POLL: Support for DREAM without in-state - Page 3

I do not wish harm to anyone in this site but I have to think on what position is the is going to create the greater good. I do want the Dream Act to have in-state tuition. For a time, I paid out of state tuition and it was not fun. Still, with your conditional residency you can get a loan, you can work and get many scholarships. Right now you are out of status. I think that when dream passes this portal should keep going and support all the people it can to make sure everybody gets the support he/she needs. I do not think we need to call senators to ask them to remove that part, we need 60 votes and if we can get them with the option why not? Still, what we want might not be what we get. Any bone they throw at us is good and if we snub the in-state tuition part, our critics have less reasons to bark. It is the main reason why I voted in favor of leaving out- state tuition out. If they scream, your are going to be a burden and you cooly say take if off, they just got nail! Fear I hope this helps explain my reasoning and i welcome a response.

ok i see.. but with the dream ACT u are becoming a resident.. and soon a citizen.. u have legal status.. and legal persons get in state tuition that was just my point.. and also i dont think at this stage we are in need of changes or additions/removals.. we need to be united all on one thing which is the DREAM ACT as how it is.. we dont have time for extra arguments n stuff like that.. thats wat i think. Well lets just hope DREAM passes this year.

This is deffinitely not the first time that this question surfaced around here. We are forgetting one crucial detail. And I admit that I keep forgetting this detail everytime I come across threads such as this.

As far as I understand the section in question here is the following:

Source: http://dreamact.info/index.php?optio...Itemid=53#sec3

... the repealed section is the following:


Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html

Now as far as I can tell this part has ALREADY been circumvented by several State-level DREAM Act legislatures (such as AB 540 in CA). In fact I think this is why certain states are being sued over in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants, because state level DREAM Act legislatures, from one perspective, IGNORE this federal law.

So lets be clear! This is a point I keep forgetting. When we are talking about a DREAM Act with no in state tuition, we are NOT talking about people getting papers, but not in-state. We are talking about people who will not qualify under the DREAM Act (ie those who entered after they turned 16). This part of the DREAM Act deals with those people specifically.

So a more appropriate question for the original poll should have been "Should the DREAM Act give states explicit right to determine residency requirements for in-state tuition?". Yes it should and some states have already done that.

i don't care about the money we can work and pay for school , i can also pay for some poor american to go to school lol money we can make
i just wish the age limit will be 35

how old are u? would u benefit under it?

nick is correct, and please change the original post to reflect what he said.

anyone that qualifies for dream WILL get in-state tuition. only the people that DO NOT qualify for dream wont' be able to get in-state.

not me i am close to 40 and finish college , and not going back to school

Didn't you qualify for the 1986 amnesty?

im so sad u dont qualify...

not worry about me i am ok, wife is 32 and i have friends with teenagers that are almost out of school
i been calling all night al the voice mails are full done for the day
will start tomorrow all over again