Local GOP says no to Connecticut Dream Act

Dirk Perrefort, Staff Writer

Published 12:41 p.m., Tuesday, May 31, 2011

DANBURY -- The recent passage of legislation that will allow children of illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition at Connecticut's public colleges and universities was predictably voted along party lines.

The majority of Democrats voted in favor of the legislation, while Republicans, including local state Sens. Michael McLachlan and Toni Boucher, rallied against the proposal.

Boucher said most of the correspondence she received from constituents came from those who believed the legislation wasn't fair to legal residents, including a student on a waiting list to attend the University of Connecticut.

"Students that are legal residents of Connecticut tell me that they are on waiting lists and would find it unfair to be bumped from their spot by someone who is here illegally," Boucher said.

Most college officials, however, said the low number of students the law is expected to affect -- nearly a dozen locally and about 250 statewide -- isn't enough to make an impact on admissions.

"Personally, I don't believe that this only affects a couple of hundred students," said Mayor Mark Boughton, a Republican and former high school educator serving his fifth term.

Boughton, like McLachlan, also argues that even when illegal immigrants graduate from a public college or university in Connecticut, they still can't get a job because of their illegal status.

The legislation requires undocumented immigrant students seeking the in-state tuition rate to sign an affidavit stating they will pursue citizenship when they are eligible.

"If someone was already in the process of doing the paperwork, then I wouldn't have an issue with it," Boughton said. "I am certainly sympathetic to people who want to move on with their education and I want to encourage people to do that. But we have to follow the rule of law."

Boucher proposed a half-dozen amendments to the legislation earlier this week, all of which failed to pass, including a proposal that would have required the students to have a sponsor for citizenship before receiving the in-state tuition rate.

"By requiring that they have a sponsor, they can start the path to citizenship," she said.

Michael Boyle, an immigration lawyer in greater Danbury, said he wishes it were that simple.

Getting an employer to sponsor someone for citizenship is "virtually unheard of these days," Boyle said, adding that it's a process that could take 10 years to complete.

At the other end of the spectrum, Boyle said he often receives calls from employers who want to keep a valued employee who is in the country illegally.

"There is almost no way a person with goodwill or a job could sponsor someone," Boyle said. "There is no reality to it."

The easiest path to citizenship, he said, is through marriage. The students who will benefit from the in-state tuition rates are the ones who are most likely to benefit from that path.

"More than likely, someone who grew up here and is going to college will probably get married in the next five to 10 years," Boyle said. "Do we want them to be educated and have a good job, pay taxes and contribute to the state's economy, or do we want them to be cutting our grass?"

Unlike the comments made by some lawmakers debating the bill before the General Assembly this month, Boyle said most of the students are not unmotivated people who just haven't bothered filing an application.

"You can't be lazy and make a living and survive in this area," he said. "It's not like they are lazy or lacking the will to legalize; it's just that their options are very limited."

McLachlan also submitted several failed amendments, including a proposal that would allow military veterans from other states to pay in-state tuition rates.

"The idea is to attract the best of the best to Connecticut," McLachlan said on the Senate floor last week. "I believe this is an appropriate way for the legislature to honor those veterans who served our country honorably."

Republicans rallying against the legislation also said it's not a problem that should be addressed on the state level, but that federal lawmakers have to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

State Sen. Andrew Roraback, a more central-leaning Republican who has supported issues such as abolishing the death penalty, said that it was a tough decision.

Roraback ultimately voted against the bill because "in the long run, I believe it decreases pressure on Washington to afford these young people all of the rights of citizenship. When we do that, it lets the federal legislators off the hook."

"We should all be demanding that our federal legislators give some real and permanent status to these young people who are here through no fault of their own," Roraback said. "I believe these young people should be able to vote, have a driver's license and hold elected office, but none of that will happen at the state level."

State Rep. Joseph Taborsak, a Democrat from Danbury who voted in favor of the legislation, said that until the federal government fixes the broken immigration system, "states like Connecticut are left to deal with these difficult issues.

"I'm glad we had the political courage to say that there is a difference between an adult who knowingly breaks the law and a child who is brought here through no fault of their own," Taborsak said.

"If only our federal government could show the same willingness to resolve these difficult issues, we would probably not have such anger and frustration in our country on the issue of immigration."

www.newstimes.com