Illinois Financial Affidavit: Fill & Download for Free

Colleges can set their own residency requirements. Some may have more lenient rules in order to encourage applicants. You’ll need to check on the admissions page of each college you want to apply to. No college will consider being born in Illinois enough.It will also depend if you’re a dependent student (which, I believe, means your parents are applying for financial aid) or an independent student. If dependent, then your parents need to have permanent residency in that state. If independent then it’s your own residency that counts.US News and World Report: How To Get In-state Tuition might be a bit out of date (from 2011) but it probably also has some timeless information.For instance, here’s the requirements for University of Illinois Chicago. But each college will be different.Who Qualifies for In-State Tuition?Residents of the state of Illinois are assessed in-state tuition, and all other students are assessed out-of-state tuition. U.S. citizens, permanent residents and holders of certain types of visas may establish Illinois residency and qualify for in-state tuition provided certain conditions are met. There is also an Illinois law that allows for some students, including non-citizens, to qualify for in-state tuition provided specific criteria are met.Choose the category that applies to you to determine if you qualify for in-state tuition:Students who are not U.S. Citizens or Permanent ResidentsResidency status is a factor when determining the tuition a student is charged. Students who are not U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, or do not possess a green card, visa, or other legal documentation, may be eligible to receive in-state tuition if specific criteria are met.In accordance with Illinois General Assembly Public Act 093-07 and 110 ILCS 305/7e-5, commonly referred to as the Acevedo Bill, the University of Illinois allows in-state tuition for those applicants to the University of Illinois (U.S. citizens and non-citizens) who:attended an Illinois school for at least three years (K-12) prior to graduating or receiving the equivalent of a diploma;graduated from an Illinois high school or received the equivalent of a diploma in Illinois;resided with parents or guardians while attending an Illinois high school; andfor those applicants who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the U.S., provided the University with an affidavit stating the applicant will file an application to become a permanent resident of the United States at the earliest opportunity the individual is eligible to do so.Students must complete and submit a University of Illinois Residency Affidavit stating that they meet the above conditions and that they will file an application to become a permanent resident at their earliest opportunity. This affidavit is kept confidential by UIC.For more information or if you have a specific question, please contact:Jennifer Juarez, Recruitment and Admission Counselor, at [email protected] students on F-1, J-1 and other types of temporary visas, including students who are applying for U.S. permanent residency, are not permitted to establish in-state residency and are assessed out-of-state tuition. Students on other visa types, such as an H-4 visa, may be eligible for in-state tuition provided specific criteria are met. Go to the University’s website for Information about In-State and Out-of-state Residency and read the FAQ section and the Petition for Determination of Residency section to determine if you qualify — Who Qualifies for In-State Tuition?

Lets look at this in another way. An automobile can and is often operated irresponsibly.People drink and drive, fail to secure themselves or their passengers, roll through stop signs and exceed the posted speed limit. The real perceived danger in operating a vehicle is when someone is injured or looses their life for example in cases of drinking and driving, reckless speed or eluding law enforcement.If we as a society wanted to prevent people who might do these thing from operating a vehicle, how do we do that?The same holds true for those who choose to own a firearm. How do we know that otherwise law abiding citizen will one day pick up a loaded weapon and go on a killing spree?Not everyone can agree on who represents a danger to society and who doesn’t until a crime is committed.Anytime there is a controversial topic and money involved you will more than likely find political activism and people who seem to be making out financially well during a crisis. In recent times it would appear there are groups on both sides who exploit circumstances without showing any great interests in being reasonable and accusations of this seem to dominate mainstream news sources.Some claims are out right ridiculous while some are merely intellectually dishonest but in both instances people who have no first hand knowledge of the facts are making decisions based on faulty data in which they repeat to someone else exacerbating the difficulty in making informed choices.2. All sources of information should be viewed with great skepticism and only then should be peer reviewed often.The Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically represents limits on government power and authority. It also makes it clear that government itself has limits and is prohibited from making laws that infringe on our collective Rights. What’s more is it is an oxymoron to claim one Right is somehow superior and is academically more worthy of protections from government than another for in many ways this is subjective to the individual. Either all Rights need to be honored or all Rights are at risk of being lost.3) If you don’t understand why government simply can’t make a law that conflicts with the Bill of Rights and how the Bill of Rights can be amended you could at least remain open to the possibility that there may be some piece of missing information that could change your position.All due respect to your question however I don’t agree with your premise that nobody is trying to take guns away. They’re lying. I think what I find most offensive is that those who serve the public swear an oath to protect and defend the Rights of the Constitution and then insist that they need to be elected so they can end those Rights as we know them today. Why do I say this? Well, let’s see what they've had to say themselves.Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States“Only the police should have handguns.”“When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps” Enough is Enough, MTV, March 22, 1994Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator from California“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” Associated Press, November 18, 1993“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” I would have done it.” 60 Minutes, CBS, February 5, 1995“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”Howard Metzenbaum, former U.S. Senator“No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”Charles Pashayan, U.S. Representative from California“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.” United Nations Conference on Small Arms, 2001Pete Stark, U.S. Representative from California“If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.” Town Hall Meeting, June 1999, Fremont, CaliforniaWilliam Clay, U.S. Representative from Missouri” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”Joseph Biden, Vice President of the United States“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13AJan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative from Illinois“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” Tape recorded on June 25, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp at the Chicago Gay Pride ParadeMajor Owens, U.S. Representative from New York“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative from Illinois“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.” Chicago Tribune, December 5, 1999Nelson T. “Pete” Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. (Originally named “The National Council to Ban Handguns”)” …. the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976“Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).” 60 Minutes interview“We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.” New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53Sarah Brady, Chairperson for Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign)“…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” Handguns in America, Hearst Newspapers Special Report, October 1997“We would like to see, in the future, what we will probably call needs-based licensing of all weapons. …Where it would make it much more difficult for anybody to be able to purchase handguns….” Sarah Brady speech to the Women’s National Democratic Club, Sept. 21, 1993“To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.” Tampa Tribune, Oct 21, 1993Jim Brady“[Handguns] For target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police.” Parade Magazine, June 26, 1994Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy“Handguns should be outlawed.”Bernard Parks, Chief of Police, L.A. California“We would get rid of assault weapons. There would not be an assault weapon in the United States, whether it’s for a show or someone having it in a collection.” Reuters, June 9, 2000Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center“ … immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999Patrick V. Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner“We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people.” Testimony to the National Association of Citizens Crime CommissionsAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” Board of Directors in September 1976 – see national ACLU policy #47Rosie O’Donnell, TV talk show hostess“I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” The Rosie O’Donnell Show April 19, 1999Violence Policy Center (VPC)“[gun] Licensing systems are very expensive to administer … licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence.”“[We are] the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production.” Politics, paranoia fuel war of words over guns, The Times Union, October 18, 2004Alan M. Dershowitz, Lawyer and Frankfurter Professor of Law“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society.” The Crimson Daily, April 9, 2003Michael Gardner, President of NBC News“There is no reason for anyone in this country … to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun …The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.” USA Today, January 16, 1992“In fact, only police, soldiers — and, maybe, licensed target ranges — should have handguns. No one else needs one.” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 1991Editorial, Los Angeles Times“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? Because it’s the only alternative to the present insanity. Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safe.” Taming the Monster: Get Rid of the Guns, Dec. 28, 1993“…The Times supports a near-total ban on the manufacture and private ownership of handguns and assault weapons, leaving those guns almost exclusively in the hands of law enforcement officials.” Taming the Monster: The Guns Among Us, Dec. 10, 1993Jack E. White, Time Magazine national correspondent“Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one? Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles? Nobody needs one.” Washington Times, May 8, 1999Gary Wills, syndicated columnist“Every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other.” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 17, 1981George Napper, Atlanta public-safety commissioner“If I had my druthers, the only people who would have guns would be those who enforce the law.” U.S. News and World ReportJanet Reno, former U.S. attorney general“The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.” Addressing a 1984 B’nai B’rith gathering in Coral Gables, Florida, per affidavit written by Fred Diamond of MiamiMarion Barry, former mayor, Washington D.C.“Our neighbors in Virginia are just as responsible for these killings as the criminals are because they won’t pass strong gun [control] legislation.” This Week With David Brinkley, ABC TV, March 19, 1989 (Ed: The claim being that citizens of Virginia were responsible for murders committed in Washington D.C.)Should we not take them at their word? When they consistently admit total bans are the goal, supported by increasingly draconian laws that fail to get guns out of the hands of criminals, what other purpose can gun control serve?Obviously it can’t be “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals”, because that’s not what gun control does. It can’t be “making sure no innocent people get murdered”, because nothing in human history has put a stop to that, we have only one end state ever explicitly sought by gun controllers. A total ban on private ownership of firearms.Source Gun Facts | Quotes Concerning Gun ControlUntil we can at least agree that there is a powerful movement in high positions of authority to ban firearms I don’t know where else to go with this but either way, all Rights need to be honored and protected first!

The statement is very relative, and the question shows that Americans have been oblivious of some parts of their history.The United States remained a predominantly rural country until the American Civil War. Nevertheless, industry boomed in the latter half of the 19th century, especially in the Appalachian region. Trade unions like the European ones were actually banned in most of American States, or dissolved a short time after they were formed. But the financial panic of 1873 started unrest in the railroad sector, which had become the leading employer after agriculture.The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 lasted 45 days, and spread to New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois and Missouri. Workers burned down and destroyed facilities and railroad stocks. Local governments feared a workers revolution like the Paris Commune of 1871. The city and state governments organized armed militias, aided by national guard, federal troops and private militias, to fight against the workers. At their peak, the strikes were supported by about 100,000 workers. With the intervention of federal troops, most strikes were crushed by early August. Fearing social disruption, many cities built armories to support their militias, and these defensive buildings still stand as symbols of the effort to suppress labor unrest.The first effective national trade union was the Knights of Labor, successful in developing a working class culture. In 1885, they led railroad workers to victory against the entire Southwestern Railway system. In early 1886, they coordinated 1,400 strikes involving over 600,000 workers nationwide. This involved peaceful as well as violent confrontations in coal mining and factories, with demands usually focused on the eight hour day.The Haymarket affair was the aftermath of a bombing that took place at a labor demonstration on Tuesday May 4, 1886, at Haymarket Square in Chicago. It began as a peaceful rally in support of workers striking for an 8 hour day, and in reaction to the killing of several workers by the police. A dynamite bomb was thrown at the police which tried to disperse the public meeting. Ensuing gunfire resulted in the deaths of seven police officers and at least four civilians, while scores of others were wounded. Eight anarchists were convicted of conspiracy. Seven were sentenced to death, and eventually four were hanged. The Haymarket affair is generally considered significant as the origin of international May Day observances for workers.There were 37,000 strikes from 1881 to 1905. The largest number were in construction, followed by mining, but all branches were involved. The goals were working conditions, uniform wage scales, firings of unionists. A new organization, known as the American Federation of Labor or AFL, was created in 1886. It was composed primarily of skilled men; unskilled workers, African-Americans, and women were generally excluded. The AFL saw women as threatening the jobs of men, since they often worked for lower wages.The standard of living for US industrial workers was higher than in Europe. Taking into account the cost of living, the standard of living of unskilled workers was about the same as Britain, while skilled workers had about twice as high a standard of living. Americans worked longer hours, with a greater chance of injury, and had fewer social services. The American advantage grew over time, and there was a heavy steady flow of skilled workers from Europe to America. Nearly all labor unions were strong supporters of the WW1 effort. They used leverage to gain recognition and higher wages. They minimized strikes, as wages soared and full employment was reached. To keep factories running smoothly, Wilson established the National War Labor Board in 1918, which forced management to negotiate with existing unions.In 1919, the AFL tried to make their gains permanent and called a series of major strikes, but management counterattacked, claiming that key strikes were run by Communists intent on destroying capitalism. The 1920s marked a period of sharp decline for the labor movement. Union membership fell in the face of economic prosperity, and anti-union sentiments from both employers and government. The AFL was down to less than 3 million members in 1925 after hitting a peak of 4 million members in 1920. In addition, the practice of forcing employees to sign “yellow dog contracts”, that said they would not join a union by threat of termination, was not outlawed until 1932.The stock market crashed in October 1929, and ushered in the Great Depression. Unemployment rate hit the 25 percent mark. Unions lost members because laborers could no longer even afford to pay their dues. Some workers did indeed turn to such radical movements as the Communist Party. In March 1930, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers marched through New York City, Detroit, Washington, San Francisco and Chicago in mass protests organized by the Communist Party. The elections of 1934 reflected the radical upheaval sweeping the country, as Roosevelt won the greatest majority either party ever held in the Senate. The New Deal's pro-labor policies favored the rise in real wages in some industrial sectors during this time. The most dramatic success was the 1936–37 strike that paralyzed General Motors. It enabled unionization of the main automobile firms.The war mobilization expanded union membership to about 36% of the work force. Unions mostly supported Roosevelt. With the end of the war came another wave of strikes. The unions made some gains, but the economy was disordered by the return to the labor force of 12 million servicemen, and the return home of millions of women workers. The Republicans exploited public anger at the unions in 1946, winning a smashing landslide. Unions responded afterwards by taking strong actions, and purged communists and far-left sympathizers from leadership roles.The Taft–Hartley Act, in 1947 included restrictions on unions as well as management. It was a response to a threatened 1946 railroad strike that was called off at the last minute before it shut down national economy. The Act was bitterly fought by unions, vetoed by President Truman, and passed over his veto. Repeated union efforts to repeal or modify it always failed, and it remains in effect today. The Act was sponsored by Senator Robert A.Taft and Representative Fred Hartley, both Republicans. Congress overrode the veto in 1947, establishing the act as a law. Truman described the act as a “slave-labor bill” in his veto. The new law required all union officials to sign an affidavit that they were not Communists or else the union would lose its federal bargaining powers .The AFL had always opposed Communists inside the labor movement. Unions strongly supported the Cold War policies of the Truman administration. Left-wing elements protested and were forced out of the main unions. Anti-communism was part of a strategy by big business, Republicans and conservatives to single out and destroy the members of the coalition that forced through the New Deal, namely organized labor, socialist and communist parties. Since then, the American labor movement has been in steady decline. In the early 1950s, around a third of the American labor force was unionized. By 2012, the proportion was 11%, but only 5% in the private sector compared with 40% in the public sector. Figures should be compared with 90% in Sweden and 66% in Germany.The effectiveness of strikes declined sharply, as companies after the 1970s threatened to close down factories or move them to low-wage states or to foreign countries. Numerous industries were deregulated, including airlines, trucking, railroads and telephones, over the objections of the unions involved. Unions suffered a continual decline of power during the Reagan administration, with a direct effect on wages. Salaries of unionized workers also fell relative to non-union workers. Organized labor's influence steadily faded, and workers' collective voice in politics has weakened. As a result, wages have stagnated and income inequality has increased.