! I think a deportation needs to happen to each of the parents and that would distract them from the extra 5k. It’s too bad that Florida doesn’t cover in college what the word ILLEGAL means.

    5. Horice Sheet says:

      Agree. Plus I think tuition is lower in Mexico. Send them ALL back. Being born to illegal parents in the US does not under the Constitution automatically grant the child citizenship. This is misinterpretation. The law also requires at least one of the parents to be a legal citizen.

      1. RealistMe says:

        Amazing, I wish more people were informed of this. I laugh when she states, “This is in violation of the federal constitution.” And come on now, if you were born here in the United States then it should be easy to obtain some papers at least; why did they wait so long to get them? I’m willing to bet that she was born in Mexico and her parents crossed over when she was very young and simply lied to her about the past.

      2. Daniel says:

        The Fourteenth Amendment begins “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 they reside.” Children born here other than those born to diplomats are citizens.

        The practice of claiming that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says leaves us with no formal Constitution at all; just people rewriting to suit themselves. And appeals to intent (as opposed to solid textualism) are unworkable because each of the authors may have differing intents, and each of the ratifying legislators may have different intents. What counts are exactly the actual words with the prevailing definitions at the time of passage.

      3. Jotonquo Jones says:

        That’s not true. Go back to bed.

      4. Bill says:

        You are wrong. If you are born in the U.S. you are a naturalized U.S. citizen, period. There are tons of articles written just recently about rich Chinese women who come here just to have their children, the kids are granted U.S. citizenship.

      5. Daniel says:

        Illegal immigrants do not as such have diplomatic immunity, which means that they *are* “subject to the jurisdiction”. Those who want to deny their children born here citizenship are grasping at a straw; the argument stinks and sinks.

      6. Ron says:

        Horice, you are simply wrong. Under the current law, being born in the U.S. automatically confers U.S. citizenship (regardless of the citizenship of your parents). I was an INS agent for 32 years. I know what I am talking about…you do not.

      7. NY9Solyndra says:

        Bill: “If you are born in the U.S. you are a naturalized U.S. citizen, period.”

        FALSE.

        The 14th Amendment makes you a full citizen as long as your are born here.

        Naturalized citizens are people who were originally citizens of other countries and later received US citizenship.

      8. jrstudioboss says:

        For however many years it has been since her parents committed the crime of illegally entering the country, the entire family has profited off of that crime – minimally from her state funded education since kindergarten as well as any siblings, and the state paid costs go up from that! Sorry Wendy, but scream at your parents who ARE STILL ILLEGALS, this is their fault, not the lawmakers of Florida!

      9. Ron says:

        You are very wrong!

      10. Frank says:

        Read the 14th Amendment. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF……” An illegal is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US therefore neither is the child and thus the child is also an illegal.

      11. Daniel says:

        Frank, the only way to be in a jurisdiction and not subject to that jurisdiction is to have diplomatic immunity, which illegal immigrants don’t.

      12. craig54 says:

        just reread the 14 th amendment, it does not state that one parent needs to be a citizen, it would be a mute point. The child would automatically be a citizen.there would be no need of an amendment.

      13. chowthen says:

        This in reply to Daniel.

        Why do you keep adding this sentence to the 14th amendment when it’s not in it?

        “Children born here other than those born to diplomats are citizens.”

        Are you perhaps trying to justify your misunderstanding of it to make it sound more legal?

      14. Daniel says:

        chowthen—

        I’m not *adding* a sentence. I’ve not inserted anything spurious into the text where I’ve quoted it.

        I have repeated my own words across multiple comments in reply to a duplication of foolishness across some of the other comments here. There isn’t any great need for me to rephrase simple things across replies.

        And if the best that you can do in response is to formulate some wack theory that readers can’t see quotation marks and where they end, and that I’m hoping to exploit this illiteracy that you believe them to have, then I suggest that you bag it.

      15. krp says:

        @RealistMe
        You are obviously a Left-wing kook, because you obviously cannot read. They were not askeing for SHE birh certificate, they were asking for the immigration status of her parents.

        Vital records in Florida would be very easy to obtain and verify, but that is NOT what is at stake here.

        Oh, and birthright citizenship comes from English common law. I would suggest that you look it up, but it is obvious being such a libturd that you are not capable of facts or research.

      16. drljr says:

        Horice, if you are a child of immigrants (i.e. someone given permission to enter and live in the country) under Amendment 14 the child born in the country is a citizen.

        Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
        United States v Wong Kim Ark 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898)

    6. JTripodous says:

      They should not have standing to sue as they are not even here legally. Letting such a law suit even make it past the initial filing stage should be a crime for which any judge that allows it should be removed from the bench. If you are not here legally, you are not entitled to any rights vis-a-vis benefits.

      If they find for these people the state can come in and investigate them for tax fraud because they have not been working legally and, thus, not paying taxes and the same goes for anyone who hired them. Know the parents? They cut your lawn? Don’t hire them to do ANYTHING and let them starve to death with their kids.

      1. NY9Solyndra says:

        “They should not have standing to sue as they are not even here legally.”

        The daughter is suing. She is a citizen.

      2. FUNNY GUY says:

        Daniel, I have to agree with what you are saying but I do not agree with the 14th amendment. It needs to be changed and not interpreted because that opens the door for all kinds of problems regarding the Constitution. Which is already happening in the courts most of the time, it should be followed as it is written and most of our problems would be solved like immigration. Follow the law as it is written and not assume what it means.

      3. Daniel says:

        Funny Guy—

        A lot of people would agree with you. As for me, I’ve been more concerned here to oppose misrepresentation of the relevant laws than to advance my views as to what the laws ought to be.

    7. Pablo Chabau says:

      Yes, Wendy, it is UNFAIR to us AMERICANS that your CRIMINAL PARENTS are not deported or thrown in jail for breaking our laws.
      You don’t DESERVE anything.
      You should be charged DOUBLE what LEGAL IMMIGRANTS get charged.

      1. Common Sense says:

        Thank you, Pablo, for stepping up and responding in the terms that you did.
        Wendy is exactly the kind of loudmouth that thinks she is entitled to citizenship and spits in the face of people who do it right.
        This issue would be a lot easier to solve if politicians didn’t see illegals as ‘just another vote.’

      2. Seth says:

        Common, she probably doesn’t think that she’s entitled to citizenship because she is a legal US citizen. When was the last time you pondered the legitimacy of your citizenship?

        Are you saying that all children of illegal immigrants aren’t ‘doing it right’? What, in your opinion, should an unborn baby do differently?

      3. american says:

        God bless you you are soooooo right . th DOCTRINE OF THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE STATES THAT ANYTHING FLOWING FROM A POISONOUS TREE I.E. THE CRIMINAL ILLEGAL FEDERAL FELON IS ALSO CRIMINAL ILLEGAL FEDERAL FELON. AND JUST BEING BORN HERE DOES NOT BESTOE CITIZENSHIO THAT IS SUCH A FARCE- ONE PARENT MUST BE A UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND THE OTHER PARENT MUST NOT BE A CRIMINAL ILLEGAL FEDER FELON. THESE OTHER PEOLE MUST STOP SUBVERTING OUR CNSTITUTION . IF THET ARE AMERICANS STOP LOOKING FOR LOOP HOLES FOR THESE CRIMINAL ILLEGAL FEDERAL FELONS . THEY MUST BE DEPORTED IMMEADIATELY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM – THESE CRIMINAL ILLEGAL MEXICANS AND MUSLIMS ALL NEED TO BE DEPORTED BACK TO THEIR OWN COUNTRIES ASAP. AMERICANS STAND UP AND DEFEND PROTECT AMERIA AND AMERICNS IF YOU DO NOT YOU THEN ARE NOT TRULY AN AMERICAN YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF THIS COUNTRY JUST AS THAT ILLEGAL IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS. AND YU DO NOT DESERVE TO LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY GO TO MEXICO WITH THESE CRIMINAL ILLEGALS YOU LIVE WITH THEM AND YOU PAY OUT OF YOUR POCKET THE $00 BILLION DOLLARS THAT THEY STEAL AND RAPE FROM AMERICANS!!!! MEXICO NEEDS TO BE SUED FOR THIS $00 ION DOLLARS YEAR THEY OWE US FOR THESE CRIMINAL ILLEGAL FEDERAL FELONS IT IS MEXICOS AND CALDERONS RESPONSIBILTY NOT AMERICA;S. STOP THE FREEBEES AND THEY WILL GO BACK TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

    8. Michael Heitzman says:

      I couldn’t agree more. I’m just shocked at the sheer audacity of these people. These children of illegals have ZERO rights as US citizens in my opinion. They would never be in this situation if their parents had not violated our laws to begin with.

      1. krp says:

        Your opinion doesn’t count. She is a US Citizen, and unless you can prove that she was born in any other country then there isn’t anything that you can do about it.

        When she turns 21, she will be eligible to sponsor her parents for PERMANENT RESIDENCY and they will then be LEGAL RESIDENTS entitled to all benefits thereof.

    9. steverino says:

      Do illegals have the legal standing to sue for anything in an American court?

      1. Bill says:

        She isn’t an illegal, she was born here, read the article. She is a U.S. citizen, her parents are not, Florida proves state residency based on parental information. If she has lived in Florida all her life she should be considered a Florida resident and pay in state tuition, regardless of her parents status.

      2. Michael says:

        What we need is new legislation that clearly reads that a child born here from parents here illegally do not automatically get US citizen status, but rather are illegal just as their parents are. Sadly, Bill is absolutely right and it makes me sick that this is how our system works. It flatly encourages illegals to come here and start the birthing process – on our dime of course, as always..

      3. Seth says:

        Michael, I’m sorry that you disagree with the Constitution. The 14th Amendment has been the law of the land for almost 150 years and is always upheld. I’m sure there are plenty of other countries you could move to with citizenship requirements more to your liking, though.

        People born in the US are American citizens. There’s no gray area there. Arguing otherwise is just wishful thinking.

    10. Rob Adkerson says:

      They are legal citizens. Why punish them for their parents mistakes?

    11. krp says:

      Obviously you cannot rad. She is a U.S. Citizen. Why would you deport her.

    12. Allan Szast says:

      Don’t forget that by law she is legal, her parents are not. So give her the instate tuition that she is enttled to, but deport her parents and charge her for all benefits that she recieved from the US government. Then see where her lawsuit goes.

      1. Seth says:

        If she’s a taxpaying citizen, on what grounds would you charge her for the benefits she received? What about kids whose parents died or abandoned them — would they also on the hook?

      2. Daniel says:

        Seth—

        The reason that young adults who *are* born to US citizens cannot typically reap the benefit of a discounted education upon becoming legal residence of a state other than that in which they were raised is that the benefit is really considered to be granted indirectly to parents. In the cases such as that of Ms Ruiz, the parents are not considered to be entitled and hence the children not considered to be entitled. There’s no evident inconsistency in this.

      3. Seth says:

        Daniel — “In the cases such as that of Ms Ruiz, the parents are not considered to be entitled and hence the children not considered to be entitled.”

        Are you referring to some specific state school tuition policy here? I don’t think we’ll find anything about minors being responsible for the transgressions of their parents anywhere in US law. You’re probably aware that it’s usually the other way around.

        Suppose I had bad parents who never paid their taxes. Is that somehow my responsibility? Or suppose I was adopted at birth and it was later discovered that my natural parents were illegal immigrants — what then?

        I’m not arguing that her parents shouldn’t be deported. I’m only defending the rights of a fellow US citizen.

      4. Daniel says:

        Seth—

        I’m not arguing that her parents *should* be deported. I am noting that the benefit in question is not provided to older minors an young adults simply as a result of residency, nor residency combined with citizenship; it is an indirect prerogative of parents who have met certain requirements, which hers did not. There is an equivalent benefit for adults who themselves meet different requirements, which she has not.

        No one is responsible for where they are born, nor are minors responsible for where they reside. If we pursue some of your arguments to their natural conclusions, then the state of Florida should provide discounted tuition to children from anywhere and everywhere — or the discounts should go to no one at all (even those born in Florida). Practicability will argue against the former. Perhaps you will embrace the latter, or perhaps you’ll rethink some of your presuppositions.

    13. paperpushermj says:

      Excuse me She is an American Citizen. Born in Florida lived there all her life. She has been a Citizen of Florida and IMO is entitled to instate Tuition. All instate tuition means is she pays the regular price that all State Tax payers receive because their taxes go toward supporting the Higher Ed State System.

    14. James Smith says:

      Chip them, deport them at once and if they return (we will know from the chip), execute them summarily.

    15. abbey says:

      Past time to get these lazy, ugly, dumb, intellectually inferior ,pushed= in faced creeps out of our country. They are beginning to push the wrong buttons…..people are going to get REALLY upset.

      1. Seth says:

        …so upset they might even post in caps!

    16. Blank says:

      SHE is a citizen of the United States and resident. Her PARENTS are illegal, she isn’t. The immigration status of her parents is irrelevant.

    17. Fritz Lentz says:

      what nerve deport her ass figures the splc would be involve

    18. Seth says:

      “them”, meaning US citizens?

    19. William E. Wilson says:

      There is no way she can lose this case. being born in the USA and a resident citizen, I can’t understand how the state can make a decision like this. It appears that most of the comment writers didn’t understand that Florida is charging US and Florida citizens $5000 more than other citizens BECAUSE their parents are illegal.Bill

    20. Gremlin says:

      I hope they pick me to be on that jury!!! The Communist…, er, I mean the Southern Poverty Law Center would be soundly defeated!!!

    21. Me says:

      Good idea! Deport all of them! None of them are legally here! Wonder how many food stamps, welfare and etc this group as received during their illegal years here.

    22. bp says:

      Currently they are allowed to be considered American citizens, but children of foreign nationals (illegals or otherwise) are just that foreign nationals and should not be afforded citizenship just because they were born here. Foreign nationals should not have access to any services funded by tax dollars (federal or otherwise). If our representatives in Washington would listen to the majority of their constituents this would be the case now, but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats even bother to listen to the majority any longer. They only listen to their party and its wants. These so called representatives need to be told in no uncertain terms that we are mad as hell and aren’t going to allow them to continue to ignore our wants and needs.

      1. drljr says:

        Based upon Amendment 14 she is not a citizen as implied by the article. People ignore “and subject to the jurisdiction ” which limits birth based citizenship to people who are born to what we called immigrants today. Illegal aliens are not immigrants but invaders. This was also codified in the Ark, Elk and Elg Supreme Court rulings. This is why children born to real immigrants are citizens under Amendment 14. Children born to visitors, diplomats and illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

        And to my knowledge no law or Supreme Court case has changed any of this. You can not just enter a country and give birth to a citizen. Not even in England or most of the European countries was this done to my knowledge. You always had to petition the Crown/Government to become a subject. To my knowledge Germany has no soil based citizenship by example.

      2. krp says:

        The rulings could not have excluded illegal aliens because the concept of illegal immigratrion did not exist at the time of this ruling with the exception of the Chinese Exclusion Actr.

        There only exemptions are to children of diplomats, born on foreign ships, children born to armed occupying forces and non-Tax baying indians. There was no such thing as entry visas at the time.
        Those persons that are in the United States under the employ of foreign counties on official business with the United States Government are the only ones not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. II illegal aliens were part of a diplomatic detail, then they would not be illegal

    23. mw says:

      quick question: how does one determine the residency of a minor? their parents residency status, right? well, these students’ parents are not residents of florida. hence out of state tuition

      1. krp says:

        The residency is based on the home address. which is in Florida

  2. Jay says:

    Any rational judge who cares one iota about the rule of law would dismiss this case at the outset for lack of standing

    1. Blank says:

      Lack of standing? Really? How so genius? She is a US CITIZEN. She was BORN in the United States. Her parents are illegal, she isn’t.

      People need to actually read the article instead of reading the Drudge headline and posting.

      1. drljr says:

        Actually she is an illegal alien. Illegal aliens can not create citizens. You should read the Supreme Court ruling “Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)”.

      2. krp says:

        What was Elk vs Wilkins have to do with this?
        Elk was born on a reservation of a foreign nation, that did no pay taxes to the United States. Therefore he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because the United States could not invade the reservation and arrest for some crime he commits on the reservation. He was BORN a citizen of his tribe on the reservation., which is essentally forerign soil wtihin the limits of the United sates. They have diplmatic immunity.

        Wendy Ruiz was BORN a US Citizen, Her parents did no have diplomatic immunity and therefore are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
        She IS a US CITIZEN.

      3. Dan says:

        Blank if your parents rob a bank and give you the money its still illeagl money. comming here and haveing a baby doesnt make them Americain. It two Americian people have a child in Japan it’s not Japeneze

      4. krp says:

        That’s the Japanese. Japanese are racist and a closed society. The 14th Amendment was never ratified by Japan.

  3. Bob says:

    after a lengthy prison sentence, she should be deported along with the rest of the criminals that have been allowed to flood into the US in order to destroy the unions (middle class)

    1. Mark says:

      Bob,

      Where do you deport an American Citizen to? She was born here and is an American Citizen. As of now that is the law and has been for over 200 years.

      Mark

      1. Sick ofit says:

        It’s REAL simple, children of illegals should NOT be granted citizenship. PERIOD!!! And when they stand up for their rights, catch on the courthouse steps and send them back home…

      2. Dennis says:

        It appears Mark you don’t know your law, over 200 years…..maybe you should do some research!!!!!

      3. siylence says:

        That’s not the law.

        From VDARE.

        “The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says:

        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 they reside. [emphasis added]

        To hold that the Citizenship Clause confers birthright citizenship on anyone born in the United States is to ignore the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”: a selective misreading of plain English. No argument rooted in the Constitution can support automatic birthright citizenship.”

      4. kp says:

        Sure need to get rid of that law as all other nations that hqad it did.

      5. Rich says:

        You need to get the facts before you comment. The 14th ammendment was passed in 1868 as one of the reconstruction ammendments. so that would be 143 years to be exact. Its intent was to allow blacks at the time to be considered citizens and over rule the Dred Scott decision. It should have been restricted to blacks of the period and their descendents only. As it is, it has allowed this type of situation to occur. Anyone, legal or illegal that is is not a citizen to have a child here and become a citizen. This was not the original intent and it is wrong.

      6. George says:

        then at least kick her parents out! Start somewhere!

      7. The Basics says:

        Rich is correct.

        That is when the current law was changed and the intent of the law has nothing to do with illegal aliens.

      8. Daniel says:

        The people in the US *not* subject to the laws of the US are those with diplomatic immunity. Illegal immigrants are subject to the laws, and hence their children born here are citizens.

      9. Republic over Democracy says:

        Mark,

        First off the 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9,1868 so not quite 200 years and it was created to give ex slaves after the civil war citizenship. It was only created to affect those generations not those who break immigration laws 133 years later. Any other country in the world would deport both child and parents. Immigration for those who come legally should rightfully be granted all protection under law. If you travel to any other country you fall under there laws…period. Now that said. this is not a Federal issue; this is a state issue. Last I read the Constitution does not cover price scales for college tuition, which it should not. America has become a socialist entitlement state. It needs to change. The power to tax and give is the power to corrupt.

      10. Daniel says:

        Agaiin: Appeals to intent (as opposed to solid textualism) are unworkable because each of the authors may have differing intents, and each of the ratifying legislators may have different intents. What counts are exactly the actual words with the prevailing definitions at the time of passage.

        The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children born to those with diplomatic immunity; whether accidentally or otherwise, it confers citizenship on all other children born here.

      11. lala says:

        How about to her parents and her parents back to Mexico where they belong.

      12. krp says:

        @lala What makes you think that her parents are from Mexico? That is a very ignorant assumption.
        The woman lives in Miami, Having lived in Dade Country close to 18 years, I can assure you that there are very few people from Mexico in Miami.

        @Republic over Democracy
        The concept of “nationality of place of birth” comes from English common law, so your assumption that any other country would deport the parents and the child, is just again from pure ignorance.
        While the 14th amendment deal with the citizenship of former slaves, all it did was just add former slaves to be included with what was already the status quo.

        The stupid thing is, that as she is a U.S. Citizen once she turns 21, she will be able to sponsor her parents for green cards and then they WOULD be legal. So to deny a U.S. citizen her in-state residency. based on her parent’s immigration status, is just plain stupid, especially since the 14th amendment says that the person is a resident of the state they are born in, so this decision is a CLEAR violation of the Constitution.

      13. abbey says:

        A resounding YES! Another one who should go is Bill Richardson. Momm came over the border to give birth to him and she STILL lives in Mexico.

      14. Gremlin says:

        Mark, don’t give up your day job shining shoes!

      15. krp says:

        RICH IS WRONG

        May 30 1866

        Mr Howard: The first amendment is to section one, delclaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I read as THE LAW OF THE LAND ALREADY, that EVERY PERSON BORN WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foriegners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors of foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but WILL INCLUDE EVERY OTHER CLASS OF PERSONS. It settles the great question of citizenship and REMOVES ALL DOUBT AS TO WHAT PERSONS ARE OR ARE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. This has long been a great desideration in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

  4. Stan says:

    She should be allowed in State tuition, she is American. Then, deport her parents back to their own country.

    1. Luke says:

      Easily fixed with a simple ex post facto law. The US Gov’t doesn’t follow the Constitution any more anyway, they might as well do some good for once. This woman, child of Mexicans (NOT Mexican immigrants, but Mexicans) sees the US as only a source of handouts. Let her take that attitude home with her, to Mexico.

      1. Newbern W Johnson says:

        Unconstitutional. Congress shall pass no ex post facto law.
        Look it up.

      2. 1 HOSPITAL + 2 ILLEGALS = $3,000,000 says:

      3. Seth says:

        “The US Gov’t doesn’t follow the Constitution any more anyway, they might as well do some good for once.”

        That’s how I feel about those pesky gun laws and freedom of speech. Or shall we just nix ones you personally dislike?

    2. Ted says:

      If she can prove citizenship … give a tuition break.
      If NOT …deport her.

    3. Kurt says:

      Exactly. Let her have in-state tuition. But gain the address of the parents, from the lawsuit details.

    4. SSchreff says:

      The reason students are charged in-state rates for a university that they and their parents are the residents of is because by paying state taxes they contribute to the state colleges. Those who do not ie: out of state residence pay the higher amount. Since this students parents are illegal immigrants it is very unlikely they contribute to the education system in form of taxes paid. Based on this simple fact the school and the state should be charging her out-of-state rates. I have 1 daughter going to college in-state and another out-of-state. If she gets in-state tuition, does that mean I can sue my younger daughters school and DEMAND in-state rates?

      1. Newbern W Johnson says:

        When I went to UF, my parents were residents of NC. However, I was a Florida resident and so qualified for in-state tuition. I lived and worked in the state and paid taxes there.

      2. krp says:

        Tell your other daughter to drop out of school and work at McDonalds or Wal-Mart for a years and then she would be a resident of that state and would pay in-state tuition.
        The student mentioned in the article was born in Miami and lived there all her life. Why would she be paying out=– of state tuition when your daughter would be paying in-state tuition after only one year?

      3. SSchreff says:

        krp: The reason she would be paying out of state tuition is that she did not pay taxes in the state of florida nor did those she is a dependant to. To prrof residency tax filings are required by all universities. If she had those I am certain she would have been considered a resident and paying in-state tuition. If she wants to pay in-state tuition she can declare herself independant (from her parents) follow whatever rules it takes to become a legal resident such as register to vote, work and pay state taxes (and unfortunately for her, just living there does not qualify, at least not legally). A person does not need to be a citizen of the United States to pay in-state tuition but rather be a resident of a state. Children of green card holders who work in a particular state and pays taxes to that state are considered state residents. Residency requirements vary from state to state. In the state my daughter chose to go to school she can become a resident if she is married and lives and works in the state for 1 yr or she is active duty military living in that state or if unmarried she is older than 24 and changes her voter registration and lives and works in the state for 1 year. While she is under the age of 24 she can not claim independancy without being married. Go figure. I work 2 jobs, our daughter works part time and we have taken out loans to ensure a good education for our daughter she is excited about. This may sound irrational to some and ok to others. To each their own.

      4. Sterling says:

        Question. How does one file state income taxes in a state that has no state income tax? I live in South GA, less than 11 miles from the Florida line. I’ve had many friends and my brother go to Florida State. Some even went to Florida. Most had to live in the state for a year before they could get in-state tuition. All it required was that their drivers license gave a date of a year or more on it. To get the Florida DL, one just needed a utility bill or rental agreement at an address in FL. That shows residency, not taxes. What if I moved to Florida and was on SSI? I wouldn’t pay taxes on that. The whole tax thing is a none issue. She is NOT a citizen, being born to illegal aliens, thus why she can’t really prove residency.

    5. Sander4Gingrich says:

      Makes too much sense. It will never happen sadly.

    6. bd says:

      Technically, she gets full citizenship after 18 (or could be 16). This was done so that illegals do not get citizenship by just being pregnant and crossing the border. Until that time, the girl belongs with her parents elsewhere. And after she becomes of age, she can start the legal petition process for her illegal parents.

      1. Dino says:

        These are called anchor babies and it’s a stupid concept.

      2. Bill says:

        Not true, the parents can be deported but the children are still U.S. citizens. There is a business that helps Rich Chinese women do it legally, the obtain a VISA, give birth in the U.S., and their child leaves with a U.S. passport and citizenship.

      3. SSchreff says:

        She is a US citizen and can live in the US without restriction (age or otehrwise)but her parents can not. Once she turns 18 she can petition for green cards for her parents. This is a lengthy process and can take up to 2-3 years for them to get a green card. The same process is even longer for siblings who are not citizens. I know people who have been in process for 5 years now for their siblings.

    7. Daniel says:

      I’m a US citizen, but I’d be charged out-of-state tuition. What entitles her to in-state tuition? She’s being asked to pay the same rate that most US citizens would have to pay if they went to school in Florida.

      1. Moquegua says:

        Exactly! Just as when you apply for school grants or scholarshiips, some loans, they look at your parents income until the age of 25 at least. She lives with her parent and they do not have standing in this country. She is lucky she is not charged out of country fees. Not fair? Of course, it is not fair that my kids owe huge loans while scholarships go to illegals and their children and US grants. It used to be the USA did not acknowledge dual citizenship and at the age of 18 had to declare you loyalty to the USA, even if you were born here but of parents who were not citizens 0r born in another country and your parents were citizens of the US. Thank you President Clinton for muddying the water

      2. krp says:

        Obviously you are ignorant and probably never went to college yourself. If you lived in Florida for a year, you would be paying in-state tuition. She is a US Citizen too and has been living in Florida all her life. Why should you be paying in-state tuition after only one year, and she, as a U. S. Citizen has to pay out-of-state after 19 years?

      3. krp says:

        @Moquegua

        Are you ignorant or what? Out of country tuition? Obviously you have never been to college because there is no such thing as an “out of country tuition” It negates any logic of the matter. Either you are a state resident, – which means you have been living in the state for a year, or you are not. There is no distinction whether you come from another state or another country.

        Private schools such as Rice, Princeton, Mercer, Stanford, Notre Dame etc, are not state sponsored and so in-state tuition does not apply. There is only one tuition rate for all students.

      4. Daniel says:

        krp—

        Calling me ignorant and insisting that I never went to college are a poor substitute for getting your logic straight.

        Yes, most US citizens could jump through the hoops to become legal residents of Florida; but they haven’t, and would therefore be charged out-of-state fees. Likewise, Ms Ruiz’s parents could have jumped through the hoops to become legal residents, but they didn’t. And Ms Ruiz could be financially independent for a time, while remaining in Florida, and thereby become eligible in her own right, but she hasn’t.

        Ms Ruiz is not subject to any greater hardship than would be a US citizen of her same age newly arrived in Florida.

      5. krp says:

        Then which state is she a resident of, if not Florida?

      6. krp says:

        If her parents lived in Georgia then they could say “you are a Georgia resident”, but if she lives with her parents and their address is in Miami, they cannot say that she is a resident of any other state other than Florida.
        This is probably a clerical error on the part of the admissions office of MDC, I have dealt with them before myself , and they are not very sharp. The state will lose this lawsuit and it sill cost a lot of money in legal fees because of the incompetence of a handful of government employees.

      7. Daniel says:

        krp—

        I have repeatedly noted that US citizenship and residency are not jointly sufficient in various cases. Ignoring that point doesn’t do you much good.

        Ms Ruiz’s residency was as a dependent of parents who, in turn, are not legally entitled to pass on to their daughter an educational discount. She could get an equivalent discount by dropping-out and being self-sufficient (while in Florida) for some period, but she is not wiling to do that.

        There’s simply no clerical error here, and the matter would be in state court were it just an issue of a clerical error.

      8. krp says:

        This is a Tampa station and the only student mentioned is in Miami, I have dealt with the same school. The Cuban in admission does not understand the underlying concept of in-state status. Plus Cubans in Miami discriminate against non-Cubans such as ms Ruiz. The admissions officer is probably interpreting the rules in a way to discriminate against non-Cubans

      9. SSchreff says:

        krp: there is a different tuition rate of international students. In fact there are 3 different rate types in state schools while there is a standart fee for private universities. State University tuitions are : In-state tuition for state residents, out-of state tuition for legal residents of the USA who are residents of another state than that of the school they are attending and of course international students. So, Moquegua might not have the terminology right but he is right on substance!!

      10. krp says:

        No state college that I have ever attended had an “international student” tuition rate. And I have just recently checked their websites to verify. They have rates for state residents and non-residents. There are no rates for international students at any state colleges that I have been to.

        There may be different application processes for international students because they have to apply far enough in advance to obtain student visas, but since the students are already in the United States, and they are U.S. Citizens, they have no need for F-1 visas.

    8. krp says:

      She is an American citizen, She is a sophmore in college. she is 19 or 20 years old. On her 21st birthday, she can petition for her parents’ green cards. Why should we go to the trouble of deporting them?

  5. Richard Henkle says:

    “This policy violates the federal constitution.” – Your parents being here also violates the Constitution. I’ll make you a deal: Your parents go back to their country and you can have in-state tuition.

    1. NY9Solyndra says:

      She still shouldn’t get in-state tuition.

      All other students must prove that their parents reside in the state in order to get that rate. Her parents can’t prove that because they are here illegally. I don’t think we should bend the rules just because we’ll get rid of one pair if illegals. The ultimate result is that it rewards illegals.

      1. krp says:

        Not so, Anyone can move to another state and live there for a year and be considered in state and pay in-state tuition. At least that’s the way it was 25 years ago when I was in college.

      2. Daniel says:

        krp—

        No, that is not how it was 25 years ago. Instead, qualification rules varied by state then, and they vary by state now. One could qualify for in-state fees while going to school in Indiana, but in California one had not merely to be resident but not to be the financial dependent of someone from out-of-state.

    2. Seth says:

      So Richard, in your opinion, children should be responsible for the illegal actions of their parents? You’d feel the same if your folks broke the law?

  6. JOeb says:

    Give those bast*rds a plane ticket back to the old country.

    1. Dino says:

      Plane ticket? We can’t afford to be giving away plane tickets. If they are here illegally, bus them to the border and they can walk across, just like they did to get here. Please make sure that there are no empty seats, I hate waste. If I come home and I find someone there that I didn’t invite, I don’t embrace them, feed them, or charge them rent. I kick them out (by force if necessary.) We should be doing the same to illegals. They have no rights to due process, they have no rights to legal counsel, medical care, etc… they are not citizens…and as such have no right to be here, much less any other right. Well, I take that back…they do have a right -the right to go home!🙂

      1. NY9Solyndra says:

        We probably are supposed to return them to the country of origin. Mexico has no obligation to accept them from us unless they are Mexican citizens or legal residents.

    2. lala says:

      I say a bullet would be better and it would send a great example.

      1. Seth says:

        Just so we understand your “thought” process, you would actually look forward to the day when five US citizens are rounded up and shot?

        Great example, you’re right.

  7. America says:

    5 dollars she already has a grant for being a minority.

  8. Joeb says:

    What!! Don’t they have any schools in Mexico????

  9. Rick says:

    They shouldn’t be going to college in the US. Arrest them and deport them along with their parents. Then arrest those that allowed the illegals to go to school.

  10. Lance burton says:

    Boo Hoo! Go to school in the country of your criminal parents.

  11. bob says:

    If you’re illegal, get the f*ck out of our country!

  12. Tom Nikolaidis says:

    so glad I moved out of Florida, in five years it will be a only spanish speaking state with all the illegals and offsprings.

  13. John Jackson says:

    Richard Henkle beat me to it…

  14. Bella says:

    A college education is not guaranteed by the constitution. She does have access to it, and has not been denied the opportunity. Why are so many young people such cry babies? I’m so worried for our future it’s scary.

    1. taxpayer says:

      Agreed, her beef and lawsuit isn’t about the schoolroom door being barred to her entry, it’s about who pays for her subsidized education and why. Now if they banned children of illegals (born here) from attending, I’d be standing with her.

      So access to education is increasing being defined as making it cheaper.

    2. Mark says:

      Bella,

      She is a Florida resident, why shouldn’t she get in state tuition? Her parents status isn’t her issue as an American.

      1. moquegua says:

        Mark it is based on her parents income taxes and they show NONE in florida sssooo she must be from OUT of STATE. Bet if she tries she will qualify for grants and scholarships. And your taxes will pay for it

      2. Daniel says:

        It is not clear why US citizenship and in-state residency should now be jointly sufficient in Florida for in-state rates.

        US citizenship and in-state residency were not jointly sufficient in California when I was going to school there. One was further required to show that, during a minimum time of residency before one began going to school, one were not a financial independent of some out-of-state persons. (One did not ever qualify for in-state tuition if one began going to school as soon as one got there, and did not drop out for some period.)

      3. krp says:

        @moquegua
        Yes you are ignorant.
        Florida has no income tax, so of course there will be no income tax shown by the parents in Florida, so by your logic, ALL students must be out-of-state

  15. Legal Citizen says:

    When did being ILLEGAL all of a sudden entitle ILLEGALS to ALL the same rights as LEGAL citizens???? Deport ALL of them. Law is law…if you shoot someone you go to jail…if you break immigration laws you get kicked out…very simple..wondering why Washington can’t figure it out…so f***in simple people!!

    1. Seth says:

      You’re totally right — law is law. And the law says that she’s a citizen. So that should end the discussion, right?

      1. MaPe1024 says:

        Agreed! When I tried to get tuition help, I, too, had to fill out quite a bit of paperwork. If you can’t demonstrate that you have a legit address and make a legal income in a state, you are not entitled to in-state tuition (or legal residence in this or any country!).

  16. Ed R says:

    I am a veteran and a die-hard Republican and have attended both recent Fort Lauderdale Tea party rallies…I’m about as conservative as you can get. With that said, Wendy Ruiz, based on the information stated in the article above, is just as much an American as I am and she should not be paying out of state tuition rates. Her parents should be deported but she is 100% as American as anyone else born here.

    1. PolishKnight says:

      Ed R, no, she’s not. The citizenship amendment refers to LEGALLY born residents of the USA. Since her parents were here without a VISA, she is essentially stateless or gains the citizenship of her parents’ country. However, since she’s been naturalized and given a passport, it’s unlikely to be taken away.

      That said, sure, give her in-state tuition and deport the parents.

      1. Ken says:

        No, you are wrong PK:

        Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that “All persons born … in the United States, … are citizens of the United States …” Thus, children born to non-citizens while on American soil are automatically citizens of the U.S.A.

      2. Mark says:

        Polish Knight,

        That is not the way it reads and she is a natural born citizen. We need to fix immigration and change the law but as it is now she is 100% natural born, not naturalized

      3. Sterling says:

        Mark and Ken are both wrong. The 14th Amendment were for the children of the slaves. The US Supreme Court held this up with US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. If the parents were not here on visa a child born here is not a citizen. If they were here illegally then their daughter is not a citizen. Ken in order to be a “natural born citizen” BOTH parents have to be citizens. If one parent is a citizen, then the child is a citizen, but NOT “natural born”.

      4. krp says:

        Visas didn’t really exit until WWII. The idea of “unlawful presence” is a very modern concept, thus the intent of the 14th amendment could NOT have excluded “illegals” because there was no such thing that the time.

      5. drljr says:

        It is important to remember that birth based citizenship is conditional. You have to be subject to the jurisdiction. Amendment 14 does not give unlimited soil based citizenship. While at least one individual refuses to accept what the writers of the Amendment stated it means and what Supreme Court rulings based upon words itself stated just being born on US territory does not give citizenship.

        The clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has to do with the giving of allegiance and having said allegiance accepted by the sovereign/government. It is not not about criminal law. Using criminal law logic Amanda Knox is a citizen of Italy.

        Since her parents never pledge allegiance their prodigy can not receive citizenship by soil. Remember, when a immigrant is granted permission to enter and live in the country they swear an oath of allegiance to the country. This is why rulings such as Elk and Ark are so important to understand. She is not a US citizen since her parents never subjected themselves to the jurisdiction. So of the comments have indicated her parents are from Mexico. Which means she a Mexican citizen. Consider the issue of Roman Polanski and extradition as well as Mexican citizens who commit crimes here and flee to Mexico. It is all inter-related to the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

        We have had immigration and illegal aliens laws for years. Remember, some of the first immigration and citizenship laws were passed in 1790. The only way she can be citizen is there is something in Title 8 of the US Code passed in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 of the US Constitution.

      6. Dan says:

        If two Americians have a baby in Japan that child is not Japenize

      7. drljr says:

        Depends upon the law in Japan. From one report I have read if you are born in Japan of foreign parents then at age 18 you can claim Japanese citizenship. So like here if you are an immigrant – i.e. asked for and been granted permission to live in the country – Japan may give citizenship. I just know that based upon what has been presented in the article she is not a US citizen under Amendment 14 or Article 1, Section8, Paragraph 4.

      8. drljr says:

        Ken – cite the whole sentence if you are going to quote it. Why did you leave out “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. She and her parents are subjects based upon the implication of the article. Which means she is an illegal alien and not a US citizen. Read the Ark, Elk and Elg rulings on citizenship.

      9. krp says:

        From the Supreme Court Ruling of US V WKA, under English common law, birthright citizenship has only 4 exemptions, 1)Birth to foreign diplomatic details and members of ruling families, 2)born on foreign owned ships and 3) Born to foreign occupying armed forces, and add the 4) Indian tribes that do not pay taxes to the US. These are the ONLY exemptions to the “subject of the jurisdiction thereof” clause.

    2. Ken says:

      I agree with you sir, though I hope you will reconsider your blind allegiance to politicians of any “party”, since they’ve proven over and over again to merely be on the said of corporations and banking interests, with a handful of exceptions.

      That said, why anyone would want to go to college in the US, once they learn the true cost in terms of outrageous debt with low hopes of finding a high paying job, is beyond me. Wake up parents, it’s much cheaper to go to college in other countries, and the education is just as good. I know it’s hard to let go of your kids, but I leave you with this quote:

      “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.”
      ― Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad/Roughing It

      1. Mark says:

        Sterling,
        The Sumpreme Court upheld Wong’s claim of being a US citizen by right on US birth. Did I miss your point of bringing it up? After the case two other son’s were also granted citizenship. So this girl is entitled to US citizenship under the 14th amendment which has been the law for over 144 years, not 200 as I said earlier.

      2. Sterling says:

        Wong’s parents were here LEGALLY!!! They were here for business, which meant they had a visa, or whatever was needed to be here in the US back in the 1860s and 70s. That is the point of my post. This girl’s parents were here illegally, meaning she is not a citizen.

      3. krp says:

        Visa’s didn’t really exist at that time. The idea of “unlawful presence” is an entirely modern concept – like socialism. The “intent” of the 14th Amendment is exactly as written. It could not have excluded “illegals” because there was no such thing at the time.

      4. drljr says:

        krp

        Wong’s parents were legal immigrants. They had been granted permission to enter and live in the US. They were actual immigrants. In this case the parents were never admitted to the US and are in the US illegally. The key is the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof “. You can not make yourself a subject. You have to be accepted as a subject. It is possible to be a country and to not produce citizens children.

      5. krp says:

        Subject to the jurisdiction, means that a person can be prosecuted for a crime. Foreign diplomats have diplomatic immunity and cannot be prosecuted for violations of US law.

        If she or her parents can be prosecuted for legal infractions in the US then they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the Citizenship Claus APPLIES>
        She IS a U.S> Citizen.

      6. Sterling says:

        In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

        The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

        In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation.

        Keep on krp, show us how smart you are. We will keep posting to show how dumb you really are.

    3. Liberal Vet says:

      Well said Ed. To everyone else; don’t blame the child for who her parents are. Remember you did’t pick yours. Under law she is just as American as you and I, meaning she is entitled to the same oppurutnites.
      -Liberal Vet

    4. Sander4Gingrich says:

      Yup. You are right sir. But her should have been deported yesterday.

      1. Sander4Gingrich says:

        But her parents I mean. How do you not have an edit button?

    5. Tommy says:

      ED, YOU ARE IGNORANT AND i CAN SMELL YOU FROM HERE. YOUR LOGIC STINKS.

      What needs to happen is that people like this need to go back to Mexico and wait their turn to be called for citizenship. There needs to be a 100% repeal of the laws and processes that gurantee people born here to be citizens. NOBODY born in any other country other than the USA is a citizen of that country….unless they are lawfully already citizens.

      I cannot for ex go to Switzerland and have a baby and that child is Swiss…they would throw me out. That is a stateless individual and these births happen all over the world…so why do we accpt them as ours?

      BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE IGNORANT AND LAZY.

      1. Seth says:

        Tommy, the 14th Amendment has been around for almost 150 years. Are you saying that we’ve been ignorant and lazy that whole time?

        You’re right, though — our laws are very different from any other country. Switzerland also has universal health care, as do most other first-world countries. Would you like to be more like them in that regard, also?

      2. krp says:

        Mexico? Where in the article was anything said that her or her parents are from Mexico? I have lived in Miami for many years and have only met 2 people from Mexico. A lot of Cubans, Puerto Ricans Dominicans, Venezeulans, Columbians and Argentines, but very few Mexicans.

        Uh.. birthright citizenship comes from English common law, so your comment that “NOBODY born in any country is a citizen of that country” is wrong.

        “But it was much later, with the independence of the English colonies in America, and the French Revolution, that laid the foundations for jus soli. With the social and economic development of the 19th and 20th centuries, and above all, the massive migrations to the Americas and Western Europe, that jus soli was established in a greater and greater number of countries.[3]”

        “Jus soli is common in developed countries that wished to increase their own citizenry. It is also recognized in some developing countries, most notably Pakistan. Some countries that observe jus soli include:
        Argentina
        Barbados
        Brazil
        Canada
        Colombia
        Jamaica
        Mexico
        Pakistan
        Peru
        Romania
        United States
        Uruguay”

        And you say that Ed is ignorant?

  17. JOe Dutra says:

    I will tutor them for free.
    American Law 101 & Economics 101.

    Then I will give them a free ride home.

    1. Dave says:

      you obviously need to brush up on the Constitution… specifically Amendment 14

      1. Todd Clemmer says:

        The 14th was meant to turn slaves, brought here by force, into American citizen Not so that pregnant aliens can scale a fence, and have their children here in order to grab a seat at the trough. Leave it to a leftist to accuse someone of needing to brush up on the Constitution and then totally misinterpret the mentioned amendment on purpose.

  18. John Holmes says:

    I would say let her have her in state tuition, if she is willing to have her illegal parents deported and banished for breaking the law!!!

    1. Newbern W Johnson says:

      Whether or not her parents are deported or not ( HIGHLY unlikely ) has zero to do with the case at hand. She was born here; she is an American Citizen
      And I’m a cranky old Conservative!

      1. TxSon says:

        It is time the 14th ammendment was interpreted the way it was meant to be. The citizenship clause had only one purpose and that was to ensure that freed slaves had citizenship rights. It was never meant to give citzenship to children of illegal immigrants.

        That’s the hard fact. Get over it.

      2. krp says:

        Did they have any immigration offices in 1865? Was there even such a thing as “legal immigration” in 1865? In those days, it was hard to get from one country to another, so anyone that boarded a ship to the New World, probably intended to stay. I have seen plenty of John Wayne movies where they would chase Indians into Mexico, but I have never seen any border patrol agents.

        Back then, people in the country were either citizens or immigrants, unless they were Chinese migrant workers. Either you were a naturized citizen, or you were waiting until you cold be. There were no green cards, I-94s no student visas,and no “illegals” It wasn’t until the 20th century that immigration laws restricting entry came into play. NOT at the time of the 14th Amendment.

    2. Seth says:

      TxSon: if it’s a hard fact, surely you you won’t mind sharing your sources.

  19. karl anglin says:

    Whatever happened to international rates being charged?

  20. taxpayer says:

    America, cruel land with rules and restrictions, imagine having to pay for her education. The thought of working her way through school, oh the horror of it all.

    1. Georgia Jeff says:

      Right! And how about this…Require a current tax return to clain ANY services of ANY kind.

  21. stew says:

    I hope everyone knows “anchor baby” status was made law just so children of african-born slaves would be guaranteed US citizenship when the slaves were granted citizenship. It makes sense since slaves were brought here against their will. Modern-day illegals? not so much…

    1. krp says:

      The slave trade was abolished after 1808. So the youngest slave brought to the US in 1865 would have been 57 years old.

      The 14th amendment just added former slaves to what was already the status quo for all other babies born to all other nationalities. There was no such thing as “illegal immigration” back then. If you were here 5 years, you were eligble for citizenship.

      Birthright citizenship came from English common law. that is older than the United State itself.

  22. stace says:

    America is dying, dying a slow death…this is really a sad time in our history and we keep slouching toward being a 3rd world country…45 million on food stamps, illegals demanding rights and getting them, an inept government, a pathetic president…sad.

    1. Texas Freedom says:

      Unfortunately, it’s not all that ‘slow’ of a death anymore. We’re fast-tracking . . .

    2. menotyou says:

      woah there buddy, you should direct the majority of your blame to your elected officials who have sold us down the river to lobbies

  23. cappy says:

    Hmmm. lets do the math,15 trillion debt and someone illegal wants to go to school at taxpayer expense, maybe cheaper to bbuy them a plane tickket!

    1. Seth says:

      Since you’re so good at math (and spelling), maybe you’re also good at law, so you’ll understand this: she’s a US citizen.

      And where did you read that taxpayers are covering her tuition? She’s in school already and paying for it. Read the full article next time, not just the headline.

  24. patmurphy1965 says:

    The parents broke the law by having these anchor babies; and their children are being asked to take some responsibility. They should give something back for all they have received from the “system.” Our society works best when we receive and are willing to give.

  25. Fidel says:

    Please get bent.

  26. Jennifer says:

    I agree with just about all of the posters. This girl has a lot of nerve. She and her entire family should be deported.

    1. Mattyo says:

      why? she’s a US citizen, per the Constitution. If you’re born here, you’re automatically a citizen. If you didn’t read past the drudge headline (as I presume is the case for most here), the issue is that they didn’t have the paperwork showing that she was born here, for whatever reason. Assuming that she was in fact born here, then she’s a citizen. Hence the lawsuit… Cmon yall Drudge’s headlines are usually a little bit inaccurate and sensational

      1. SSchreff says:

        citizenship does not provide state residency. Citizenship is not required for someone to be considered a state resident. Green card holders can be residents of the state they live in. Residency is based on where you live, work and pay taxes

      2. krp says:

        Actually the 14th Amendment SPECIFICALLY states that a person born in the United States is a resident of the state they were born.

        A US Citizen must by definition be a resident of some state or territory. If there is evidence that she lives in Florida and that she was born in Florida, why would they say that she is a resident of another states.

      3. drljr says:

        But don’t forget that soil based citizenship is conditional. All of the reports indicate she was born to illegal aliens – that is a mother and father who are not allowed to be in the country or were every admitted. Which means she is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore she not a US citizen. Just being born in the country does not make you a citizen. This was the core issue of Ark in which an immigrant couple gave birth to a son who was a US citizen and Elk who was not.

      4. krp says:

        Jus soli is unconditional in the United States. There was no such thing as “illegal” in 1866 which the 14th Amendment was ratified.

        Some countries HAVE placed restrictions on jus soli birthright citizenship but no such restrictions exist in the United States and are unconstitutional .

        If the child is born to persons that have diplomatic immunity, in other words families of ambassadors and consoloates and foreign ruling families that does not apply but to all others they do not.

      5. drljr says:

        Then explain “… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, …”; why Congress declared all native Americans to be citizens in 1924; the Elk, Ark, Elg rulings which clearly established that one has to be under the jurisdiction in relations to citizenship.

        Because her parents did not subject themselves to the jurisdiction by asking for permission to enter and live in the US she is a citizen of the country the parents are from. When one looks at the meaning of Amendment 14 diplomats, visitors and illegal aliens can not produce citizens.

      6. krp says:

        The only persons that are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof “of the United States are the children of diplomats stationed in the Unisted States, and Member so occupying armed forces.
        This was upheld by the Supreme Court in US v WKA. If you weren’t such an illiterate Constitution=hating llibrurd, I would tell you to look it up, but that wouldn’t do any good.

  27. Tom Nikolaidis says:

    has anyone noticed ,illegals now no longer are afraid to let it be known they are illegal? Why? cause this administration would rather sue the states then protect our borders. We need a president who will FINALLY put their foot down and close the open gate!!! AND IT SURE ISNT OBAMA!!

    1. Newbern W Johnson says:

      It isn’t JUST Obama. It’s ALL of them.

  28. Tom says:

    Unfortunately she is a US citizen by being born, like the rest of us, here in the USA. She is also a resident of Florida by living in Florida. Therefore, she is in titled to in state tuition. As to the parents, they should be deported to their homeland as non US citizens. If we allow the daughter tuition per the law, then her family must live by the law…

    1. bob says:

      in titled? seriously? good grief.

      1. Kenny says:

        c’mon bob, I make little slips like that all the time, accidentally using phonetic syllables instead of the proper words, and I am well educated. People do that we’re they’re in a hurry to respond and get on with their lives. Just a little while ago I typed “said” instead of “so I”, don’t ask how that happened.. Anyway, lighten up, we’re not getting graded for this.

      2. Kenny says:

        hah see I did it again. “we’re” instead of “when”. OH MY! send that guy back to school, and yeah toss out his opinion while you’re at it 😉

        OK quick grammar check.. and we’re go for publish!

    2. Mark says:

      Tom,

      I think your comment has been the most reasonable one I have read yet. If she wants the law to protect her rights then the law should protect us against illegal aliens and her parents.

    3. Jean Deux says:

      you may be shocked to hear this, but these kinds of people tend to be hypocrites, and lack any principle, so don’t count on them move back to mexico

    4. krp says:

      What makes you think they are “illegal”? All the article says is that her parents have not been able to provide proof of legal presence. They could be Puerto Rican which would mean that they are U.S. Citizens.
      San Juan to Miami is a domestic flight, there is no need for a visa or even a passport to fly from Puerto Rico to the mainland.
      But if they are in Miami, they may not access to Vital Records in Puerto Rico to obtain copies of their birth certificates.

      1. drljr says:

        The article itself identified she could not establish her parents status and she and her parents are illegal aliens. If her parents were from Puerto Rico there would have been no issue – she would be a citizen and her parents would have been able to prove they were citizens and she is a citizen.

        It is important to remember that soil based citizenship is conditional not absolute. If her parents were not admitted as immigrants she is not citizen.

      2. Dan says:

        If they had papers they would have provided them.

      3. krp says:

        Can’t you read?
        Would you carry immigration papers on a flight from Chicago to Dallas? No unless you already have a passport, you wouldn’t. San Juan to Miami is also a domestic flight. No international borders are crossed and no passport is needed.
        You could have Puerto Ricans that have lived in Miami for 20 years with no need for passports of anything and now all of a sudden some school wants prove of residency? It may not be so easy to get birth certificates from Puetro Rico, remotely from Miami.

      4. krp says:

        The word “illegal” does not appear in the article, only in the headline.
        The article does NOT identify either of them as “illegal” aliens, on the contrary it identifies HER as a Citizen.

        You cannot read the article any more than you could read my posts above.

    5. drljr says:

      Actually she is not a citizen. Soil based citizenship is conditional. Take a look at the Ark, Elk and Elg Supreme Court rulings and the original discussion on what Amendment 14 means. Her parents were never admitted and thus she does not the requirements for soil based citizenship.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/112/94

      and others.

  29. teflon ron says:

    People here to born Migrants not lawfully allowed to be in the U.S.A and not under the jurisdiction of U.S.A. but under jurisdiction of another country should not be considered American citizens.

    1. Rubber Maid says:

      How is that fair to the child? Would your view change if we were enforcing immigration laws in the first place? Since we’re not enforcing immigration laws in this country, we may as well be compassionate to a child who has no choice in the matter, don’t you think? especially once the child has grown into a young adult here, with established roots..? Even ones who want to be educated citizens? Let’s start with enforcing the laws we have on the books first OK? Let’s start with prosecuting politicians and bankers for robbing the citizenry, how about that? Spending energy on this story is a waste. We’re being forced to take the risk of irresponsible politicians and bankers while not enjoying any of the reward! Now THAT is criminal.

      1. drljr says:

        Her parents are to blame. The article indicates they are illegal aliens who never took advantage of the amnesty over the last 30 years. Any blame goes to her parents. It is not an issue of being fair. Based upon Amendment 14 and the various rulings I know about she is not a US citizen. We need to start expelling all illegal aliens.

        Remember, an illegal alien is not an immigrant but an invader.

      2. krp says:

        According to the 14th Amendment and her birth certificate he IS a US Citizen. She is a born US citizen.

        You opinion DOES NOT COUNT. She is a U.S. Citizen and that FACT is stated in the artlcle

        But as an obvious libturd, you are allergic to facts.

    2. drljr says:

      That is exactly what the Ark, Elk and Elg decisions state. Unless one is a immigrant, which is some one who has received permission to enter and live in the country, one can not give soil based citizenship. Remember, a migrant is not a immigrant. They are a visitor.

      1. krp says:

        The word “visitor” is not mentioned in the decision. Only members of diplomatic corps are not subject/ the jurisdiction. If they are NOT subject to the jurisdeiction of the United States then US immigration laws would not apply to them and they wouldn’t be “illegal”.
        If an illegal alien crosses the street against the light, then he can be given a ticket for jaywalking because HE IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, but if a foreign diplomat would park his car next to a fire hydrant, he has diplomatic immunity and is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and can never be made to pay the parking fines. The “illegal” can because the illegal does not have diplomatic immunity and therefore IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the United States and any children born to anyone without diplomatic immunity is a U.S> CitiZen by jus soli.

        CASE CLOSED.

  30. Anon says:

    She is an American citizen and Florida resident. I don’t see how her parents’ immigration status has anything to do with her receiving the proper tuition rate. Those of you that have deemed her a criminal really need to read the beginning of the article.

    1. drljr says:

      We have read it. She is a child of illegal aliens and is thus an illegal alien herself. Soil based citizenship is conditional. She is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” since her parents were never admitted to the US.

      Keep in mind that native Americans were not citizens until 1924. Amendment 14 gives conditional soil based citizenship.

      1. krp says:

        “Jurisdiction” means who has the right to prosecute a case. Is it a state case, is it a federal case. Is it a Florida case? it is an Alabama case? A deputy ambassador from Taiwan for example, could strangle a prostitute and kill her but cannot be prosecuted because he has diplomatic immunity and is NOT “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
        If she or her parents are not subject toe the jurisdiction of the United States, then they cannot be prosecuted under U.S or any state laws for any crimes that they may commit. Even if they are visitors they cannot be given such immunity unless they are part of a diplomatic detail, which they are not, therefore they are INDEED subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and YES she is a Citizen.

        IIt is a shame that you are so ignorant.

      2. drljr says:

        Now you are trying to change the topic of the sentence from citizenship and allegiance to criminal law. You really should actually do some real research starting with US common law (see Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 10). That happens to be “Law of Nations” by Vattel. It is online and is only about 600 or 700 pages.

        Then take the time to actually read the Supreme Court rulings on citizenship – just the major ones – there are only 7 or 8 from 1814 to 1939 – The Venus, Scott, Elk, Ark, Elg, Minor, etc.. Then take the time to read some of the law itself – its Title 8 and it is online at the Library of Congress. It is only a little over 500 pages But at least take the time to actually read Elk and Ark and try to comprehend the history lessons that the Justices included and what they actually stated in the actual ruling.

        All you are doing is making yourself look foolish. It is obvious all you have been doing is copying text you think supports your position into the posts without comprehending the rulings. Try sitting down and actually reading the text. These are not rulings you can just read in 10 minutes. You are going to have to devote some time – i.e. hours – if you really want to understand the rulings. I have been reading these rulings for years as a result of research on various things.

        And from your reactions it makes me wonder if your parents are illegal aliens who gave birth to you here. If would explain your attitude.

        Please don’t bother to respond until after you do some REAL RESEARCH for a change. It is a waste of your time and my time which is valuable.

        =============

        For anyone else following the thread I have a post waiting for the moderator to approve since it contains links to the Elk and Ark cases which are relevant to this discussion thread.

        =============

  31. Recon says:

    Ok, so the parents couldn’t produce the immigration docs. The relevant point is that by law if she’s born here, she’s considered a US citizen. As such, she should be able to produce the BC.

    What happened there?

  32. truth says:

    prove your not illegal and the rate will be reduced. If you cant prove it then o well.

    1. krp says:

      She has. She is a US Citizen. Vital records are easy to come by.,

      The sticking point is her parents.

  33. nowon_yuno says:

    So these kids are being punished for something their parents did. Kinda like how “the community” wants to do to get reparations

  34. Todd P. says:

    The policy fix for this problem is NOT ONE PENNY of government aid/money for any ILLEGAL aliens. If they can make it in the U.S. without taxpayer funds (housing, food, utilities, medical, etc.), than I might be willing to “turn a blind eye” to the illegals. However, if this funding was pulled, the country would see just how much of a LEECHING effect they have on the economy (i.e.- most would have to leave w/o being able to suck off the taxpayers)……………..

  35. Simon says:

    Seems that there must be something left out of this story. If she is and adult and US citizen and meets the residence status required to get in state tuition, she should be getting it regardless of her parents immigration status. If here parents wanted to go to college, they should pay the out of state rate.

  36. amplitude jones says:

    Pet food for the Orcas at sea world!
    ZOO FOOD! Criminal invaders, and their progeny are invaders. Out of uniform invaders are to be shot on sight.

    1. Seth says:

      Ah, so you’d use to 2nd Amendment to shoot down the 14th. A true patriot…

  37. smfic says:

    Attention ICE and Big Sis, seems like you’ve got some volunteers looking for a free ride to their proper country of citizenship. Oh, you’re too busy frisking grandmas and babies at the airports? Making PSAs with the “terrorists” all being white people? Makes perfect sense!?

  38. Lawrence Ipsum says:

    This article is inaccurately labeled on the Drudge Report as “Illegals sue over being charged out-of-state tuition rates…”, Matt really ought to correct this. The students suing are not illegals.

    1. V says:

      Yeah Lawrence, I used to listen to that guy’s radio program several years ago, and now when I see how misleading he can be sometimes… and you know that he knows that so many of his readers don’t even click the links to the stories, or don’t read the stories at least! I have sent him many nasty grams on this point, but he is too chicken to respond. Either that or he’s off cruising in his mustang in florida while his interns make up the headlines. Or maybe it’s Republicans, who knows. All those parties are BS corporate cronies, or they’re just being used. Mass media today is so full of traps!

  39. deedee says:

    They are lucky we even admit them to COLLEGES here in the USA..THEY arent US CITIZENS they wanna PLAY, they PAY!

  40. Jim Dietz says:

    If they are not legal residents then they should not have access to public education, health care, housing, food stamps, welfare, jobs, etc.

    They should be taken to the nearest border and made to exit the US.

    I have nothing against LEGAL immigration. But when they are here illegally then they should get nothing.

    Any politician or political entity that refuses to enforce our immigration should be charged with treason. The executive legislative, and judicial branches should be charged with High Treason with all the penalties that come with that charge.

    The law is the law and should apply to everyone and be enforced without favoritism.

  41. Poorschmuck whogot took says:

    Simple fix to your whole dilemma, Sweetheart. Produce some tax records for the past three years showing that your parents paid their taxes to the federal government and the state. Or produce your own… Either way, residency is proven and you ARE eligible for in-state tuition. Until then, get yourself a straw…and suck it up.

    1. Poorconfusedheadlinereader says:

      actually all she has to produce is a birth certificate or some proof showing that she was born here. The immigration status of the parents is irrelevant. Does no one read the Constitution anymore?

      1. drljr says:

        Being born in the country does not always mean you are citizen. People keep ignoring “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” based upon the information in the article she is an illegal alien as are her siblings.

      2. krp says:

        Wrong again.
        For a passport application, a certified US passport is alone SUFFICIENT evidence of citizenship.

        Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):
        Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
        Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
        Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
        Naturalization Certificate
        Certificate of Citizenship

  42. jgalt6 says:

    We should be working to kick out the ACLU first, as they are the most anti-American and marxist organization around. No part of the American culture is agreeable with these legal loons. They work hand in glove with the illegals and groups like ACORN and SEIU.

  43. Ellie says:

    This is how the Roman Empire collapsed, in the third century BC too many Babylonian “hordes” overran it and demanded the same benefits accorded Roman citizens. The government couldn’t afford it, so poof the empire collapsed. PLUS… the actual Italians (Roman citizens) fled into Spain and France when the Babylonians moved in. Hence, the Italians of today are really the Babylonians of ancient times.

  44. bataisflow says:

    Your parents don’t pay U.S. taxes and are here illegally. You should not be entitled to anything. The only solution, is for your parents to be audited by the IRS and pay all back taxes that they owe the state and federal governments. Not the greatest solution, but that way, you might be entitled to in state tuition, vs. riding on someone else’s dime.

  45. J Bond Sheppard says:

    Its this kind of news that makes my head explode! What part of ILLEGAL don’t we understand!!! They should have no rights to go to our colleges, sue or live here! Criminals who are citizens have less rights than ILLEGALS these days! I’ve had all I can stand, and I’m not going to take anymore!

    1. Seth says:

      The part you don’t understand, it seems, is that she’s not an illegal. I’m sorry your head exploded for no good reason…

  46. Barbara Rodriguez says:

    Give her in-state tuition and deport her parents!

  47. bill says:

    OK, so give her in state tuition and deport her parents

  48. PhilJ says:

    If she were born here in the USA, she’d have a birth certificate. Even for a home birth, a certificate can be obtained. That and school records are enough to be considered a FL resident. I smell a pile of BS.

    1. bd says:

      She is probably not an adult yet and her parents/guardians are pay for college. Birth certificate does not prove state residency and illegals might be missing essential paperwork (like utility bills and pay stabs) due to paying everything with cash or through fake identities. There is most likely whole bunch of fraud charges that can be brought together with illegal immigration charges…all just to save $5,000.

      1. krp says:

        This is Miami. They have utility bills. They have cell phone bills. They have rent contracts. They don’t have or need fake Identities in Miami. It isn’t like in the 50[s where “passing” meant a light-skinned black was passing for white. 3/4 of the population of Miami is Latino so there is no reason to hide the fact that one is Latino.

        I have read on other websites on this case, and all of the students are confined to Miami Dade College. This is a matter of the interpretation of the language of the rules by the Cubans that work in the Admissions office at MDC. I have dealt with them before myself so I know that they do not understand the rules that they are supposed to enforce. They misinterpret “legal ties to Florida” to mean “legal immigration status” There is nothing in the Univesity of Florida’s description of legal ties to Florida that has any bearing to federal immigration law.
        Cubans in Miami are very discriminatory against any non-Cubans, whether they be black, WASP, Puerto Rican or any other immigrant. i have lived there long enough to know that is the case.

  49. Kevin says:

    Blame your parents for not following the law in the first place. Kudos to Florida, this anchor baby garbage has gone on for far too long.

  50. Me says:

    AWWWW .. Poor ANCHOR BABY was used to sucking welfare her entire life and F’ing up American jobs … now wants to get discounted college???? DEPORT HER NOW! I’m betting she was not even born here either, just BS..

  51. flyslinger2 says:

    Fair is a four letter word. And it usually means that the person in the right looses.

  52. Susan says:

    It’s clear. In the eyes of the law. her parents are not residents of the state of Florida. Therefore she is not entitled to in-state tuition rates. That is the case in any state. If the parents are not legal residents of the state, the child pays out-of-state tuition. The decision is based on the parents’ status, not the child’s. When she is of legal age and no longer a dependent, then she can be considered a resident for purposes of tuition.

    1. oldguy says:

      I don’t get it — if the child is a resident of Florida, shouldn’t she be able to get the state subsidy? Why would her parents’ status matter, they’re not the ones saddled with the tuition charges. When I went to college, I was 17, but it was all charged to me, not my parents.

      1. krp says:

        It is probably because of the Cuban woman in the admissions office at MDC that cannot understand the underlying reasons of the rules that she is following. Also, Cubans in MIami discriminate against non-Cubans and she is probably just taking the excuse to push around some other non-Cuban Latina, because she can.
        The students will win this lawsuit hands down and the state will lose a lot of money because the incompetence and the racism of a handful of Cuban government workers.

      2. Susan says:

        The residency decision is based on the parents. If a child goes to school in a state where the parents don’t have residency, out-of-state tuition is owed. In the case of illegal immigrants, they are legal residents of Mexico.

    2. krp says:

      Then what state is she a resident of? She has lived in Florida all her life, Does that make her an Alabaman resident?

      She is a US Citizen, so she must be a resident of some state. So which state?

      1. Susan says:

        SHE lives in Florida, but for purposes of determining official residency in the tuition decision, her parents are not legal residents of Florida, nor any other state for that matter. She is a minor, a dependent. It is her parents’ residency that matters in this situation. That is true for everyone, parents legal or illegal.

      2. krp says:

        An out-of-state student has the option of going to a state school in their home state. That is why they are charged out-of-state rates.
        If she must pay out-of-state rates in a state where she has lived all her life, then which state can she go to to an in-state student? If the only address she has is in Florida then she is a Florida resident and subject to Florida tuition rates.

        I have dealt the Cuban woman that works in the Adminssions office of MDC myself, and I can assure you, that she does no understand the WHY behind the rules.

      3. krp says:

        The Saenz Court also mentioned the majority opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases, which had stated that “a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State.”[28]

        Mp restrictions on residency are dependent on the citizen’s parents as per the Saenz Court

  53. TJG says:

    When she went in to explain the administrators should have said, “No habla inglés”.

    1. krp says:

      Miami Dade College. The administrators are all Cuban. That is probably the case.

  54. danny says:

    F*** THEM, us anericans have no rights in this country anymore, give it to the iilegals, give them everything!!!!!!!!! IAM SO P***** this country does not make any sence anymore, what happened to sannity??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    1. Liberal Vet says:

      sense* FTFY

    2. getaclueNoOffenseThough says:

      this angers you but not the en masse theft of the wealth of the nation by bankers and politicians? This is about peanuts compared to the tens of TRILLIONS that have been given to irresponsible investment bankers. And it’s not over, thanks to “counterparty risk”. 97% of the CDS derivatives on Greek debt for example is owned by US banks! you know this 50% haircut you’ve been hearing about? It’s not going to be nearly enough — even if only 5% of the debt was defaulted on, it would cause a cascade of bank failures because the contracts are so intertwined, and so leveraged. Notional over-the-counter derivative exposure is more than one QUADRILLION (1000 * trillion). QE TO INFINITY….. direct your anger to where it is deserved — ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. This immigration BS is inconsequential in comparison. Let’s worry about that when the middle class is in the midst of being destroyed, huh?

      1. getaclueNoOffenseThough says:

        err.. is NOT in the midst of being destroyed, is how that should have read..🙂

  55. TheReallKingMax says:

    I’d give these free riding jerkweeds a choice:

    Either pay up, or we deport your family.

    It’s really an easy choice.

    And it’ll teach you to keep your mouths SHUT when you’ve been freeriding all along…

  56. James says:

    Hmm, well looks like she had time to file a lawsuit/talk to her lawyer while working all those jobs.

    This is fruit of the poisonous tree. She should not be a US citizen when her parents broke our laws to get her. How much is a US citizenship WORTH in craddle to grave entitlements. THese people are stealing from us all.

    If your parents arent here legally, then sorry, you dont get to benefit from their illegal actions. Im sure there are colleges in YOUR NATIVE COUNTRY. Try them.

    1. krp says:

      This is her native country. She was born here. Can you not read?

  57. cluelessinky says:

    The late Sonny Bono, certainly no great intellect, did have a great response to situaitons such as this. When asked what he would do as a congressman when it came to illegal aliens he responded ” Which part of illegal confuses you?”

  58. John says:

    She is an American citizen, and is entitled to in-state tuition if she has been emancipated from her parents. If she’s taking on the full cost of living and paying for her education alone, then she deserves in-state. If however her parents are co-signers, giving her a monthly allowance, or otherwise providing support even if they weren’t illegal she would be denied in-state tuition.

    1. krp says:

      Then what state would she be a resident of? She is a U.S. Citizen, then she must be a resident of some state, and the 14ht amendment says that she is a resident of the state where she lives. If she has lived in Florida all her life, and she lives with her parents in Florida, how can they say that she is a Oregon or West Virgnia resident and deny her Florida tuition?

      If they cannot identify what state other than Florida that she is a residnet of, they should not deny her in-state status REGARDLESS of her parents’ immigration status

      1. Susan says:

        It is not that simple. It is a matter of law and concerns the residency of her parents until she is of age or becomes legally emancipated and self-supporting.

  59. Mark Matis says:

    “Law Enforcement” is the great enabler for this swill. They had better be ready to pay the piper when the tune is over.

  60. toushy says:

    ARRRRG!!!
    GET OUT!!!
    MOMMY and DADDY have had at least 18 years to get it right and they didn’t, criminals !!! period.

  61. Artie Fufkin says:

    I have a solution

    Give her in state tuition.
    then deport her parents

    simple

  62. Charles says:

    She is not a US citizen just because she was born here. That is a perversion of the original intent of the law. The law was put in place to insure children born in foreign countries of those serving overseas would be American citizens. It never was intended to provide citizenship for illegals. At least one of the parents must be a US citizen in order for a child born here to be a US citizen. Liberal/progressive pervesion to make the law fit what they want once again.

    1. krp says:

      Yes she is. She probably has a U.S. Passport., which you probably don’t The passport is proof of citizenship.

  63. spock says:

    Deport her and her parents NOW!!

  64. The blogger says:

    she couldn’t produce a birth certificate to prove that she was born in the US? Seems like we’re missing a lot of the story here.

  65. TakeBackUSA2012 says:

    Legally deport their parents to their country of origin and their Anchor Children will follow….

    1. krp says:

      She is a U.S. Citizen.
      She is a sophmore in college.so she is 19 or 20 years old.
      Once she turns 21 as a u.S. Citizen. as all “anchor babies”, she has the right to petition NCS to sponsor her parents for green cards. Then they will be allowed permanent residency and allowed to stay.

  66. Mark says:

    I have read where a “child” of parents that divorced and moved out of the state where the child was already attending a state university had their in-state tuition changed to out-of-state. The basis was not even that the student lived in state, which never changed. It was the parents status as legal residents of the state.

  67. Michael says:

    As usual, the article doesn’t give us enough information. If the young lady in question was born in the US and didn’t take residence in another country she is a legal US citizen…the status of her parents doesn’t matter. The only question, then, is whether or not she’s a citizen of Florida.

    We don’t know ANYTHING about the other students involved in the law suit…if they are in the US illegally then no, they don’t have a right to instate tuition…and should be deported.

    I do think the right compromise is to give the young lady from the interview instate tuition and deport her illegal parents.

    1. Susan says:

      No – in the case of tuition, the residence status of the parents is the determining factor unless the student is of age and independent or an emancipated minor.

    2. Barbara Ann says:

      Michael,

      These students were born in US. They are US Citizens. Their parents are illegals. They are suing because they feel they are being published for their parents mistakes. They are all over 18 and US Citizens as well as living in Florida all their lives but being charged out of state tuition at Florida State Universities.

      1. Kenny says:

        Thanks for clarifying that Barbara Ann. Is this your article? In any case I hope that they can get their subsidy, if that’s all true.

        However, if it were me in this day trying to go to school, or if I had kids doing so, I would look out of the country where the education is just as good (if not better in some cases) and much, much cheaper. Some of them will give you a better deal, too, being a foreigner. Thanks to easy money loans for kids who can never discharge that debt in a bankruptcy, effectively being guaranteed by the US government, prices in the US for education have been inflated to unsustainable numbers. If these loans were not guaranteed, NONE OF THESE KIDS would qualify at their current prices, and tuition rates would drop dramatically to numbers that are affordable to students with part time jobs.

        Simple economics, once again government intervention has distorted the free market. People are so down on capitalism, but there really isn’t a free market, so it’s not a fair conclusion.

      2. krp says:

        There was no law stated in the article as to why the decision was made that these students were charged out-of-state tuition. The only college mentioned is Miami Dade College. Are all the students involved students at Miami Dade College? If so, it may simply be a decision made by the admissions office at MDC rather than any state law or rule.
        I have dealt with the admissions office at MDC before, and realized that the admissions officer I dealt with, did not really understand the underlying reasons for doing her job.

    3. drljr says:

      Based upon what is in the article she is an illegal alien. Her parents are not in the country legally and thus the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ” comes into play. Her parents never subjected themselves or where placed in subjection to the US. It is a matter of citizenship type obligations. See Ark, Wong and Elg Supreme Court rulings as well as the original discussions of what the sentence means.

      1. krp says:

        God are you illiterate, You have to be a liberal.This is the how the opinion of that case settled “subject to the jurisdiction”,. The student IS a U.S. Citizen.

        “The Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that “the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.”[30] The majority opinion was written by Justice Horace Gray, who was joined by Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.[18]
        Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[31] the court’s majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[32] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory.[33][34][35] The court’s majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions[36] (plus a fourth—namely, that Indian tribes “not taxed” were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[37][38]). The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that “during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China”.[12] As a result, the majority opinion concluded that Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, via the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, they held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law “cannot control [the Constitution’s] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions.”

      2. drljr says:

        And as your refuse to accept and continue to ignore is the fact that Ark’s parents were actual immigrants who asked for and were granted permission to enter and live in the US. In our modern language they were actual immigrants. As such Ark was “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” at birth because his parents were true immigrants and had been made subjects, not citizens, of the US by asking for and being permitted to enter and live in the US. And as a result the Chinese Exclusion laws could not apply to him. He was an actual Amendment 14 citizen.

        Wendy’s Luiz parents, based upon the implications of the article, are illegal aliens and thus Wendy Luiz is one also. This case is the opposite of the Ark case and the analog for this discussion is the Elk case.

        And obviously you are having problems defending your position since you have resorted to insults. Take the time to do the real research and read the whole opinions.

        From items I have read children born to US personal in Japan can actually claim Japanese citizenship at age 18. So much for your closed society claim. Japan appears to have soil based citizenship.

      3. krp says:

        I stand by my comments, regardless of whether you consider them insults or whatever. You obviously cannot read, you ignorant libturd

        The ruling opinion in US x WKA stated that there are only 4 exemptions to jus soli and those are 1) Children of foreign diplomats,, 2)Familes of armed occupying forces, 3) born on foreign owned ships. and 4)Indian tribes that do not pay taxes to the US.
        Of course, if you weren’t an illiterate product of the Socialist run Gonverment school system, you would have been able to read that, because I have already posted it.
        Wendy Ruiz, does NOT fall into any of those 4 exemptions and is therefore a US Citizen.

        and as far as Japan

        Japan is a jus sanguinis state as opposed to jus soli state, meaning that it attributes citizenship by blood but not by location of birth. However, in practice, it is by parentage but not by descent. Article 2 of the Nationality Act provides three situations in which a person can become a Japanese national at birth:
        When either parent is a Japanese national at the time of birth
        When the father dies before the birth and is a Japanese national at the time of death
        When the person is born on Japanese soil and both parents are unknown or stateless

        Wrong again, libturd.

      4. drljr says:

        If you had read what I said about Japan you would have noticed I said “I have read”. I never claimed accurate knowledge.

        You also ignore these statements from the ruling
        ————
        The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

        not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;
        ——————-
        which clearly address Wendy Ruiz’s parents who were never admitted to the US based upon the article. Her parents, herself and her siblings are subject of the country the parents are from. They never became subjects and Amendment 14 would not apply to them.

        People can go and read the rulings for themselves to determine who is reading the Amendment correctly.

        As for your insults, such as “libturd”, are meaningless and show your ignorance, lack of class and inability to reason or present an argument to support your position.

        It makes no sense to respond anymore to your diatribes.

      5. krp says:

        A sherriff in Georgia cannot go into Florida to arrest someone that holds up a liquor store in Florida, because Florida is not his jurisdiction. The person in Florida is not under the jurisdiction of the state of Georgia.
        If a person can be arrested in the United States, then they are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION. That would include “illegal aliens”.
        The deputy ambassador of Nepal only the other hand has diplomatic immunity and there fore is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
        Unless Ms Ruiz parents have diplomatic immunity, then they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and he IS INDEED A U. S. CITIZEN.

        How ignorant can you possibly be?

  68. Susan says:

    illegal illegal illegal illegal. That means her parents should leave the country. Let her declare emancipated minor status. If she then accepts support from her parents, she loses that statues and pays out of state tuition.

    We need a constitutional amendment making anchor babies sink the parents’ boat. No more automatic citizenship for them. In fact, put them at the end of the line for future consideration. Put the incentive in the right place.

    1. krp says:

      United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
      “An act of Congress, they held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law “cannot control [the Constitution’s] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions”

  69. macksfield says:

    Wendy while I can see your side, living here your whole life. I can see how would expect to be treated as a citizen and expect to pay as citizen. But you say you want “fair”. So how is it fair that my taxes had to subsidize your illegal parents. Who are law breakers according this societies standards. My parents were impacted by your families upaid medical fees. Help me understand your definition of “fair”.

  70. S Becker says:

    This is what happens when we have dummies running the country. Both Republicans and Democrats have pandered to illegals. NO MORE BIRTH RIGHT CITIZENSHIP!

    1. krp says:

      United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

      “An act of Congress, they held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law “cannot control [the Constitution’s] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions”

  71. malcom says:

    see what happends when your own policians favor illegals over their own citizens and race??? a storm is brewing I believe, be prepared. Liberals and democrats are on the side of illegals, muslims and other enemies.

    1. Big Bear says:

      It’s coming. Many brave men and women who took an oath to protect our country against “all enemies, foreign and domestic” know who and what must be dealt with. Liberals are mentally ill and must be removed from all positions of power.

      1. malcom says:

        exactly, anyone who votes liberal or democrat shouldn;t even be able to drive a car let alone order a happy meal. They prove they are terrible at making decisions and are a danger to others.

  72. thomas says:

    give her the fair tution and deport her parents

  73. Ian says:

    The fact that they’re even being given the chance to pay out-of-state tuition, and more importantly, get financial aid should make children of illegals happy for the help at all. Financial aid for most college students, especially those starting out, gets based on their parents income from the previous fiscal year. Seeing as most illegals do work “under the table”, the fact that the U.S. government is dishing out any support to their children is surprising still, although yes there is plenty of legislation out there that MAKES them have to.

    Hell I have Latino friends that go to college, and the amount of money they get from the government in financial aid compared to others in their same income range is sometimes appalling. Yes everyone deserves help to go to college, but just because you a minority doesn’t mean you should get anywhere from 50% to 200%+ more aid than someone that wouldn’t be considered a minority.

    Hmm well now, imagine if they were not treated as a minority (As most would like it to be) and got even less money. Then someone, somewhere, would come along and say, “Oh, but I’m a minority and should deserve more help!”

    Pay the out of state tuition and be happy that you can say you have citizenship, while your parents could have applied for citizenship and saved you all this drama if they were approved.

  74. William says:

    Don’t they have to get a student visa before they can even attend, much less qualify for tax-payer subsidized instate rates?

    We have enough poor or minority citizens who are suffer poor education, failing schools, etc., they should be the first priority.

    1. Seth says:

      ..but you don’t need a student visa in your own country…

  75. Lee says:

    I say great, let them all show up in court with their parents and have ICE in the jury room. When they are all there the clerk reads the suit and then ask for all illegals to raise their hand to swear to the facts. then it is in court record, ICE comes in and hauls them to the nearest port, put them in boats and return them to the Southernmost point of Mexico.

    The Constitution say under control of the Government considering that their parents were here illegally they are not Citizens.

  76. Smooginis says:

    Read the Constitution and understand it people. If they are here illegally and she is born here she IS NOT A US CITIZEN. Stop believing all the LIES that are printed. She should be deported along with them.

    1. Try Again says:

      Hey there Smooginis, that’s actually not the issue here (and not true either). Amendment 14 explicitly states that anyone born in the US is a US citizen. Read Barbara Ann (works for this news station)’s comment somewhere above for clarification. Again, the child is a citizen of the US…. but the issue is about whether or not she is a florida resident.

  77. tim says:

    “Advanced degree”? She is attending a community college. Everyone gets in. Those degrees are worth very little, unless she does well and is able to transfer to a big school.

    I applaud her workload and enthusiasm, but why should she be subsidized as an in-state student by taxpayers when her parents pay no taxes, as illegal immigrants (aside from sales tax)? She was already given a free education through high school as well as other services no doubt. Sorry but no dice.

    Keep working hard, finish college at the top of your class, transfer to U of Miami or U of Florida, get a B.S. or B.A. and live the American Dream. No special perks for you.

    1. Mattyo says:

      knowing what I know now, with a BSEE and still 20K in debt after 12 years with good pay, I wish I had just gone to a technical college like ITT. This person in question is a US citizen and supposedly a florida resident. How can you blame a child for being born? At that point the issue becomes damage control.

      Anyway, with student loans being a permanent monkey on your back, good luck if you have an MBA and 100K in debt, as there are many who do not have jobs with salaries in the range that they were expecting. Tuition rates are distorted because student loans are guaranteed by the US government (aka YOU).

    2. krp says:

      Miami Dade has changed and now offers some 4 year degrees.

  78. JWS says:

    At this point, I’ll hardly bat an eyelash if a giant spaceship lands, green unicorns come out, fill the earth with polka dotted rainbows, flip us all off on national television, and then get back in their spaceship and fly away again.

  79. William Berger says:

    If they dont like the out of state rates, wait until they see the out of country rates we should charge.

  80. The Basics says:

    “Children of illegal immigrants living in Florida are suing the state for charging them out-of-state tuition.”

    “… illegal immigrants living in Florida” is all you need to know.

    Fix that part and the rest takes care of itself.

    1. Jim says:

      I am tired of ILLEGALS complaining they aren’t getting their rights.The 14th amendment was never supposed to be about ILLEGAL ALIENS, but about former slaves and native American indians. NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM MEXICO.
      How about MY RIGHTS?
      1. Right to have my border secure.
      2. Right to NOT have my tax money support illegals for LIFETIMES?
      3. RIGHT to DEMAND THEY speak English not spanish?
      4. Right to demand they NOT fly the MEXICAN FLAG. IF it was such a great country GO BACK HOME.
      THIS IS NOT YOUR STATE, THIS IS NOT YOUR COUNTRY, regardless if you were born here.Your parents were here ILLEGALLY. No other country would permit citizenship by birth. TRY being an American giving birth in mexico. THEY would demand you PAY the hospital bill or they arrest you. OH yeah, NO FREE EDUCATION, and NO WELFARE. POBRISTIO mujer. Va a su pais ahora.

      1. drljr says:

        Native Americans were not covered by Amendment 14. In 1924 under Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 made native Americans US Citizens. These two cases are relevant to the Amendment 14 discussions

        Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
        United States v Wong Kim Ark 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898)

        Children born to native Americans after 1924 are natural born citizens. Prior to 1924 they were not citizens.

        This women is not a citizen and the school should have reported her to ICE in obedience to US Law. She is an illegal alien.

        The term “illegal immigrant” should also never be used. Calling illegal aliens “illegal immigrants” obscures the fact they are invaders. They are not immigrants of any type – legal or illegal.

  81. TxSon says:

    It is time the 14th ammendment was interpreted the way it was meant to be. The citizenship clause had only one purpose and that was to ensure that freed slaves had citizenship rights. It was never meant to give citzenship to children of illegal immigrants.

    That’s the hard fact. Get over it.

    1. krp says:

      There were no border patrols in 1865. There was no such thing as i-94s or green cards. There was no such thing as student visas and the like. There was no such thing as “illegal immigration” in 1865. That is just a 20th Century device to keep Catholics (Poles,. Italians and Croats) out of the country.

      All the 14th Amendment did was add former slaves to be included in what was the status quo, brithright citizenship which was derived from English common law.

      1. drljr says:

        That is not correct. Our common law is from Vattel’s Law of Nations (See Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 10 of US Constitution). Also refer to Article 1, Section 8, Paragraphs 4 and 15. You should also look at

        Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
        United States v Wong Kim Ark 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898)

        The issue is our immigration laws are not being enforced. She should have been deported along with her family to her country of origin.

      2. krp` says:

        Here you go, idiot. United States v Wong Kim Ark

        Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),[31] the court’s majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,[32] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory.[33][34][35]

        There’s your “common law” Libturd.

  82. Big Bear says:

    Time to deport the illegals and all the lawyers who enable them. Any lawyer handling illegals should be disbarred. No surprise that the SPLC is behind this. I will enjoy it when they get their comeuppance…

    1. Gremlin says:

      I totally agree! And don’t forget to deport the politicians with them!

  83. Matthew Dunnyveg says:

    The time has come when Americans are going to have to decide whether they want to give away their own country or fight back. It’s inconceivable for Americans illegally in Mexico to demand anything, much less sue in court. It’s even more inconceivable that Americans don’t seem to care enough to save themselves.

  84. Sanrda B. says:

    The US is one of only a handful of countries in the world that automatically grants citizenship, just because someone has a baby that just happens to be in the US at the time. Ireland got rid of that law years ago. Japan has never had any such law. Just because I go to Japan, and have a baby while i’m there for 2 weeks, doesn’t mean my baby is “Japanese”. Just typing this is making me laugh.
    Time to rescind the anchor baby law, and make it retroactive for the last 35 years.

    1. drljr says:

      To my knowledge their is no “anchor baby” law under Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4. She and her siblings are not US citizens but illegal aliens. Amendment 14 does not give citizenship to children born to illegal aliens, visitors or diplomats.

      These are two important Amendment 14 cases.

      Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
      United States v Wong Kim Ark 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898)

      Native Americans were made US citizens in 1924 by an act of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4.

      1. krp says:

        May 30 1866

        Mr Howard: The first amendment is to section one, delclaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I read as THE LAW OF THE LAND ALREADY, that EVERY PERSON BORN WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foriegners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors of foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but WILL INCLUDE EVERY OTHER CLASS OF PERSONS. It settles the great question of citizenship and REMOVES ALL DOUBT AS TO WHAT PERSONS ARE OR ARE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. This has long been a great desideration in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

      2. drljr says:

        You really should read the text you post. Notice they all included “subject to the jurisdiction”. Illegal aliens are invaders. Nothing you have posted invalidates anything I have stated. In fact, anyone reading what you have posted will see that what you have posted support my statements. Based upon the context and information in the article she is an illegal alien.

        And even under English common law, which is not what control the US law, one could not become a citizen unless one asked the crown. This may have changed since the Socialist got into control and with the British Empire. If you do some research you will find that “Law of Nations” is the common law of the US.

        And trying to insult me by calling names just show ignorance on your part. Take the time to read what you post and try to understand the text of what you are posting.

      3. krp says:

        If she cannot be prosecuted under U.S. or Floirda law because of diplomatic immunity, then she would NOT be subject tot eh jurisdiction of the United States.
        If she CAN be prosecuted by the jurisdiction of the United States then the is SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of the United States and she IS a U.S. Citizen per the 14th amendment of the Constituion.
        Chances are that she has a U.S. Passport to prove U.S. Citizenship and you do not.

  85. Cribster says:

    I don’t consider her an American citizen as both parents are illegal aliens. confiscate all their worldy goods and deport the entire family tomorrow!

    This story illustrates how broad the problems due to the foreign invasion of tens of millions spread, the problems are innumerable! It also shows how emboldened illegals and their spawn become due to lack of enforcement.

    1. krp says:

      Your consideration is irrelevant.

      From the State Department Passport Applications:
      Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):
      Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
      Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
      Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
      Naturalization Certificate
      Certificate of Citizenship

      As per the requirement for passport applications, a U.S. birth certificate is SUFFICIENT evidence of U.S. Citizenship. No stipulation is mentioned regarding the immigration status of the parents.

  86. Seriously! says:

    She was born here and I child of ILLEGAL immigrants. So who do you think paid the bill for her birthing – her illegal immigrant parents. I don’t think so! Good ol’American Taxpayer.

    I guess if she pays back her medical costs (from birth to the last free medical exam) and aggress to have her illegal parent deported, she can have her in-state tuitions.

    Can I go to Mexico, sneak back into the U.S. and get free health care, education for my kids, food, housing? Seems the life of an Illegal is much easier than being an American. How un-American is that?

  87. Jim in Houston says:

    If she doesn’t like it, she can always go back where her parents came from and where she belongs! What part of Illegal does she not understand? Here is the definition according to the Merriam Webster dictionary: : not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit.

  88. NowSwimBack says:

    America has become an mental asylum.

    1. ladyswiss says:

      Yes, and Obama is in charge. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest!
      The Cuckoo’s nest being DC.

  89. Quilvio says:

    Citizenship is not the issue here. A child is the resident of the state in which his or her parent(s) LEGALLY reside. In this case, there is no lergal residence for her parents, therefore none for her.

    1. Quilvio says:

      legal, not lergal.

    2. krp says:

      The 14th Amendment states that a person born in the United states is a United States citizen and a resident of the state that they live. She was born in the United States and is a United States Citizen. Can the admissions office say that she is a resident of Wyoming? not if she has been living in Florida all her life they cannot.

  90. TacAirlifter (Colorado) says:

    This is very unfortunate, but what Miriam Haskell fails to point out that the 14th Amendment is applied to U.S. citizens. If this young lady’s parents are truly illegal immigrants, then she is not a U.S. citizen. She may have been living in the United States and agencies have turned a blind eye to her status, but she is still not a legal citizen, therefore, only U.S. citizens are entitled to claim grievances against the U.S. Constitution. That would be like a Russian filing in federal court from Moscow an issue they had with our constitution. Now, if she IS a legalized citizen, then either she took the U.S. citizenship test or one of her parents is a legal resident. Other than that, I just don’t understand how you can live in the U.S. illegally if all government agencies are doing their job by the law.

  91. TMarie says:

    For all of you 14th Amendment quoting, bleeding hearts… Immigration laws were basically non-existent at the time it was ratified. There was no need to address issues with children born to illegal aliens. It was done to protect the rights of native born Black Americans who were recently freed slaves or children of.
    Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
    “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
    This was also reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan:
    “[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”

    “The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship. ”

    It’s a shame that we have allowed this abuse of our Constitution for so long.

  92. Joe says:

    Ok if it comes to it, charge her the state tuition but deport the freeloading ILLEGAL parents NOW !!!!

  93. TexasForever says:

    Fine…..leave her here but DEPORT her CRIMINAL parents. They BROKE our LAWS when they STOLE their way into MY country!
    DEPORT THEM!
    And if she doesn’t like it she can go with them!
    BORDERS, LANGUAGE, CULTURE = a country!

  94. Jean Deux says:

    we should sue them for stealing from the US taxpayers

  95. Rich says:

    If the STUDENT is a citizen and a legal resident then she should get in state tuition.

    Her parents need to be deported ASAP!

    One has nothing to do with the other

  96. Melody Harpole says:

    I have a family member who was raised in Oregon. When she was an adult, her parents moved to Washington state. Even though she continued to live in Oregon, she was charged out of state tuition when attending college in Oregon.

    It’s how the colleges run the system.

  97. Jean Deux says:

    they need to be charged “out of country” tuition!!!!! send the bill to mexico

  98. TroyG says:

    Frankly this is what our own government has done to us. Anchor babies indeed!
    If the parents are here illegally, so are their progeny, period!

    Of course this fine Hispanic American just has to sue instead of admitting the truth, she doesn’t qualify for in state funding, her parents are to blame, let her sue them!

  99. TakeBackAmerica2012 says:

    This is occuring because we have a “President” that has two Kenyan Illegal Immigrant Family Members living in Boston, 100% on the US Taxpayers Dime – and BOTH are protected from Deportation despite the fact that both of them have been issued multiple deportation orders…

    *Aunt Zetuni Onyango
    *Uncle Omar Onyango

    These insane policies will not change UNTIL WE GET RID OF OBAMA in 2012!!!

  100. Twistedsis says:

    If her parents are illeagle then she is Illeagle. Throw them all out.

  101. Gibbs Bentley says:

    Freeze all of Mexico’s assets in US banks to pay for this and all other costs.

    http://911essentials.com

  102. Don says:

    If this doesn’t cry out for a Constitutional admenment nothing does. As it currently stands anyone who comes into this world in this country can claim citizenship. The Constitution should be admended to say to be a citizen of this country at least one parent must be able to prove citizenship.

    1. Lee says:

      Section 1 “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 they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
      Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

      We do not have to have an Amendment to correct this. We need a Bill that clarifies the phases: “subject to the jurisdiction” to the intended meaning of Legally Immigrated, Green Card required of the parents.

      1. Sterling says:

        We do. It was the US Supreme Court ruling in US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. It states that in order to be a citizen, one of your parents have to have business here in the US. Meaning a Visa. If your parents are here illegally, and you are born, no citizenship.

  103. billcrawford says:

    “It’s so unfair,” she told CBS Tampa. “I was born here. This makes no sense.”

    What’s unfair is your parents that’s the bottom line and apparently it rolls down hill and your parents put you at the bottom. The only unfair thing here is you are taking up classroom space that you do not deserve and replacing someone who either came here legally or is a US Citizen and no doubt you get minority status as well.

    There comes a time when one needs to draw a line in the sand and this is one of those times.

    The first thing that needs to happen is to get rid of the anchor baby provision as it is ridiculous. If people are3 in the country illegally then anything they do is not legal including having children here. Children no matter where they are born needs to be citizens of the country their parents are citizens of, period!

  104. V. Helsing says:

    We’ve all become God’s madmen. All of us.

  105. Kathy in Texas says:

    1. She shouldn’t even be here. 2. She’s getting financial aid. 3. She got a free ride on tax payers backs through public school. 4. Her parents pay no taxes. 5. She’s getting financial aid (had to list twice because it really angers me.)

    When you get so much you always want to hold your hand out for more, don’t you??????

  106. Mark C says:

    “It’s so unfair,” she told CBS Tampa. “I was born here. This makes no sense.”

    Blame your parents that they aren’t here legally.

  107. Dean says:

    And that means there is a lawyer who actually took the case and probably has a judge lined up so we all know what is going to happen there. I am so sick of lawyers and judges who apparently cannot read making law. I would love to see the ABA disbanded or at least relegated to obscurity and the lot of these judges impeached for not following the Constitution. It is very clear who makes the laws in our country and just a hint to those who can’t read (the ones with law degrees) it is the legislature. Idiots.

  108. Bill says:

    SO many people fail at reading. This article isn’t about whether she is a citizen or not, SHE CLEARLY IS. The argument is whether she should get in state tuition or not. Her parents’ status should have no bearing on her tuition status, if she has lived here for more than a year she should get in state tuition.

    1. Kathy in Texas says:

      Her parents’ status should have a direct bearing on whether she receives financial aid.

      1. Bill says:

        Again, read the article, it has nothing to do with financial aid. It’s what tuition rate she has to pay. She lived in Florida all her life, is a U.S. citizen, you tell me what state she is a resident of?

      2. Sterling says:

        She is not a citizen, even though she was born here. People really need to read US v. Wong Kim Ark. In 1898 the US Supreme Court ruled that if parents are not here legally, or do not have a visa, then their children born here are not citizens.

      3. Kathy in Texas says:

        The state her parents are legal residents of. Oh wait…

      4. Kathy in Texas says:

        If she hadn’t filed for financial aid, this would be moot. She would not have had to list her parents financially on any of her papers. Therefore, no one would know her parents are illegals. She would then be a citizen of Florida and get the in state tuition. But she applied for and RECEIVES fianical aid, therefore she is not a legal resident of Florida because her parents aren’t.

  109. Skip Martin says:

    Unless she has been living and working on her own; her resident status is based on her parents. Her parents have no legal Florida address, even if she is a citizen. If otherwise, anyone moving to Florida to attend school would be a state resident under her definition, and eligible for in-state tuition.

    1. Kathy in Texas says:

      Good point Skip.

    2. krp says:

      She is a U.S. Citizen. The 14th Amendment says that someone born in the US is a citizen and a resident of the state that she was born. If she is not an in-state resident of Florida then what other state would she be a resident of? If there is no way to prove that she is a resident of any other state, when she can prove that she is a resident of Florida, then there is no reason to claim that she is not an in-state resident of Florida.

  110. ObamasKenyanIllegalImmigrantAuntZeituni says:

    EYE-OPENING Video Link:
    Obama’s Kenyan Illegal Immigrant Aunt Zeituni Onyango that lives in Boston, 100% on the US Taxpayers Dime – telling TV Reporters that the US has an “OBLIGATION” to make her a US Citizen!!!

    Cut and Paste the following Link:

  111. ECH says:

    It does not take long for all kinds of people, even illegals, to jump on the whole entitlemant wagon. They look and laugh at the law and certain politicians look the other way. Why are not their parents righting the worng, and doing the just thing by seting a good example of citizenship? Who are the attorneys who expect to win this case, or make news by it for future changes in the law?

  112. Geoff-UK says:

    Under current judicial interpretation of the law (that I wish Congress would change immediately), she was born in the U.S., and she is thus is a U.S. citizen.

    Her parents, however, should be flown back to their home country and shoved out the door while wearing parachutes.

    This female college student should feel free to move in with her parents once they get settled in back home.

    1. krp says:

      As a U.S. Citizen, once she turns 21 she can sponsor her parents for permanent residency in the US, then they would have green cards and be legal residents.

  113. Benjamin Martin says:

    Deport her and her parents, the Constitution never intended for parents to sneak across the border, pop out a kid, and have it be a citizen. The ONLY solution is for WE THE PEOPLE to make this country so unpleasant for these criminals that they leave on their own, willingly and quickly!

  114. Jenny says:

    Hey, Sweetie, if you want to be angry at someone, turn around and look at Mommy and Daddy, who have taken a free ride most likely from taxes and other obligations, and thank them for f-ing things up for you! If you don’t like it, leave.

  115. jslab says:

    They should sue their parents not the state of Florida.

  116. Ron says:

    These people are not even citizens. They are here illegally. They should not even be admitted to any of our universities, much less get in-state tuition!

    1. krp says:

      Ms Ruiz was born in Florida and has lived there all her life, She IS a citizen. and when she is 21 years old, she can petition to sponsor her parents for green cards.

  117. Ralph says:

    Charge everyone the same amount regardless of where they come from or live. Make everyone pay the higher rate so the state school doesn’t need as much of my tax money.

  118. ObamasKenyanIllegalImmigrantUnceOmar says:

    EYE OPENING VIDEO LINK:
    Report by Sean Hannity regarding Obama’s Kenyan Illegal Immigrant Uncle Omar Onyango:
    Video Link:

    TV Report Obama’s Illegal Alien Uncle Quietly Released From Jail – 9/9/11
    Video Link:

  119. DannyB says:

    What about the out-of- state students and their parents who have been paying substantial Federal Taxes for the past 18+ years. What she they be penalized.

    1. krp says:

      The out-of-state students have colleges in their own states that they can attend. She has lived in Florida her entire life.

  120. dennism says:

    JUST BEING BORN IN THE U.S. IS NOT ENOUGH! THE WORD, “LEGALLY” COMES INTO PLAY. IT IS TRUE, WENDY IS NOT AN OUT OF STATE PERSON, SHE IS AN OUT OF COUNTRY PERSON.

    1. krp says:

      From the State Department’s website on passport applications.
      Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):

      Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
      Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
      Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
      Naturalization Certificate
      Certificate of Citizenship

      A US birth certifcate is sufficient proof of citizenship. as far as the State Department is concerned.

  121. DannyB says:

    What about the out-of- state students and their parents who have been paying substantial Federal Taxes for the past 18+ years. What should they be penalized

    1. NY9Solyndra says:

      Taxpayers should be penalized because Democrats see support for illegal immigrants as a way to woo Hispanic voters.

      That’s why!
      😉

  122. K4 says:

    There’s a lot of comments here that have gone down the rabbit hole that is way off point. The real argument of the article – should you be given favorable in-state tuition, if you can’t provide in-state residency?

    If it’s determined that you don’t have to prove in-state residency, then why would anyone try to prove it? At that point, just eliminate the favorable in-state rate.

    Problem solved.

    1. NY9Solyndra says:

      “At that point, just eliminate the favorable in-state rate.”

      And then eliminate subsidies the taxpayers of the state provide for all students.

      If state tax payers are subsidizing the school, then they should get a break on the tuition. If they aren’t getting a break, then they should not have to pay to subsidize the schools.

      1. K4 says:

        @ NY9Solyndra – thanks for pointing that out. That would be the next logical step, as well.

  123. Gary Johnson says:

    Are we really all stupid enough to feel “sorry” for this girl?

    1. NY9Solyndra says:

      Democrats see her as a potential voter and community activist.

  124. Tony Capalano says:

    I come for visit, get treated regal, So I stay, who care I illegal?
    I cross border, poor and broke, Take bus, see employment folk.
    Nice man treat me good in there, Say I need to see welfare.
    Welfare say, “You come no more, We send cash right to your door.”
    Welfare checks, they make you wealthy, Medicaid it keep you healthy!
    By and by, I got plenty money,Thanks to you, American dummy.
    Write to friends in motherland, Tell them come as fast as you can.
    They come in rags and Chebby trucks, I buy big house with welfare bucks.
    They come here, we live together, More welfare checks, it gets better!
    Fourteen families they moving in, But neighbor’s patience wearing thin.
    Finally, white guy moves away, Now I buy his house, and then I say,
    “Find more aliens for house to rent.” And in the yard I put a tent.
    Send for family (they just trash), But they, too, draw the welfare cash!
    Everything is mucho good, And soon we own the neighborhood.
    We have hobby–it’s called breeding, Welfare pay for baby feeding.
    Kids need dentist? Wife need pills? We get free! We got no bills!
    American crazy! He pay all year, To keep welfare running here.
    We think America darn good place! Too darn good for the white man
    race. If they no like us, they can go, Got lots of room in Mexico

  125. Jaybird says:

    She is not suing for equal treatment; she is suing for special treatment. In order for college-age children to qualify for in-state tuition, the parents must submit certain paperwork. Her parents are unable to because they are in the country illegally. That is the choice they made. Instead of living with the consequences of that choice, she wants the rules to be changed. Just goes to show the mindset: the parents didn’t play by the rules, and neither will she.

    1. Winston says:

      Jaybird, bingo. Only suckers like the working taxpayers play by the rules anymore.

      1. PatriotInThePRK says:

        Welcome to the Hope & Change…

        SOLUTION: Vote Obama Out in 2012

  126. Jeff says:

    This could be a very slippery slope. How far back does one have to go to prove that they are legal? How about grandchildren of illegal immigrants, great grandchildren of illegal immigrants, and what descendents of the Pilgrams? There are many citizens that have descended from illegal immigrants from many nations.

    1. NY9Solyndra says:

      The rule for qualifying for in-state tuition has NEVER gone back more than one generation. Only the parents are required to prove that they reside in the state.

      It’s not a slippery slope. You exaggerate.

    2. The Basics says:

      Parents only.

      Pilgrims not Pilgrams.

      Pilgrims

  127. Epa Minondas says:

    These kids are citizens of BOTH the state and the nation.
    PERIOD.
    IF the student fulfills the requirements of in state residency then this is open and shut.

    If people don’t like this, CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION

    1. K4 says:

      “IF the student fulfills the requirements of in state residency then this is open and shut.”

      Exactly. Prove eligibility for in-state tuition. If you can’t prove in-state residency, as required, you don’t get in-state tuition. Period.

    2. abbey says:

      ummmm, I don’t think this is in the Constitution.

    3. NY9Solyndra says:

      “If people don’t like this, CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION”

      State tuition is not mentioned in the Constitution.

    4. NY9Solyndra says:

      “If people don’t like this, CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION”

      State college tuition is not mentioned in the Constitution.

  128. Riff says:

    Under Barrack Obama’s new Amerika, border agents are being federally prosecuted for arresting drug dealing Mexicans while at the same time illegal families are suing the tax payers to take yet more of our money. Is this the change you voted for?

  129. dsquared says:

    Forget all this constitutional legality…they should just demand all 10 parents (good luck with that)show up at the school and have cops there to arrest them and ship their as-es back south

  130. JeddMcHead says:

    They’ve identified themselves and their families — arrest the parents, confiscate their wealth and property, JAIL THEM, then deport them via a CANNON!

    NERVE of these aholes!

    1. NY9Solyndra says:

      ITA. Confiscation of all wealth upon deportation would be a great way to help deter illegal immigrants.

      And if we gave informants 25%-50% of that wealth, that would get some INSTANT results.

  131. leo says:

    stories abound of pregnant border hopping women(as close to 9 months along as they can get), sneaking over just in time to deliver. POW…citizenship granted hence the term “anchor baby”. it’s a gross abuse of law meant for the slaves of the time it’s true. i have little compassion for this situation. the parents’ understood what COULD’VE happened. they broke our laws to get here and are rewarded for their efforts. sins of the father.

    1. NY9Solyndra says:

      Snopes: “A recent survey showed that 70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland Hospital (Dallas) during the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.”

      Status: TRUE

      Source: http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp

  132. DannyB says:

    She probably is getting substantial financial aid since her Parents do not file tax returns so they are not reporting any income.

  133. FedUpWithDemocrats says:

    The American Taxpayer is already funding this girl’s student loan. That is plenty for a family that shouldn’t even be here to begin with.

  134. kauboy says:

    Citizenship has NOTHING to do with the geographical location of your birth.
    It has everything to do with the citizenship of your parents.
    Being born within the borders of this country does NOT automatically qualify you as a citizen.
    This is a fallacy that has continued for far too long.

    1. NY9Solyndra says:

      I agree with you that it should not be this way, but legally, as long as you are born here, you are a citizen. That’s provided by the 14th Amendment, which was valid back in the 1800s but is not valid now. We need to repeal 14.

    2. krp says:

      Birthright citizenship comes from English common law. I would suggest that you look it up but it is obvious that you are a liberal and allergic to facts or research.

  135. SheinLV says:

    She is not going through anything that most of us who didn’t get a scholarship or have rich parents didn’t have to go through…I worked 2 jobs and put myself through college without any tuition breaks. She’s just another gimme gimme gimme at no cost to me…plus we are talking about “higher” educaion and she has no “right” to that.

  136. Pam Villela says:

    Absolutely NO instate tuition and throw out that lawsuit, shameful that it has come to this, illegals are bankrupting OUR great country! And under Barack Obama it has gone so viral and he as a dictator sueing states just because they want to protect Americans rights instead of illegals, he has no shame! Time for a conservative president who will help restore justice to America and Americans!

    1. Catt Cantu says:

      HOW is she bankrupting ANYTHIING except this racist law? She is going to college to give herself a better life and her future family. Are YOU paying for her tuition? She is taking NOTHING from you and will part of that workforce that pays into SS to keep it going.

      You bigots are the ones that need to be deported.. and I don’t give a damn which planet, so long as its not this one.

      1. DannyB says:

        Who do you think pays the State and Federal taxes to keep the college open? Maybe you don’t but I sure do.

  137. theduder says:

    Heck, I can’t believe she gets FINANCIAL AID!!!!

  138. snapperboy says:

    Deport these people. They’ve already stolen a k-12 education from the US…

    1. ANYBODY but OBAMA 2012 says:

      And in the process of having Anchor Babies, and bankrupt hospital emergency rooms nationwide.

  139. SOSintheUSA says:

    It’s going to Federal Court – all King Obama has to do is ask Attorney General Eric Holder to “talk” with the Federal Judge that is hearing the case, and Wendy Ruiz will win her case and get In-State Tuition.

    Additionally, King Obama will talk to Janet Napolitano (who oversees ICE) and he will have her grant US Citizinship to Wendy Ruiz’s parents, for “compassionate” reasons…

    Bottom Line: We need to get rid of Obama in 2012…

  140. RussinOR says:

    Any illegal alien who shows up to a court house to file a lawsuit for ANY reason should be arrested on the spot and deported.

    1. NY9Solyndra says:

      She’s here legally. She’s a citizen. It’s her parents who are illegals.

  141. Steven M. says:

    Everrybody is ‘”Equally Protected” If everybody has to show-up and prove their parents are in the US legally, how is this unequal treatment?.

    That’s the name of “equal protection.”

    Now, move to California, where illegal aliens are getting a “free ride” at California universities and colleges, while citizens and legal residents are required to fork over $12k / yr., in college fees

  142. Unoga says:

    Rule of LAw … Tough Excrement. Apply for citizenship, don’t expect a free ride!

  143. TheDreamActIsComingToFlorida says:

    In California – Jerry Brown knew that if put to a vote, In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrant Anchor Chidren would never pass.

    So, Jerry Brown, by way of Executive Order, passed on his own AB131 – The California Dream Act – GOOGLE it…

    Mark my word – this is what is coming to FL – The Florida Dream Act…

    We need to start from the TOP, and work our way DOWN, so – in other words; Vote Obama Out in 2012 and Take Back America!!!

  144. fritz von says:

    The time is now.

    1. abbey says:

      It certainly is. Long past due.

  145. FedUp Florida says:

    She’s right about one thing, it really isn’t fair. It isn’t fair her parents suck this country’s teat, using her as an anchor child. It isn’t fair my taxes go to supporting her illegal family. It isn’t fair she has more opportunities than natural citizens of this country because she is a spick and her family is illegal. I’m sure Barry will get her vote, and in the end that’s what it’s really about.

  146. stimmy says:

    I oppose the DREAM Act, but this young lady is a US citizen. SHE is NOT an illegal alien. The law should prevent reduced tuition rates for illegals but should allow reduced rates for citizens.

    1. NY9Solyndra says:

      In-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants is an incentive that should be removed.

  147. walter12 says:

    The leftists and the Dems have driven this nation into chaos and disaster. These illegals should be thrown out of the country now.

  148. Blank says:

    Attention Drudge reading idiots.

    SHE IS A CITIZEN, BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, BORN IN FLORIDA and life long resident of the state.

    Read the article idiots. She is entitled to in state tuition and a US Citizen and legal resident of Florida. The immigration status of her PARENTS is beyond irrelevant.

    1. illegalssuck@yahoo.com says:

      I would build a big slide on the Texas border that dumped out into Mexico and send her and her whole family down the slide back to where they are from.

      If she even was born here, albeit to illegal criminals hiding from our laws then where is her birth certificate? if she had one she would not be involved in this lawsuit. I would bet the farm that her daddy carried her on his back over the border and lied his ass off like she is now.

      But even if she was dropped in some field while her mother was running from la migra I would still chuck her right back where her and her trashy family came from. At a minimum her parents should be captured and deported ASAP and sent back to legoland.

    2. illegalssuck@yahoo.com says:

      I would build a big slide on the Texas border that dumped out into Mexico and send her and her whole family down the slide back to where they are from.

      If she even was born here, albeit to illegal criminals hiding from our laws then where is her birth certificate? if she had one she would not be involved in this lawsuit. I would bet the farm that her daddy carried her on his back over the border and lied his ass off like she is now.

      But even if she was dropped in some field while her mother was running from la migra I would still chuck her right back where her and her trashy family came from. At a minimum her parents should be captured and deported ASAP and sent back to legoland. American patriots should just force illegals OUT and I think you could figure out how without any US assistance.

    3. QuietMajorityTsunami2012 says:

      Above Comment by “Blank” –

      This is a great example of a Hope & Change Obama Supporter:

      * Name calling because of disagreement of others valid opinions
      * claims of Entitlement,
      * no regard whatsoever to the laws Wendy Ruix’s Parents broke…

      Quiet Majority – we MUST vote OBAMA OUT in 2012 to take back our country!!!!

      1. krp says:

        99% of all Cubans in the United States broke U.S. immigration laws to get here. And yet they are ALL permanent residents.
        They are given greed cards one year and one day after arriving in the United Statea, REGARDLESS of what laws they broke to get here.
        Five years after than, they are eligible for naturalized citizenship, whch means the right to vote. And they broke the law to get here.
        ANd most of them vote Reupubican.

    4. Michael Hamrick says:

      Attention idiot “BLANK”

      If she was born here to illegal aliens, she does not deserve in state tuition because she should never have been here in the first place. Had her parents not violated the laws of this country, we wouldn’t be having this discussion and there wouldn’t be some much animosity towards illegals in the first place.

      I’m guessing that if you go back and research her birth, it was most likely at a free clinic subsidized with taxpayer money. I’m guessing she attended public schools at the expense of the taxpayers; in essence defrauded the taxpayers of FL on multiple accounts. If her parents can not prove they’re legal residence, chances are they’ve been working under the table, paying no taxes and living off public assistance.

      You want her to have in state tuition…. put your money where your mouth is and you pay the difference; unless of course you shouldn’t be here either.

    5. NY9Solyndra says:

      “She is entitled to in state tuition ”

      All other students must have their residency verified based on the records of their parents. Her parents have no legal proof of residency in the state. Why should she get special privileges?

    6. moquegua says:

      You pay attention it is not about HER Citizenship, it is about her parents and the fact that she lives with them and used their non income tax record for financial aid. If she moves out on her own, uses her own record of taxes they would give the in state tuition. She has to show she is her sole provider. All college students have to!

      1. Michael Hamrick says:

        This does not negate the fact that she should not be here to begin with…..

      2. krp says:

        She was born here. She is a U. S. Citizen. Why should she not be here if she is a U S Citizen?

      3. Michael Hamrick says:

        If her parents were here illegally, she should not have birthright citizenship, period…. end of story.

        Millions of illegals violate our laws by sneaking into this country for the sole purpose of having children. The taxpayer pay for them to give birth, the taxpayers pay to feed their children, the taxpayers pay to educate their children, and now these parasites that shouldn’t be here in the first place are suing for instate tuition?!!

        Give me a break!! Kick them all out, children included and when they can enter this country legally, and only then…. I’ll have no issue with helping them!!

    7. Hj Lamb says:

      Wrong! The 14th amendment makes no such guarantee. Since at least 1795, federal laws governing naturalization have required aliens to renounce all allegiance to any foreign power and to support the U.S. Constitution. Such allegiance was never assumed simply because the alien was residing in the United States; instead an affirmative oath was required. Furthermore, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, “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 they reside.” , The jurisdiction requirement was added to the original draft of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate after a lengthy and acrimonious debate. In fact, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship.

      1. krp says:

        Read it again. Birthright citizenship is from English common law. The 14th Amendment just added the former slaves to what was already the status quo.

  149. Anon USA says:

    I am just glad that most Americans do not support this girl. If a country allows unfettered illegal access through its borders then they will lower themselves to the level of their neighbors and this is an historical truth.

    I am disheartened that our Gov quietly supports this type of behavior and has for many years. Unfortunately these people are putting the stranglehold on your and my country and its by design.

    Democrat and Republican means nothing and is a false rift, there is no division between these camps other than a cosmetic one. Just as many illegals jumped the border under Bush Jr as under Obama and nothing was done under his leadership as well.

    I would deport every illegal I could find and place marines on the US Mexico border and problem would be solved. If I can figure it out then they could too but its not their intent to fix this problem only to worsen it.

    1. krp says:

      She is a U. S. Citizen. and old enough to vote.

      She is not illegal

      1. Michael Hamrick says:

        She is not a legal citizen if she should never have been here to begin with…. her parent broke the law by coming into this country for the sole purpose of having a child here. She should never be given the right to vote, and it makes me sick to think her parents have been living in this country illegally for 18+ years and are still here. She and her parents should be deported immediately!!

        If they want to live here and have the rights of a US citizen, they need to wait in line and do it legally like all the others that have done so and can proudly call themselves American’s.

        For all out there that feel illegals are entitle to our tax dollars and the exploitation of our welfare system, I say you need to start paying their way and stop wasting my tax dollars when we have far more important needs for our money.

        If you’re not willing to put your money where your mouth is and start taking financial responsibility for these illegals, you have absolutely no right in saying how my tax dollars are spent.

  150. caesar augustus says:

    deport the illegals NOW!

  151. Mike says:

    The 14th amendment was never ratified. I went to school in California if you are puzzled at this comment.

  152. caeser augustus says:

    she should blame her parents for being dishonest lawbreaking border jumpers. the laws need to be changed and anchor babies disallowed.

  153. BigBoa says:

    She isn’t paying anywhere NEAR what the son of the mighty Boa had to pay. But then again, he is a white male, with 2 citizens as parents.

    Not a single candidate for President is addressing this issue the way it needs to be. If you aren’t born to at least one legal parent, you should not be legal either. The deportation bus should be arriving at your door.

  154. Craigmk1974 says:

    Deport her parents first and then give her the in-state tuition.

  155. jnsesq says:

    It’s officiial: The inmates are running the asylum. We are all now suffering from terminal liberalism.

  156. Alex David says:

    She’s right She was born here and is a US Citizen. And since she was born in and has lived in Florida, she should 100% qualified for in-state tuition. I hope she prevails.

    Then, Florida authorities should go get her parents and promptly deport them.

    Ms. College Graduate can then use her degree and new job earnings to hire a decent immigration attorney for her parents while they remain in Mexico.

    1. krp says:

      As a US Citizen. On her 21st birthday, she can petition NCS and sponsor her parents for a green card. She doesn’t even need a lawyer, she just needs to fill out the correct form. Then five years after that they can apply for citizenship.

  157. Jack says:

    I’m not ready to deport this girl or her parents. Most of them want to work harder than some of the ones born here. Just look at the OWS crowd. What i am for is making those parents learn English and take a citizenship test like everyone else. It’s ‘water under the bridge’ in too many cases. it’s our own fault for not taking care of this in the past. it’s the new ones that need to be deported. Plus you know that if you’re saying she is not an American then Obama isn’t an American. Hmmmm

  158. Spirit of '76 says:

    Yeah, you dawned ingrate SOBs. How about a 25 cent solution????

  159. StopTheInsanity says:

    Commenter “SOSintheUSA” has it right – Ruiz feels she’s entitled, and Obama needs Liberal/Illegal Votes in FL, and since this is going to FEDERAL COURT he’ll work it for all it’s worth and the Anchor Child will get what she feels entitled to.

    This case is the proverbial Canary in a Coal Mine – the rule of law is NOTHING under the current administration – and FL has become a lawless state like California.

    We must vote out Obama and the Liberals in 2012 –

    1. krp says:

      She is a U.S. Citizen. She was born in this country.
      She has the right to vote. And to do so would be LEGAL.

  160. Jack Kinch(1uncle) says:

    Demorat politicians will do anything to create more votes they will buy with our taxes and our laws and executive orders they pass.

  161. I am me says:

    Then it would only be fair for the LEGAL Foriegn students that have Student Visa’s to be here to pay at the very least Out of State Tuition… Children of Illegal Immigrants should be so lucky they don’t have to pay what LEGAL foriegn students do.

    1. krp says:

      The thing is, they LEGAL foreign students applied for admission from OUTSIDE the United States and received the visa in order to enter the US to reach the school.
      These students have applied from inside the United States and are not applying for visas to enter the United States, In some cases they are just walking physically up to the school In this woman’s case, she is a U. S. Citiizen and was born in the United States and lived there all her life? Why should she NOT pay in-state tuition?

  162. Spirit of '76 says:

    So US citizenship is available to anyone who wants to “work hard” and “obey the rules”??? Pith off.

    First of all, citizenship is heritable.

    Secondly, it’s heritable because my blood forefathers invented America 200 years before there was a US to prostitutue itself to every Amerind mestizo with his hand out.

    America is for the Americans — the Pilgrim Fathers and their descendants.

    And so long as US citizenship means these thieving aliens have a claim to my life — via taxes and the heritage of my family’s 400 years of sacrifice and investment — I will fight them with intent to repulse.

    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

    GET OUT OF MY LAND OR DIE TRYING TO TAKE IT FROM ME.

  163. ziegler says:

    As others are pointing out…she is a legal citizen…therefore she should get in state tuition.
    NOW…assignment number 1….look up Jus Soli, then look at how many countries in the world still allow for it…..
    assignment number 2….right your congressman to end the practice of Jus Soli.
    And here is a hint….NO COUNTRY IN EUROPE OR ASIA ALLOWS THE PRACTICE OF JUS SOLI.
    Why do we?

  164. Col Attilla says:

    It’s all rather simple. The children are here legally, they get in-state tuition. The parents are here illegally, they get deported.

    1. NY9Solyndra says:

      Uh, parents are required to prove that they live in the state in which their child is applying for instate tuition. If the parents cannot prove they reside there legally, the child should not get the instate rate.

  165. Hedley Lamar says:

    Forget out of state….. how much is Out of Country tuition?

    1. krp says:

      Obviously you are ignorant. There is no such thing and never has been. If you had ever gone to college you would have known this.

  166. guidewest says:

    She should actually have to pay more to reimburse the tax payers who put her through public school. Median cost per student in the US: $9,000.00 per year.

    1. blank says:

      i agree 100%. The extra she is paying pays for the tax dollars we forked out to give her an education before college.

  167. BigBoa says:

    Another prime example of why this nation is going down the drain. “Anchor babies” should NOT be allowed. The only reason they are is due to liberal interpretation of the ammendment. But what is hysterical is seeing you jokers DEFEND her, accusing OTHERS of not reading the article. If she has no PAPERS, she isn’t, repeat, IS NOT legal. Ta-ta…..ship them ALL back……… And those of you claiming to be “conservatives” and defending this? Shame on you posers..

  168. BigBoa says:

    So then,,,JACK,,,,,,what you’re saying is too bad for the suckers following the law, let’s reward the criminals? It is NEVER too late to deport, and you pal, should be going with them……

  169. agobbler says:

    Take the $2.08 Billion Mexicans sent to Mexico last month alone and pay their children’s tuition.

  170. Darrel says:

    Make a deal with her. Her parents and every other illegal family member gets deported First, THEN she gets in state tuition rates.

    Deport her criminal parents NOW!

  171. Graham Rogers says:

    Maybe if her parents weren’t law breakers this wouldn’t be an issue!

    Sadly, her emotional “it’s unfair” cries will win the day instead of cold harsh reality.

    This is why America fails, we reward the undeserving.

    1. blank says:

      I agree 100%. The handouts are going out faster than ever. Common sense has flown out the window in our court systems these days. It never ceases to amaze me how much we fork out to those here illegally and those who think they are entitled to things that they don’t deserve. Being in America gives you the right to pursue happiness, it doesn’t mean we are going to give it to you on a silver platter.

  172. kbernatovich says:

    Allow the in state tuition, deport the parents. We should do the same at hospitals, etc. Find the illegals and get them out of here. No more handouts for these criminals.

  173. SaveOurCountryIn2012 says:

    Look at the posts above with the Video Links –

    We have a “President” that has two illegal Immigrant Family Members from Kenya – who openly defied multiple deportation orders, and have been rewarded by being supported 100% by US Citizen Taxpayers in Boston, Mass.

    Nothing will change until we vote out Barack HUSSSEIN Obama!!

  174. rob says:

    How are they able to sue if they’re not citizens?

    1. Fast And Furious Killed US Citizens says:

      Federal Court = Eric Holder (of Fast & Furious)…

  175. Antiglobalist says:

    Next they will be wanting tax exempt status because they are not americans. If we don’t move over and give them our country. We will endup in another war within.

    1. Chicago Muslim Thug says:

      The war is waging, and 2012 is the final battlefield…

      VOTE out Barack Hussein Obama in 2012!!!

  176. Joe-NJ says:

    It’s all very simple. If you don’t like the 14th Ammendment, have your Senators and Representatives rewrite it and make it a new 28th Ammendment.
    Whoever wrote the 14th. Ammendment should have said what he meant.
    I guess Bill Richardson, John McCain and BHO are illegals.

    1. Kenyan or Indonesian or American says:

      Where there’s smoke there’s fire – BHO has graced our shores w/ 2 Illegals – Aunt Zeituni and Uncle Omar…

    2. Sterling says:

      Haha, to even suggest that John McCain is not a US citizen is ridiculous. He was born to 2 US citizens(father being in the military) on a US Naval base in Panama. US bases in foreign countries are considered US soil. Had he been born in a Panamanian hospital, he would then hold both US and Panama citizenship. Barack Obama, if he was born in Hawaii, would be a citizen, because his mother was one. However he would not be a natural born citizen, because his father was not one. The term “natural born” means both parents are citizens at time of birth. At the time the Constitution was written, almost all of the Framers were offspring of British subjects. I think the first 4 or 5 presidents were sons of British subjects born in England.

    3. DudeZXT says:

      Please, Joe. Don’t make everyone think that all New Jersians are idiots… Your liberal premise about John McCain has been disproven and beaten to death, yet you persist…

    4. Hj Lamb says:

      The 14th amendment makes no such guarantee. Since at least 1795, federal laws governing naturalization have required aliens to renounce all allegiance to any foreign power and to support the U.S. Constitution. Such allegiance was never assumed simply because the alien was residing in the United States; instead an affirmative oath was required. Furthermore, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, “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 they reside.” , The jurisdiction requirement was added to the original draft of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate after a lengthy and acrimonious debate. In fact, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship.

  177. Paulette says:

    Contact your congressmen/women to repeal the 14th amendment. That is the simplest start to immigration reform

  178. God Save Our Country says:

    We used to be a nation of Laws, where people immigrated legally, and then felt proud to work for the the American Dream.

    Now we’re a country of lawbreakers, where illegal immigrants who avoid the que to legal immigration break our country’s laws, fly under the radar for a few years, have an anchor baby, and feel because of this they are ENTITLED to what others work so hard for – legally!

    Look no further than the Boy King of America and Queen Michelle Antoinette for why this is now the standard operating procedure!

  179. You drank the Kool Aid says:

    Borders, Language, Culture…

  180. Tribalsouls says:

    So if these school kids are really here legally, don’t raise their tuition rates but deport their parents…. Its the law, end of story!

  181. JR says:

    She’s a citizen, she’s a resident of that state, she should not be charged out of state tuition.

    However, her parents should be deported.

  182. horsesoldier says:

    Hey Viva La Raza! Si Se Puede! Does San jacinto ring any bells?

  183. Larry says:

    our country is f’ing doomed………

  184. Rick says:

    They are right, simply deport all of them and withhold all federal taxes until the people of the state are reimbursed for the cost!!!

  185. ANONYMOUS says:

    B: “This was keeping perfectly in line with previously passed laws. Go look it up on Wikipedia if you don’t believe me.”

    HAHHAHAHAH wikipedia? really? you’re going to use that as a source to prove your angle?? what did you do, log in and edit that article to suit your needs? HAHAHHAHAHAH.

    1. DudeZXT says:

      and yet this is all you can say to dispute it? Really? Hahahahahahaha – ooh, looky – I can press hahahaha a bunch of times. See how smart I am???

  186. concerned says:

    She ought to finish her education in Mexico where tuition is surely a lot cheaper. And be sure to take her illegal parents with her.

  187. pompey says:

    ………if she is a citizen and lives out of state she follows the rules of other out of state citizens……..if she is illegal she has no constitutional rights, no legal standing in a court of law, and for her troubles should be deported………what foolish people we are!

  188. layedoffworker says:

    The solution is simple.
    Tell Ms. Ruiz that she can proceed with her suit, but that she needs to bring her parents to court with her to verify her testimony.
    Once Mommy and Daddy show up, have ICE throw them in handcuffs and escort them to the border. And be thankful that this isn’t Mexico or they would both be sent to jail.
    Still wanna play lawyer, Ms Entitled?

  189. rudedog says:

    She is a citizen of Mexico, Children born to parents who are not citizens of the United States are citizens of the parents country of origin…..
    If an amedrican couple have a baby in Chinia ,the baby is an american citizen. not Chinese………….

    1. Sterling says:

      I would not jump to any conclusions that her parents are Mexicans. This is Miami we are talking about. While there is a HUGE Hispanic population, very few are from Mexico.

    2. krp says:

      Where you get the idea that she is a citizen of Mexico? Where does it say anywhere in the article that her parents are from Mexico.
      Children born in this country are U.S. Citiizens AT BIRTH. It doesn’t matter whether you like,it or whether you think it shouldn’t. IT IS A FACT!!! You opinion doesn’t count.

      I have lived in Miami for about 18 years, and in all that time I only remember meeting 2 or 3 Mexicans that lived there. A lot of Cubans, yes, A lot of Argentines, most certainly, a lot of Columbians, yes, a lot of Hondurans, yes. a lot of Puerto Ricans yes, but only 2 or 3 Mexicans.

      1. american says:

        SORRY GUY SHE IS OF CRIMINAL ILLEGAL PARENTS THE DOCTRINE OF THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TRESS STATES THAT ANYTHING FLOWING FROM A ‘POISONOUS TRESS.- I.E. TAINYED MATERIAL- I. E. CRIMINAIL ILLEGALS IS ALSO TAINTED .I.E. CRIMINAL ILLEGAL HER PARENTS COMING IN TO OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT AND HER ILLEGALLY PLANNED BIRTH HERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A CITIZENSHIP -SHE IS FROM ILLEGALS THERFORE SHE IS ILLEGAL, WHERE THE HELLIS YOUR PATRUITOTISM = STOP STABBING THIS COUNTRY AND US AMERICANS IN THE BACKAND BEING DISLOYAL AND TRAITORSISH BETRAYER TREASONIST THINKING . AS AN AMERICAN YOU MUST DEFEND PROTECT THIS COUNTRY AND AMERICAN CITIZENS OTHERWISE YOU DOU NOT DESERVE TO LIVE HERE OR BE AN AMERICAN COITIZEN . GO LIVE WITH THE CRIMINAL ILLEGALS =YOU PAY HER TUTION AND THE $400 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR THEY STEAL OUT OF AMERICANS POCKETS. IT TOOK ME MANY YEARS TO FINISH COLLEGE AS I HAD TO SAVE FOR EACH CLASS AND TAKE ONE CLASS AT A TIME AS I HAD SAVED FOR, MY CHILDREN HAD TO WORK 2 JOBS TO GO TO COLLEGES AS THEY WENT TO COLLEGE TO PAY FOR IT ,N O ONE GIVES AMERICAN CHILDREN BREAKS .THEY HAVE ALL STOLEN FROM THEM FOR CRIMINAL ILLEGALS -GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE– AMERICAN KIDS HAVE THE RIGHT AND NEED TO THOSE COLLEGE SEATS BUDDY AMERICAN BORN OF AMEIRCAN CITIZENS . WE AMEICAN WORK FOR WHAT WE DO AND GET. WHERE THE HELL DOES THIS STUPID STUPID IDEA THAT SOMEON WHO COME INTO THIS COUNTRY HAS ANY RIGHTS ???? THESE FEDERAL FELONS NEED TO BE ARRESTED INDICTED CONVICTED AD DEPORTED WITH IMMEADIACY . THSI IS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA FOR AMERICANS OF AMEIRCANS AND BY AMERICANS- ANYONE COMING INTO THIS COUNTRY MUST COME IN LEGALLY FIRST OF ALL-THEN LIVE BREATHE ACT AMERICANS- ASSIMILATE AMERICANOZE AND GIVE UP ANY AND ALL LOYALITY TO THEIR FORMER COUNTRY— ONE SOLE LOYALITY -TO THE UNITED STATES ONE SLOE LANGAUGE ENGLIDH, ONE SOLE CULTURE AMERICAN AND ONE SOLE LOYALITY TO ONE FLAG- THE AMERICAN FLAG OLE GLORY. THOSE COMING IN ILLEGALLY AND TRYING TO TURN THE UNITEDSTATES INTO THEIR FORMER COUNTRY ARE THE GREATEST ENEMY OF THIS COUNTRY AND NEED TO BE DEPORTED WITH IMMEADIACY. THERE IS NO PLACE IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY FOR THISE TRYING TO DESTROY IT. WE NEED TO GET TAHT ILLEGAL. IF OYU ARE NOT A TRUE LOYAL AMERICA IN COMPLETE DEFENSE OF AMERICA AND MAERICANS THERE IS NO PLACE FOR YOU HERE.
        IN THE WHITE HOUSE THE HELL OUT

      2. drljr says:

        The caps are not needed. The key is she not a citizen since under Amendment 14 she is not “subject the jurisdiction thereof”. I listed two cases that are relevent in other posts – Ark and Elk.

  190. Hj Lamb says:

    The 14th amendment makes no such guarantee. Since at least 1795, federal laws governing naturalization have required aliens to renounce all allegiance to any foreign power and to support the U.S. Constitution. Such allegiance was never assumed simply because the alien was residing in the United States; instead an affirmative oath was required. Furthermore, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, “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 they reside.” , The jurisdiction requirement was added to the original draft of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate after a lengthy and acrimonious debate. In fact, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship.

  191. DJ says:

    Further proof that the 14th ammendment needs to be ammended..

    All persons born by a citizen or naturalized…

    Just add 3 words and the ambiguity is gone!!!

  192. K Clark says:

    Would have been nice for the article to explain why she is getting charged out of state tuition even though she has always lived in Florida. I went back to Ohio State in 2010 after 25 years away. I own a house in Ohio and worked in Ohio but have retired. When I wanted to go back to OSU, they were going to charge me out of state tuition unless I showed that the $ I was using for tuition was earned within Ohio. So, I had to provide info that my wife had been a legal resident of Ohio for X years and had a job in Ohio. Basically, the states have really cracked down on who they are willing to subsidize with in-state tuition. Kids can no longer move to a state, declare themselves independent and signup for in-state tuition. The student has to prove he/she makes enough in-state $ to support herself or have somebody legally in-state paying the bills. Anyway, that is what is missing from the article.

    Cannot say I’d support students of illegal parents getting to ignore paperwork the rest of us have to fill out. I’m also starting to think the current cost of a college education is more than it should be. The ratio between the total cost and the expected first year income is way out of whack compared to 25 years ago. Also, it seems like everyone is now dependent on loans. If student loans were not so easy to come by, these colleges could not get away with these high tuition costs. Take away the loans and these places would be ghost towns. Instead, the Feds are trying to figure out how to make it even easier to get/pay student loans.

  193. Ryan Thompson says:

    The way that I interpret the 14th amendment, it says that a person born in America is a citizen and shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. If she and the other plaintiffs are legal citizen’s then they should pay in state tuition. If not then they should be allowed to go to any school and be picked up by authorities and deported to their country of origin. However her parents being illegal immigrants should be deported back to their country. I also have a problem with their attorney Haskell. She state’s “this policy violates the federal constitution. This is not a state statute,” she said. “It violates the equal protection clause, which guarantees equal rights for all United States citizens. My problem with this is that it’s the federal governments job to deport all illegal immigrants and it’s obvious that they are not taking that job seriously so why should they (Florida federal court) take this lawsuit serious). The federal government shouldn’t get to pick and choose what laws they are going to act on. All of the constitution should be followed.

  194. Boot Liberal Dems Next Election says:

    In 2011 what is wrong is now right.
    Welcome to Obama’s United Socialist States of Amerika…

  195. Find The Ruiz Money Magnet says:

    We need to find out who Wendy Ruizs’ parents are and report her PARENTS EMPLOYERS to ICE for hiring Illegals..

    Through Wendy Ruiz we can find her parents – as they have to be working here illegally!

  196. beeta houston says:

    The rest of us pay and our anchestors have all been citizens . Why should illegals get special treatment? we pay it all for our children.

  197. The Basics says:

    I’m glad she is taking this to court. It will be denied then appealed.

    Hopefully it will go to the Supreme Court and they will have to clear up the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

    This is what happens when you selectively enforce laws for political gain. If her parents were forced to enter the country legally, she would not be in the situation she finds herself in.

    1. Sterling says:

      The Basics, Daniel, trp; it has been cleared in the US Supreme Court. US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. The court ruled that because Wong’s parents were here in the US on business when he was born, means he was a citizen. If they had been here illegally, then he would not have been a citizen. Now we have visas, meaning you can be here legally in the US for whatever purpose, school, work, etc… All it takes is for a lower court to rule under the SCOTUS ruling and that would be the end of it. The “anchor baby” rule would be gone.

      1. Sean says:

        Judge Gray in Wong Kim Ark ignored US law and instead applied foreign law.

      2. drljr says:

        In the case United States v Wong Kim Ark 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898) it was determined that Ark was an Amendment 14 citizen.

        His parents had been admitted to the US as actually immigrants and had been accepted and were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the US since they were immigrants. Nor were they in the US as a representative of the emperor or government of China. They had asked for and been granted permission to enter and reside in the US. Thus Amendment 14 applied to any child they had in the US.

        As such their child Wong Kim Ark was a born a statutory, or positive law, citizen (i.e. Amendment 14) and thus the Chinese Exclusion law could not apply to him since he was a citizen of the US. He was not a natural born citizen since his parents were not citizen. To be natural born requires one to be born in the country and both parents be citizens at the time of birth.

        The ruling was and is consistent with Amendment 14, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 and natural law (Law of Nations – Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 10 – which is the US common law).

        Sterling did have one aspect wrong however, It was not that Ark’s parents were here on business but that they had been admitted as immigrants. That is an important point. If they were here on business (i.e. visiting on a business trip) then Ark would NOT have been a citizen since he would not have been “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

        The student is in this case is not a US citizen but is in fact an illegal alien. Illegal aliens are not immigrants but invaders. An immigrant ask for and receives permission to enter and live in the country. Illegal aliens, visitors and diplomats can not produce citizens under the US Constitution provisions of Amendment 14. That would require a law to be passed by Congress under the provisions of the Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4.

        The Ark case and “Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)” are important cases on citizenship as is the “Perkins, Secretary of Labor, et al. v Elg. 59 S.Ct. 884 (1939)”.

      3. Sterling says:

        drljr- thank you for clarifying that. I was under the understanding that Wong’s parents were here on some sort of work visa that was issued at the time. But for Daniel to say we are grasping at straws is just plain silly. Buy his reckoning, I guess Roe v. Wade doesn’t mean anything. Abortion is still illegal, because it’s not in the Constitution. Right?

      4. drljr says:

        When you read the Supreme Court ruling you find they were true immigrants. They had actually started a business. Eventually they returned to China and Wong Kim Ark visited them in China twice. It was the second return that he had problems. The first time no challenged his statement that he was a US citizen.

        As for Daniel I get the impression he may be an illegal alien born in this country and does not like the fact he can be deported; an illegal alien rights advocate; or is a Progressive/Marxist who espouses open borders. Especially, since he does not want to accept, or take as written, what are considered landmark cases in relation to Amendment 14 and the fact these cases are pretty explicit.

        But then I have found Supreme Court cases are often misquoted. In the healthcare bill (“H.R. 3590”) the text references a case as justification for imposing the unconstitutional individual mandate. When one reads the case itself it was about true “commerce among the States” involving an insurance company trying to corner the market with extortion, price fixing and other anti-trust actions.

        Let’s see if he can back up his assertions and cite Supreme Court cases to support his positions. I have been studying the US Constitution for a long time. Started in the 5th grade. Went to good schools and had good teachers.

      5. Sterling says:

        Daniel is also probably a true believer in Separation of Church and State, and will say it’s in the Constitution. When challenged about that, he will then reference to Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Why some people will reference writings and such to justify why a Bill or ruling was put in place, but not others is beyond me. In the Cases of Elk and Ark, the Supreme Court ruled correctly about each one, and set precedence on what the 14th Amendment was really about. They did their job as set out by the Constitution. The Supreme Courts job is not to interpret the Constitution, but uphold it. They clearly defined what it was to be a citizen in each case. To set the record straight I believe in Seperation of Church and State, but I realize it is not in the Constitution. i believe it was the intent of the Founders. But because the US Supreme Court has used the term more that 25 times in rulings it has become “law”.

      6. Daniel says:

        Sterling & drljr, one painfully obvious problem with you heavy reliance upon one or two Supreme Court Rulings is that one can find other rulings that contradict it. More generally, one can find Supreme Court rulings that conjured Constitutional content out of thin air, and others that ignored unequivocal language (as when “backward sweep” was allowed in anti-trust law).

        (You’ve used this same grasping at SCotUS straws in multiple comments, but I’m not going to reply to each.)

      7. drljr says:

        Then cite the Supreme Court cases – with citations – that support your position. Doing a drive-by does not help or prove your position. Having read the three cases listed and a number of others under Amendment 14 she is not a citizen and should be deported along with all of her family. The rulings in these cases and a host of others are very specific and detailed.

        The only way under our Constitution she can be a citizen if there is a law that made her a citizen or legal immigrant. Such law would be part of Title 8 passed under the provisions of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4. Hawaiians original because US citizens due to Title 8 Section 1405 around 1900.

        In other words – prove your statements or stop making unsubstantiated statements.

      8. Daniel says:

        drljr—

        In asking me for a SCotUS decision in support, you are ignoring the essential point, which is that the SCotUS plainly does not always get the Constitution right, and sometimes doesn’t even *want* to get it right. So Plyler v. Doe doesn’t prove that I’m right any more than Ark proves you’re right.

        I’m not engaged in any sort of drive-by. I have drawn attention to the plain wording of the Amendment, and explained exactly what is wrong with the various devices that have been used to try to displace the meanings of the words with the intentions of the authors or the will of the SCotUS. You can keep using one or more of those broken tactics, but you’ll only be preaching to your choir.

      9. drljr says:

        Did you even bother to actually read “Plyer v Doe”? It is not about citizenship but the “equal protection and treatment” sentence of Amendment 14 Section 1. And it is correct – anyone in the country is entitled to equal protection and treatment – illegal alien, visitor, diplomat and citizen. That does not preclude an illegal alien being charged an out-of-State tuition rate since they are not legal resident of the State. Or Texas charging illegal aliens to send their children to the State sponsored schools if they had chosen.

        The problem we have is that illegal aliens are not being expelled from the country. Since illegal aliens are actually invaders any State can seize and hold them as invaders for deportation, as the national government should be doing (Article 1 Section 8, Paragraph 15 and Section 10, Paragraph 3). And since Texas was not seizing the illegal alien children and parents for deportation they were not acting under Article 6 Paragraph 2. But until we start enforcing the immigration laws as written they are entitled to equal protection and treatment. This is the fault of the Progressive/Marxists and mutli-culturalist who have been working to destroy the country for more than 100 years. Look up the history of Progressivism and what the Communist stated in the 1950s on how to destroy the US.

        But it does not change the fact that based upon the article she is not a US citizen, not an actual resident of Florida and thus is not entitled to in-State tuition.

        And yes – you are doing a drive-by because you are making claims and can not support your claims. Citing unrelated Supreme Court cases and not expecting someone to go and read them is silly. That is the difference between expressing an opinion, as many have done, and presenting facts are not the same thing.

        The student is NOT a US citizen and the cases specified before, as well as at least 7 others I have read, confirm that she is not a US citizen.

      10. Daniel says:

        drljr—

        None of the cases that anyone is citing is *about* whether the American-born children of illegal immigrants are, when in the US, subject to its jurisdiction, so don’t try to wave away Plyler v. Doe on that basis unless you’re also prepared to wave away the other cases. And I’ve provided support for my position to often for anyone here not to be aware of it. What I haven’t done is lean upon any SCotUS ruling (and I’ve explained exactly why such rulings cannot be regarded as definitive).

        As to what problems are or are not created by illegal aliens, argue with someone who had taken a position on that. I’ve argued on what the Constitution actually says, not on whether it should or shouldn’t say it.

        The reason that the conservatives in Congress haven’t got behind legislation to effect the changes that you want is not because they are stupid, nor because they’re liberals or Marxists or secularists or whatever other insults you’ve thrown at me, but because they are well aware that ordinary legislation cannot do it in the face of the 14th Amendment, that it would take another Constitutional Amendment to end birthright citizenship.

        I don’t think that there’s anything further to be gained by my reiterating simple facts and logic in further comment here. It’s up to you and CBS whether you’ll reiterate your mysticism and abuse.

    2. krp says:

      No all the students in this lawsuit are students at Miami Dade College, I have dealt with them before. the basis of the lawsuit is the freehand interpretation of the rules by the admissions office at MDC. I have dealt with the Cuban woman in charge there myself, and I can assure you that she is not very intelligent.
      She interprets the term “legal ties to Florida” to mean “legal”in terms of Federal immigration. On another website someone posted the guidelines from UF and there was nothing in it that had to do with federal immigration and I believe that the stupid administrator confused “proof of residency” meaning proof that the domicile is in Florida, to mean “residency” in the terms of “permanent residency”: demonstrated by a green card.
      I thought about writing to Governor Jeb Bush 8 years ago to complain that she did not understand her job and understand the meaning of the in-state classification.
      This will expose her prejudice against non-Cubans and her incompetence and she will likely get fired.

  198. Roger Johnsom says:

    How dreadful! – a student that actually has to work two or three jobs to pay their tuition. Wait a minute. That’s what I did. Maybe I can retro-sue my old university for back payments. And besides, no school offered me a sports scholarship, either. I never really excelled at sports but that shouldn’t matter, should it?

  199. blank says:

    This is one topic I totally disagree with Perry on and any state that does this. Giving illegal aliens a discount on college is a joke and wrong. Also, if your parents are here illegally and they have a child, does not mean that child has every right of a child born to a family that is here legally. While they may be considered a citizen because they are born here, I would suggest that you don’t become a citizen until you become 18 and until then, you can still be deported with your parents which I think should happen. I get tired of seeing the US being the givers to everyone in the world and people being ungrateful about it. Time to take care of ourselves too.

    1. drljr says:

      See my comments above on this Constitutional issue. She is not a citizen and would have to be naturalized.

      1. krp says:

        SHE IS A CITIZEN

        “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 they reside.” A literal reading makes citizens of all persons born in the United States, provided they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of their birth (those not the children of foreign diplomats and like persons who, having diplomatic immunity, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they are in the country for diplomatic purposes).

    2. krp says:

      Here’s the thing.
      Perry signed into law a bill that had passed with a veto proof margin.

      This is what the bill did:
      It allowed students that have been living in the State of Texas for 3 years and have a high school diploma from Texas would be considered in-state for calculating tuition fees.
      Now if anyone would move from say Tennessee and lived in Texas for one year prior to enrolling then they are considered “in-state” as well. All the law does is ignore FEDERAL IMMIGRATION STATUS for considering STATE residency.

      There is no state income tax, so it isn’t like they aren’t paying state income tax, because no one does. They would still be paying property tax indirectly since they will be paying rent. and they will be paying sales tax on their other purchases just like everyone else in Texas.

      And what if they didn’t?

      Then imagine this: You have a kid that grew up in Lubbock. Lived there his entire life and he wants to go to Texas Tech. He grew up in a house two blocks from campus, and when he graduates he goes to the Admiissions office and applies and they say “You have proof of legal residency?”
      Well if you have never traveled outside the United States you have never ever had to deal with immigration. Not too many 18 kids have passports if they have never traveled outside the United states. Now you are asking a kid that was born and raised 2 blocks from the college whether or not he is in the country legally? That puts an undue burden on the student population just because of maybe 2-3 % of the students.

      And let’s face it, They are going to state colleges in Texas, and instruction is in English NOT in Spanish, And they graduated from high school in Texas so they DO speak English. So they HAVE assimilated.
      IIsn’t that the compllaint that everyone has about “illegals” that they don’t assimilate? So why not reward the ones that do?

  200. Joe Uzzer says:

    If Ruiz and her cohorts can produce both a U.S. birth certificate and proof of Florida residence for the required time interval then they are eligible for resident tuition rates. Otherwise, ship them back to Mexico

    1. drljr says:

      If with a US based birth certificate they are not US citizens. Illegal aliens can not produce citizens.

      1. drljr says:

        Meant to write “Even with a US based birth certificate they are not US citizens. Illegal aliens can not produce citizens.”

      2. krp says:

        you are a full blown idiot

        I have lived in Miami for many years and I have many friends who are “illegal”. Many of them have children that are born here and they ALL are US Citizens and they ALL have Social Security Numbers.
        Every summer the parents send their kids to spend the school vacation with their familes and they ALL have US passports, which are ONLY issued to US Citizens. And every year they travel back and forth AS US CITIZENS and they re-enter the country through the US Citizens line at the airport.
        A US passport is SUFFICIENT PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP and all of these kids have one. It would be a safe bet that you do not.

      3. drljr says:

        Just because your friends think they are citizens or may be considered citizens does not change the fact they are not actually citizens under Amendment 14 based upon the issues presented in this article. If they were born after their parents were covered by an amnesty the they would be citizens.

        And calling me names just demeans yourself indicating you are not reading what has been written. Amendment 14 and what it means has been codified for more than 100 years.

        If you want to prove me incorrect, if you can, cite real facts and not your desire. I have cited facts, the English and Supreme Court rulings. All you have done is start opinion and misrepresent facts and history- such as the Indian Elk case.

      4. krp says:

        HA!!! I have reviewed your cases and they have verified EXACTLY what I have said. Those visitors with diplomatic immunity are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they cannot be prosecuted for ANY crimes. Anyone else, can be prosectued because theyARE subject to the jurisdiction. There is no plainer way to splain that, Lucy.

        KWA was born a citizen. Then he went to China and re-entered because he was a born Citizen. Then he went back to China and the Customs Afent refused to allow him to enter because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prevented naturalization for Chinese persons. The Supreme Court ruled that teh Chinese Exclusion Act could not take away his jus soli citizenship because an act of Congress could not supercede the Constrituion and his parents were not foreign diplomats with diplomatic immunity and therefore were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

        ELK was a Citizen and then denounced his Citzienship, thus losing his citizenship. That does not apply.

        And you want to bring into question MY Engilsh.

  201. Gordy says:

    Simple solution. She should sue her ILLEGAL parents and use that for tuition.

  202. carl s says:

    That ridiculous anchor rule has got to go! If the parents are illegally, then their brats should be made illegal to! Deport them all!

  203. John says:

    The children of illegal aliens have no more right to the benefits of being a citizen than the children of a bank robber has a right to the money he stole!! We have the RICO laws, which takes all money and property gained trhough illegal sources, away from the famlies of the mobster/ganster/criminal who acquired them illegally. No one, including the family members of a crimnal should benefit from the criminal activity. Imagine how it would be if drug dealers, for instance, could keep all their illgotten gains merely by putting it all in the names of the family members! When the founders of this country made it possible for someone born here to be counted as an American citizen, i’m sure they didnt’t mean it to apply to the children of illegal aliens!! Surely, our Supreme Court will have enough sense to pur aside politics and support the Constitution!

  204. Loe says:

    Send Them and There Familys BACK To Mexico Where the Hell They Belong !!!!!!

  205. charles thorne says:

    It seems to me that that there may be a distinction between “Legal resident of Florida” and “legal US citizen”.
    It may be that Florida can estqblish the criteria for “legal resident’ that involves more that just being borfn in the USA.

    1. krp says:

      Actuallly it is just the Cuban woman that works in the admissions office at MDC (I have dealt with her before) is interpreting the rules her own way as to what is acceptable proof of residency. I had thought about writing a letter to Governor JEB Bush to explain how this woman really didn’t understand the WHY behind her job. People who have never lived in Miami are unaware of the fact that the Cubans discriminate against any non-Cubans and this girl is obviously non-Cuban or she would not be in this predicament . This should be an open and shut case.

  206. loveon59 says:

    What about students of U S Citizens? Do they get the same treatment as the children of illegals?

  207. Cat says:

    What doesn’t she understand?? She wasn’t LEGALLY born in FL. She’s not legally living in FL right now. I don’t think she’s smart enough to be accepted in a college if she doesn’t have sense enough to understand something so simple as that. I hope the state of FL doesn’t cave in to this and “give” it to her.

  208. C F DOLAN says:

    Okay, no problem. She goes to school as a resident of FL, U.S. citizen. Her parents, who broke the immigration laws to get here, are sent back from whence they came and she can petition for their admission. There should be at least a five year waiting period before they are granted admission because of their former illegal entry. With luck, they can attend her graduation.

    1. drljr says:

      Except she and her siblings are illegal aliens also. She is not a citizen. Illegal aliens do not create citizens but more illegal aliens. All of them need to deported to their home country.

      1. krp says:

        Obviously a fact challenged liberal product of the public school system

        If you knew how to read, you would have read where the article CLEARLY states that she is a U.S. Citizen.
        That fact is not disputed, but as a liberal you are allergic to facts.

      2. drljr says:

        I have been studying the Constitution since 5th grade. I am a constitutionalists. I went to some very good public schools and learned to think and reason. I obviously have stated things you can not handle or don’t like or can not refute. And I have read the complete Supreme Rulings that control these issues and the understanding of what Amendment 14 means.

        Wendy Ruiz thinks she is a citizen because people have ignored what Amendment 14 actually states and have ignored what the Supreme Court and the writers of Amendment 14 have stated. Illegal aliens can not create citizens. Amendment 14 was written the way it was to cover former slaves and their children to insure they were citizens. It also insures that anyone “subject to the jurisdiction” at birth were also citizens. Indians, being subject of their tribes, were never US citizens until 1924 when Congress passed a law. Individual Indians could be naturalized.

        Her parents never became subject to the jurisdiction and thus their children have never been subject to the jurisdiction. Amendment 14 does not restrict itself to Diplomats or every Indian would have been a citizen at birth prior to 1924. And Elk would have been a US citizen regardless of his membership in his tribe. It states a blanket condition – unless you present yourself and become a subject, as true immigrants do, you can not create citizens.

        Apply some reason and logic to your arguments.

      3. Sterling says:

        So based on your thinking, the media gives citizenship? You keep saying the same thing over and over again, that the article says she is a citizen. Well you and the article are wrong. She is not a citizen and this really needs to go to court and settle it once and for all. All a judge has to due is cite Elk and Ark and what citizenship and how you get it is really about. Then she can take it further up the chain. In the end, it will come down to she is not a citizen. krp what YOU want and what is real are two different things.

      4. krp says:

        Indian tribes that paid taxes to the US Gvernment were Citizens. The exclusion was for those that did not pay taxes to the United States govern, as exlpained by Senator Howard in the Senate record.

        Subject to the jurisdiction, means they can be arrested or prosecuted. That means they do not have diplomatic immunity.
        Wendy Ruiz and her parents do not have diplomatic immunity. Therefore they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore she IS a US CITIZEN. You opinion is wrong and is irrelevant.

  209. concerned citizen says:

    Where are we going on this ? By some interpertations she is legal….she just ratted on her parents. They should leave and take her with them. She is asking for something she thinks is hers when there are natural born citizens are not granted the same thing she wants and their parents have been here all there life…they get penalized and illegals get all they want and more from the US citizens. Something smells badly here and alot of it is from the wh and the big o. These are two different issues but lately they seem to be connected somehow for political reasons. God, help us to get this straight and to let foreigners know they can not run us as some in our government want to be for political reasons as stated before.

  210. Steve Baker says:

    Ok the lack of info in this artical….. Does she have a birth cert ?, and are her parents cosigners ?….. with her birth cert, shes able to get in state rates…… but her parents lack of leagal papers as cosigners makes her unable to get in state rates…. her parents are breaking the law both state & fed and should not be albe to get any loans from any government backed finanical aid..

  211. Dan G. says:

    No problem,, deport the parents,, thank her publicly for bringing them to the states attn: that there are two active criminal border jumpers living in the U.S. Illegally and give her her in-state tuition. If she has FL birth cert. then she is in-state citizen..
    Not her fault she was born to a couple illegal alien POS Border jumpers….

    Oh and also confiscate any cars, property, and bank accounts held by the family and use the money to hunt down and deport other POS illegal alien border jumpers… Remember get it right the term is illegal alien not IMMIGRANT.. Immigrants are here legally and done their paperwork in advance..And are more than welcome..
    Also go after the people who hire POS BJ”s confiscate 100% of their business/bank accounts and shut them down for the first offense NO excuses,, No defense of I did not know.. because thAT is BS all the way…

    1. drljr says:

      But remember, she is an illegal alien also as are her siblings. They all need to be expelled. Illegal aliens are not immigrants but invaders. It is irrelevant if she was born inside the US. She is not a citizen under Amendment 14 or any US law I know of.

  212. drljr says:

    She is an illegal alien and not a citizen of either Florida or the US. People need to read all of Amendment 14. Birth in the US is conditional. One needs to be “subject to the jurisdiction”. Illegal aliens, visitors and diplomats can not produce citizens. People should read the Supreme Court ruling “Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)”. She and her family are subject to deportation. She is facing this problems because of the crimes of her parents.

    1. krp says:

      She was born here, Birthright citizenshjp in the US is only denied to children of diplmoats and potential heirs to foreign thrones. That is what the jurisdiction clause in the 14th amemndment means.

      Elk was a member of a tribe which meant that he chose to be a citizen of the tribe rather than a citizen of the United States. He had to go through naturaliation because he had chosen to renounce his US Citizenship and claim citizenship of his tribe. If he had not denounced his US Citizenship he would not have had to go through naturaliztion.

      1. drljr says:

        If you are going discuss Supreme Court cases be accurate. Don’t lie. Elk was BORN a subject/citizen of his tribe. As an adult he renounce his allegiance to his tribe and tried to declare himself a citizen of the US. That was rejected by the Supreme Court – he was not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” at birth. To be a citizen required he be naturalized. Just being born in the country does not make you a citizen and never has.

        If Wendy Ruiz’s parents are illegal aliens as implied by the article then they are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and that means she and her siblings are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as well. Thus she is NOT a citizen since she does not meet the requires for soil based citizenship. It is not about being subject to criminal laws but allegiance issues. Immigrants swear an oath of loyalty in order to be granted permission to enter and live in the country. Visitors, Diplomats and Illegal aliens do not.

        Try reading all of Elk, Ark, Elg and a host of other rulings as well.

      2. krp says:

        “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 they reside.” A literal reading makes citizens of all persons born in the United States, provided they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of their birth (those not the children of foreign diplomats and like persons who, having diplomatic immunity, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they are in the country for diplomatic purposes).

        Per the Citizenship clause of the 14th amendment she IS A US CITIZEN.

  213. Dan says:

    She is going to collage? That means they jumped the fence a very long time ago? So why the hell have they not even got started getting citizenship. If you doint like the rules in America leave

  214. Frederick Bronson. says:

    What am I missing here we give their parents a fre be by giving their children a free schooling their parents should be charged then let these Kids file a law suit When they show up for court have ICE there arrest them and deport the w!t back with out passing go, they have no rights they are illegals what is so hard to under stand. If they were Americans they would have been arrested and going to court for stealing services, and having forged papers sent every mother back…..
    Frederick Bronson. North Carolina

  215. Dan says:

    The Illegal are taking advantage of the system. The familey has lived here over 18 years and havent done a thing to gain citizenship. They jump the fence and have four or five kids and have a free ride. They need to start getting citizenship as befor we let them have the first child. The children get a Social security number and check the parents each year to ensure they pay taxes.

  216. kathy says:

    She should at the very least have to prove her parents have all thees years paid their fair of taxes. That’s not happening.

    She was born here and she is now college age? That’s a lot of years of being criminal on the part of her parents.

  217. Jack says:

    Do not charge her out of state tuition, just deport her parents, the illegals!

    1. drljr says:

      She and her siblings need to be deported as well. They are not citizens or immigrants but illegal aliens.

      1. krp says:

        Obviously you are an illiiterate liberal product of the Teacher’s Union controlled public school system and cannot read the article.
        The article clearly states that she is a US Citizen and a resident of Florida.

        They were born in the U.S,. and are U.S, Citizens. If her parents are not Cuban, then she likely spent all of her summers growing up with her grandparents, and if they were not in Puerto Rico, then she would have a U. S. Passport and would travel back and forth from whatever country as a U.S. Citizen. U.S. Passports are ONLY issued to U. S. Citizens. She probably has one and you probably do not.

      2. drljr says:

        As the article is clearly discussing illegal aliens and she is one of the students behind the suit and her parents appear to be illegal aliens she is an illegal alien. The article gives the impression she believes she is a citizen. But under Amendment 14 she is not.

      3. krp says:

        “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 they reside.” A literal reading makes citizens of all persons born in the United States, provided they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of their birth (those not the children of foreign diplomats and like persons who, having diplomatic immunity, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they are in the country for diplomatic purposes).

        Her parents do not have diplomatic immunity, therefore by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, SHE IS A US CITIZEN

  218. Smitty says:

    Something just doesn’t add up here. If she was born here she’s a US citizen and if she’s lived in FL all her life then she’s a FL resident. Your classification as a student as in-state or out-of-state is based on the student not her parents. I’m willing to bet that she didn’t live in FL all her life and that’s why she’s being out-of-state tuition. Or she’s not being truthful in this story.

    Wendy Ruiz, go to the school’s registrar and bring your SSN and your FL high school transcripts. They’ll change your classification to in-state, provided what you’ve said is all true.

    1. drljr says:

      She is not a citizen based upon the report. She is the child of illegal aliens and that makes her an illegal alien. She is neither a citizen of the US or Florida. The case “Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)” goes into detail about what Amendment 14 means and how to read it. Another case to read is

      United States v Wong Kim Ark 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898)

      Be aware that Justia.com was caught altering Supreme Court rulings.

    2. K Clark says:

      As I have written and others have written, being a US citizen and being a resident of FL does not get you in-state tuition these days. You now have to show that $ you will be using to pay your tuition comes from an in-state source. If your parents are paying the bills but live out of state, you have to pay out-of-state tuition. Wendy’s parents are illegals so they cannot prove in-state income, hence Wendy is paying out-of-state tuition. If Wendy would get a job and prove she could pay the bills by herself, she would get in-state tuition.

      I know all this because of the hoops I had to jump through last year to pay in-state tuition. Where the $ comes from is the key and loans are not part of that equation (which I found very weird since most people cannot afford to go without the loans).

      1. krp says:

        IF her parents can show a Florida address, then what state would they be a resident of? What state would Wendy be a resident of if she and her parents can provide proof of a Florida address, but the admissions cannot find ANY evidence to support their argument that she is a non-resident? If they cannot identify WHICH state she is a resident of, then the objection is moot.

        If she and her parents can show that they physically reside in Florida then their income is derived in Florida, There is no reason to deny her in-state status, unless there is some proof that her parents live in another state which they can claim is her real state of residence

  219. ANONYMOUS says:

    Why would I waste my effort trying to prove anything? I merely pointed out that using wikipedia as a reference isn’t the best source to use. Did I say anything about being smarter than anyone? no sir, I did not! You’re silly little remark proved I am though🙂 thanks!

  220. ANONYMOUS says:

    …and since we’re playing this game, I’ll use wikipedia too! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

    …it also clarifies Elk v. Wilkins, and that it no longer refutes citizenship…only when the person LEAVES THEIR TRIBE voluntarily.

    1. drljr says:

      Elk was determined to not be a US citizen regardless of how he left his tribe. Under Amendment 14 he was not a citizen since he had never been “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the US. Just because one renounces one’s prior citizenship does not make you a citizen of the country who are currently residing in. To be a US citizen he had to be naturalized.

  221. Donna Fee says:

    That just means she is trying to get a Federal Pell Grant using her parent’s low income so she can get more government money. She can’t have it both ways. Separate herself from her parents and live on her own as a naturalized citizen or pay full tuition and stop asking for government money.

  222. wayne8734 says:

    if their parents are illegal they shouldn’t have been here,which their children would never have been born here either.if they don’t like it let them leave!!!! the birthright law needs to be changed.

  223. wayne says:

    if their parents are illegal they shouldn’t have been here,which their children would never have been born here either.if they don’t like it let them leave!!!! the birthright law needs to be changed.

  224. Magnum says:

    I wrote to my US Senators and asked them if I robbed a Federally insured bank, and gave the money to my son, would the feds then allow him to keep it, as I was rthe one who committee the crime. Considering the fact that the liberals’ logic is that the children of illegal aliens should not be penalized for their parents violations of Federal law,and actually be allowed benefit from it, it would seem that my son should be allowed to keep the proceeds of my robbery. As expected, there was no response from either of these women, but then their politics would make a Kennedy’s look like those of Fidel Castro.

    1. krp says:

      Let’s see. If you used the money to send your son to college and you are not caught for 4 years until after he graduates, does that mean that they would take away his diploma? I would like for you to find a precedent where that has actually happened. I would say that they would not.
      Or if you used the money to pay off credit card bills or other debts. They would not go after the credit card company to get the money back.
      If you used the money to buy cars and homes, then they would seize the property but if they cannot find the money or any property purchased with the money, they would not be able to recover it.
      Your argument is flawed, therefore you must be a liberal.

  225. Tom Lummus says:

    Well, as I see it, they can either get Rick Perry and others that supported them to pay for it . Or they can just shut up and pay like the rest of us have had to or they can carry their __&_)( back to Mexico where they belong. Either they or their parents came here illegal and if they want an education, go to Mexico..

  226. swisslady says:

    Just more proof – get your papers in order FIRST!
    You don’t sneak into a country to get their benefits.

  227. Dan says:

    They jumped the fence 18 years ago and still havent gotten started becoming Americian. That showes there crooks.

  228. Jackson says:

    If the parents have been identified as illegals , why are they still here?

    1. krp says:

      There is nothing in the article that says they are “illegals”, The word “illegal” does not appear in the article, only in the headline.

      All it says ts that the parent’s haven’t provided proof of residency. That doesn’t mean that they are not legal residents.

  229. Distinguishedandwise says:

    What if we tried to do this in their country…We would be shot…..Its time to start standing up against these illegals and send them hope . If they wont go by peaceful methods then force must be utilized. Even if it requires unusual force. We need to start with that joker from the University of Texas and the politicians from Florida and California

  230. Bryantim says:

    Why is The $outhern Poverty Law Center taking the case? Google: “Jewish Involvement In Shaping American Immigration Policy”. This is why they have an interest in flooding American with non-Europeans

  231. Vee says:

    If she is US born then she deserves the same benefits as other students. mo. Um, her parents shouldn’t qualify for student financial aid. Personally, while I believe the law should be enforced until then, I think amnesty should be given to aliens from Mexico who have resided here for 20 (or possibly 15) years with no criminal history, and can prove they’ve been a contributing part of society via a job, etc. If they’ve established themselves here they need to be made tax paying citizens.

  232. Vegas Larry says:

    Children of illegal aliens should have NO rights that a CITIZEN does. They are just as illegal as their parents. Every state should pass laws that make all illegal aliens, no matter what their country of origin is, devoid of rights. That means no drivers license, no job, no home ownership or the ability to rent one. They can stay in a hotel until it’s time for them to go home when their visas expire.No Visa?… immediate expulsion to their home country.No school for themselves or their children. When this is done then American Jobs will be held by Americans. See how simple that is?

    1. krp says:

      What about people that come from Brazil or Argentina and buy a second home in South Florida? So no property owenership to non-citizens? That would create serious international complications.

      “They can stay in a hotel until is time for their visas expire”? Then they wouldn’t be i”llegall”” if they have visas.

      Children born in the U.S. are Citizens. PERIOD, That is the way it is!!! End of discussion. What you want or what you wish does not count.

  233. Mary says:

    This is what Florida gets for letting illegals stay there without consequences!! A sanctuary city or state will face this and much more, just look at California!!!!

  234. K. Turnage says:

    Here’s a tidbit for you- recently a Mexican drug cartel leader’s wife/mistress who IS a U.S. citizen came to the U.S. long enough to have her baby, fathered by the cartel drug lord, then returned to him in Mexico!!! Voila-baby is now a U.S. citizen too while his/her drug lord daddy keeps up business as usual. The woman should have been arrested and detained for aiding and abetting criminal activity and let her kid be born in a U.S. prison then put in foster care. The kid would probably be better off. Now he/she is the heir apparent and the next generation of drug lords.

    1. Dan says:

      I’m glad you brough that up. It’s Seems that every one knew she was the wife of a drug king. All her money was drug money yet she made all the papers and left with out question. She is just as much at fault as her Husban is.

  235. makemyday says:

    Send them all to TX and let the TX Tax Payers handle it!! Mr. “big-heart” Perry can take responsibility for this madness!! In theory, they should ALL be deported – because they are ILLEGAL!!! It’s time to take this Nation back!!

  236. NYLSBlog says:

    New York Law School’s blog “Legal as She is Spoke” published this story that analyzes the merits of their claim. Take a look:

    http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/11/22/i-heart-the-14th-amendment/

    If you like our piece, please “like” us on Facebook!

  237. Dr. Kerr, Ph.D. says:

    She is not a citizen. Amendment 14 requires one to be subject to the jurisdiction. She is not since her parents are illegal aliens. The whole family is comprised of illegal aliens.

    These cases are important to understanding Amendment 14

    Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
    United States v Wong Kim Ark 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898)

  238. RobertR says:

    It’s time they are all sent back where they came from…if your are an illegal then pack your bags and get the Hell out of this country. Your wasting all our tax money and and I want a refund from you and all like you. It’s time we filed a class action lawsuit against all illegals……..to recover our losses of tax dollars plus she is wasting tax $$$ by filing a class action suit that should not be allowed to be filed. Illegals have no rights in this country and all should be deported by the end of this year….Get out or get shipped out. Close all the illegal bank accounts and sale all that they have cars, trucks, houses, dogs, cats fish and anything of value. They deserve nothing from the USA. Charge them for deportation too.

  239. RobertR says:

    It’s time they are all sent back where they came from…if you are an illegal then pack your bags and get the Hell out of this country. You are wasting all our tax money and I want a refund from you and all like you. It’s time we filed a class action lawsuit against all illegal’s…..to recover our losses of tax dollars plus she is wasting tax $$$ by filing a class action suit that should not be allowed to be filed. Illegals have no rights in this country and all should be deported by the end of this year….Get out or get shipped out. Close all the illegal bank accounts and sale all that they have cars, trucks, houses, dogs, cats, fish and anything of value. They deserve nothing from the USA. Charge them for deportation too. Anchors were made to be dropped in the water and only pulled out if you want them back in the boat. I say leave them in the water……

  240. Banking and financeBanking and finance degree,Banking and finance salary,Careers in banking and finance,Investment banking finance,Banking finance major,Banking accounting,Banking financial news,hsbc finance says:

    Valuable info. Fortunate me I found your web site by accident, and I am surprised why this twist of fate did not happened earlier! I bookmarked it.

  241. buy vpn account says:

    Thanks for every other wonderful article. Where else may anybody get that type of info in such an ideal manner of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I’m at the look for such information.

  242. Fanpage Maker says:

    I was recommended this blog by means of my cousin. I’m now not certain whether this post is written through him as nobody else know such detailed about my trouble. You’re amazing! Thank you!

  243. anxiety disorder says:

    Thanks for some other informative web site. Where else may just I am getting that type of information written in such an ideal manner? I have a undertaking that I am just now running on, and I have been at the glance out for such information.

  244. Costume jewellery says:

    Hello, i believe that i noticed you visited my web site thus i came to return the prefer?.I’m attempting to to find things to improve my website!I suppose its adequate to make use of some of your concepts!!

  245. auto wynajem says:

    A person necessarily assist to make significantly posts I’d state. This is the very first time I frequented your web page and up to now? I surprised with the research you made to create this actual put up amazing. Great activity!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

More From CBS Tampa

Best Holiday Volunteer Opportunities for the Family in Tampa BayGet the family together to make a difference in the Tampa Bay community this holiday season.
CBS Tampa’s Social Media LinksFollow us!