October 26, 2017 6:00 AM HomeMorning ReadsMorning Reads – Thursday, October 26, 2017 Morning Reads – Thursday, October 26, 2017 By Jessica Szilagyi Morning Reads 19 Comments On this date in 1984, “Baby Fae” was given the heart of baboon after being born with a severe heart defect. She lived for 21 days with the animal heart. Peaches Roswell Mayoral candidate disqualified from race Georgia Court of Appeals rules against immigrant college students The top two causes of fatal traffic accidents in Georgia John Barrow’s quest for statewide office Georgia mom flees to CO not for cannabis but for Medicaid Jimmy Carter Social Security Administration spending tops $1 trillion 34% premium increase for most health insurance plans #UnAffordableCareAct Electing Republicans proves useless U.S. surveillance program expanded Sweet Tea Woodpecker to blame for vandalism in Georgia community Just for the mug shot. Top 5 All-Time Georgia High School Quarterbacks Plague warning in 9 countries… One day, robots will have an IQ of 10,000 Something else to shorten our lives Share this:TwitterFacebookTumblrRedditEmailPrint Related About Author jszilagyi5 19 Comments evergreentree This lawsuit was bonkers. What on earth made them believe that illegal immigrants should be entitled to in-state tuition when citizens from other states aren’t? “Charles Kuck, the attorney representing the DACA recipients in the case, said they would appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Rigoberto Rivera, a plaintiff and Roswell High School graduate who was brought to the U.S. from Mexico as a child, wrote on Facebook the appeals court’s decision was “erroneous and an injustice” to the DACA recipients in Georgia who “pay taxes and that have fought for the past four years for their right to in-state tuition.” ” Except that a citizen of the United States who moves from, say, Ohio to Georgia can pay federal and state taxes while living and working in Georgia and still not qualify for in state tuition if they don’t meet the residency requirements. Which means that this isn’t even an immigration issue per se as natural born citizens, naturalized citizens and permanent residents and people here on various visas often don’t meet the residency requirements and have to pay out of state tuition also. International students – foreign students who receive visas for the express purpose of coming to America to attend college – often do not qualify for in state tuition even if they spend like 12 years here from undergraduate to postdoctoral/medical school and work the entire time, and in some states never do. If a state wants to grant in-state tuition to noncitizens that is their prerogative but there is no legal compulsion to. And no, continuous residence in a state is not the sole determination of in-state tuition status. There are other qualifications that you have to meet. The judge who made the previous ruling is an activist judge who needs to be removed from the bench. Again, this has nothing to do with undocumented immigrants because even people who have proper documentation often can’t qualify for in state tuition either. That list of top 5 high school QBs is strange. It only includes QBs who were also great college players. It doesn’t include great high school QBs who for whatever reason didn’t stand out in college ball. And if you are going to put Trevor Lawrence over Deshaun Watson because of Lawrence’s superior passing numbers – ignoring Watson’s rushing numbers – why have Charlie Ward over both when Ward didn’t do much passing in high school? And what of Ward’s high school nemesis and cross-town rival Shawn Jones, who led Georgia Tech to a national title? So Buck Belue gets on there for leading UGA to a national title but Jones doesn’t get on for leading Tech to one? Ah well … October 26, 2017 6:47 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope What on earth made them believe that illegal immigrants should be entitled to in-state tuition when citizens from other states aren’t? Because they got into a public university in the state of Georgia after graduating from Georgia high schools and, aside from the fact their parents brought them here as children, they meet criteria the Board of Regents has set forth for in-state tuition. Except that a citizen of the United States who moves from, say, Ohio to Georgia can pay federal and state taxes while living and working in Georgia and still not qualify for in state tuition if they don’t meet the residency requirements. That Ohio freshman will likely gain in-state tuition by the time they graduate. Back in my day, it only took one year to “establish residency,” even if the requirements have become more stringent, the Ohio student at least has the ability to obtain in-state tuition at some point down the road. Meanwhile, a DACA-eligible student could conceivably live in Georgia for 18 years, graduate from a Georgia high school, attend a Georgia university, and never be eligible for in-state tuition. . International students – foreign students who receive visas for the express purpose of coming to America to attend college – often do not qualify for in state tuition even if they spend like 12 years here from undergraduate to postdoctoral/medical school and work the entire time, and in some states never do. Visa recipients go back to their home countries after graduating, as per their visa. The central focus of in-state eligibility determinations is whether a person intends to make Georgia their permanent residence after graduation. For an international student on a visa, you can see how that question doesn’t really apply to them. The judge who made the previous ruling is an activist judge who needs to be removed from the bench. Lol. Ok, bud. 1) Judges have to run for re-election, so you’ve got every opportunity to do so. 2) Please point to other rulings which cement this “activist judge” label you’ve tossed out. Or is that just a buzzword you heard once and you’re choosing to apply it to any judge that ever does anything you disagree with? October 26, 2017 9:06 AM Log in to Reply drjay every state may be different, but one of the reasons i came home to finish school after a year in virginia was because the requirements to get in state tuition if you didn’t graduate from a virginia high school were quite stringent and would have required dropping out of school and working in virginia for a year, in addition to filing state taxes, not being able to be claimed by my out of state parents a couple of other things…so it may not be a slam dunk for that kid from ohio to do it here either… October 26, 2017 9:28 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope Georgia was pretty lax a few years ago, I don’t know if that’s changed. I knew folks who got in-state by the end of their sophomore year. Given the academic reputation of UVA and W&M, it makes sense Virginia would want to tightly restrict in-state eligibility. October 26, 2017 9:45 AM Log in to Reply bethebalance You have more patience than I do, ACP, to address the clear need for legal education. As for that whole “activist judge” thing, that’s been a red herring that’s been duping many, mostly the targeted Republican audiences, for over a generation. The bottom line– every decision that every judge makes takes a side, and “acts” upon the law. It’s not as if the Constitution or statue spells out every issue in detail. Which is why a “case” or “controversy” exists. If you take a side in a controversy- as every judge must in every decision- you are being an activist for that side of the controversy. But it seems so pointless to even try to educate nowadays. October 26, 2017 9:52 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope As someone who has clerked for a judge and argues in front of judges on a regular basis, I think I have a good sense of what they’re thinking and why they choose to rule a certain way. Trial court judges don’t like being overturned. Imagine being told “you’re wrong” via a long judicial decision that painstakingly outlines the ways in which you’re wrong and which is saved for posterity in legal reporters and online databases so that future generations can bask in how wrong you were. I’ve had judges who will deny an motion – despite personally believing that the law should be a certain way – because precedent dictates a certain outcome. As for the “activist” judge label, I think it’s a lazy insult tossed out by people with 1) no experience with the legal system and/or 2) no willingness to recognize that there’s a valid argument on the other side. Judges are human beings and, despite their best efforts, their decisions will be swayed by their personal experiences, biases, and opinions. That’s how Justice Thomas, Justice Roberts, Justice Kagan, and Justice Kennedy can read the same document and come to 4 wildly different conclusions about what it means and what it should mean. Justice Thomas is no less an “activist” for his interpretation of the Constitution than Justice Ginsburg is an “activist” for hers. All you want from judges, at the end of the day, is impartiality to the parties, a willingness and ability to consider and criticize both arguments, and the ability to render a decision supported by reason, logic, and the existing precedent. I’m patient because most folks don’t regularly interact with the judicial system. I’m a strong advocate of taking schoolkids to the courthouse to sit in on civil or criminal trials to witness how our legal system operates. I’m a strong advocate of just regular ole’ folks coming down to the courthouse to do the same, because there’s more to the practice of law than what you see on Law & Order. It’s easy to turn away what we don’t understand and, most folks, don’t really understand what goes on in judge’s chambers or law offices. October 26, 2017 10:17 AM Log in to Reply evergreentree Andrew C. Pope and bethebalance: All right fine. I will simplify this and simply ask: what is the legal basis for determining that in-state tuition must be granted to undocumented students? Give the rationale using either state or federal law. Since I am so uneducated on this matter it should be pretty easy for you to do so. October 26, 2017 12:01 PM evergreentree @Andrew C. Pope: “Because they got into a public university in the state of Georgia after graduating from Georgia high schools and, aside from the fact their parents brought them here as children, they meet criteria the Board of Regents has set forth for in-state tuition.” That isn’t what this says. http://www.usg.edu/policymanual/section4/C329/ They can’t qualify as an independent student because: “An individual who is not claimed as a dependent on the federal or state income tax returns of a parent or United States court appointed legal guardian, and whose parent or guardian has ceased to provide support and rights to that individual’s care, custody, and earnings”. So they would need to qualify as a dependent student. But there: “A dependent student shall be classified as in-state for tuition purposes if such dependent student’s parent has established and maintained domicile in the State of Georgia for at least twelve (12) consecutive months immediately preceding the first day of classes for the term and: The student has graduated from a Georgia high school; or, The parent claimed the student as a dependent on the parent’s most recent federal or state income tax return.” No federal or state tax return, no in-state tuition status even if you graduated from a Georgia high school and you are a citizen. You – or your parents – paying into Social Security doesn’t count. An undocumented person would have to pretty much be full time military in order to qualify for in-state tuition status, and even that would be as an independent student. There is no way for an undocumented student to meet the requirement as a dependent student. That is why I said that the first judge showed absolutely no respect for the law when making the decision and needs to be removed. It was an activist decision designed to pursue a specific outcome or public policy goal. Fine, but that is the job of the legislature, and within certain parameters executive branch bodies like the BOR. It isn’t the job of the judiciary. October 26, 2017 11:40 AM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope No federal or state tax return, no in-state tuition status even if you graduated from a Georgia high school and you are a citizen. Hate to break it to you, but you are factually incorrect. Undocumented immigrants can (and do) file federal and state tax returns. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that about half of undocumented workers in the U.S. pay income taxes. Furthermore, DACA recipients are required to file federal income taxes. As I’ve told you on multiple occasions now, do a modicum of research before stepping to this. Quite frankly, I don’t know why I wasted the time to point out the fact that you’re wrong, as the language you cited on tax returns Section 184.108.40.206 only applies to U.S. citizens. The applicable section for Dreamers would be 220.127.116.11, which states that a student is ineligible for in-state tuition “unless the student is legally in this state and there is evidence to warrant consideration of in-state classification as determined by the Board of Regents.” That, my friend, is the crux of this case. The students argued that they were “lawfully present” in the United States by virtue of DACA while the Board of Regents contended that whether or not a student was “lawfully present” was irrelevant to whether or not a student met the residency requirements for in-state tuition. The trial court’s decision hinged upon an assessment that the federal government’s designation that these DACA students were “lawfully present” was controlling on the Board of Regents for purposes of that requirement set forth in 18.104.22.168. The Court of Appeals disagreed, relying on a N.D. Ga. decision from May 2017 which concluded DHS’ designation of DACA recipients as being “lawfully present” in the US didn’t have the force of law. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that there was no Georgia case law which had weighed in on this question and that, aside from this one case, there was no federal case law in Georgia which had tackled the issue. That Federal case, Estrada v. Becker concluded that regulations, like DACA, only carry the force of law when they meet certain administrative rulemaking requirements (like a notice and comment period). Since DACA was announced via policy memo and is less a “rule” and more an act of prosecutorial discretion by DHS, the federal district court (and later the Georgia Court of Appeals) concluded it didn’t have the force of law. What will be interesting is Paul Ryan’s announcement that passage of DACA will be part of the government funding bill later this year. If DACA is codified into law the Court of Appeals’ analysis changes and, maybe, you wind up with a different result. To get on my high horse once again about “activist judges”: Seeing as I just took time out of my day to indicate how the law on this turns on a nuanced question of whether an executive agency program carries the force of law. Maybe you’d care to provide a rebuttal about how the trial court’s decision “showed absolutely no respect for the law.” Keep in mind, the N.D. Ga. case that the Court of Appeals cited heavily in reaching its decision: 1) has no precedential value on a Georgia state or superior court and 2) was issued in May 2017, four months after Judge Tusan issued her Order in this case. October 26, 2017 12:18 PM Log in to Reply Benevolus “One day, robots will have an IQ of 10,000” That won’t make Trump happy. Oh wait, his is probably 100,000. October 26, 2017 9:29 AM Log in to Reply Benevolus We need more cowbell Josh McKoon stories. October 26, 2017 9:34 AM Log in to Reply Noway2016 Face Palm… https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kellogg-apologizes-for-art-on-corn-pops-boxes-seen-as-racist/ October 26, 2017 10:58 AM Log in to Reply Benevolus Real Men don’t apologize! October 26, 2017 11:54 AM Log in to Reply xdog Free Aunt Jemima! October 26, 2017 12:39 PM Log in to Reply Noway2016 I knew I remembered this right. Double face palm! https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/09/17/att-apologizes-for-racist-illustration/22b85908-8c5b-47dd-ad10-0a293c9a8623/?utm_term=.b0ad1e4b1428 October 27, 2017 6:50 AM Log in to Reply Will Durant Electing Republicans is not useless if you are planning to gun down an entire village and have a business need to fire your AK/AR at four or five hundred rounds per minute. https://www.thedailybeast.com/three-weeks-after-las-vegas-legislation-to-ban-bump-stocks-has-stalled-out-in-congress October 26, 2017 12:51 PM Log in to Reply Benevolus The same Russian lawyer who was in that meeting with Junior had allegedly been working with Fusion GPS to smear Magnitsky, presumably at the behest of the Russian government in order to remove the reason for the Magnitsky sanctions. So therefore, supposedly Fusion and lawyer Veselnitskaya were working for the Russians, looking for dirt on Trump, and offering Trump dirt on Clinton! I don’t know what to make of it yet. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/25/the-clinton-camp-and-the-dnc-helped-pay-for-that-trump-russia-dossier-heres-what-it-means/?utm_term=.559bdded83ac October 26, 2017 4:36 PM Log in to Reply Noway2016 This has the makings of a nightmare for the Dems! Lol! Collusion, Corruption and Clintons! What a Trinity!! October 26, 2017 6:03 PM Log in to Reply Andrew C. Pope I think the only trinity here is Trump and the two Russian jezebels he hired to pee on that mattress. October 26, 2017 6:31 PM Log in to Reply Add a Comment Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.