Thread: Illegal immigrant tuition passes hurdle in Colo.

Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts and concerns on SB09-170. I openly welcome comments from constituents. I am glad to inform you that I did not support SB09-170 and voted against this bill when it reached the floor. I strongly recommend contacting Senator Chris Romer at 303.780.9445 to express your opinions on the bill. Senator Romer is the Senate sponsor for the bill. Please continue to feel free to contact me regarding any future legislation or issues that may arise.

Sincerely,

Senator Shawn Mitchell

Absence allows Dems to move on 'tuition equity' bill

Tim Hoover

A Senate committee this morning approved a bill that would grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, an action that Republicans said was only possible through a sneaky maneuver by Democrats.

The Senate Appropriations Committee had been scheduled to take up the bill, Senate Bill 170, on Friday. However, Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, earlier this week called a meeting of the committee for Wednesday, with the bill on the schedule.

Sponsored by Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, the bill would grant in-state tuition to any student who had attended a Colorado high school for at least three years and graduated, regardless of their immigration status.

The bill's prospects had looked grim heading into the Friday meeting. Though Democrats hold a 6-4 majority on the committee, Sen. Moe Keller, D-Wheat Ridge, had said she would be a no vote, likely making for a 5-5 tie, meaning the bill would have died.

But supporters of the bill caught a lucky break. Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, last week said he would be out of town until Thursday helping his wife prepare to bring her father, who has Alzheimer's disease, to a facility in Colorado.

When Tapia scheduled a meeting for Wednesday, Republicans said it was an obvious move to take advantage of Harvey's absence

Republicans said their suspicions were borne out in today's hearing.

When the bill came up, Sen. Mike Kopp, R-Littleton, asked Tapia to delay consideration of the bill until Friday, when Harvey would be back.

Tapia said the decision on whether to delay the bill should be the sponsor's, and he put the question to Romer.

"Why in Appropriations should we hold up a bill that has a positive fiscal impact?" Romer asked, unwilling to delay it.

Kopp and other Republicans argued the bill would have a negative effect on the state budget because it would violate a federal law that prohibits illegal immigrants from getting benefits other Americans can't. Since students from other states can't get the in-state rate, illegal immigrants can't either, Republicans argued.

The only way to comply with federal law is to give everyone the in-state rate, something that would cost the state more than $200 million a year in lost tuition revenue, Republicans argued.

Despite the federal law, nine other states allow the in-state rate for illegal immigrants. A pending court challenge in California could settle the question.

Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, offered amendments that would have given the in-state tuition rate to all foreign students and all out-of-state students. Those amendments failed.

The committee approved the bill on a 5-4 vote, with Keller the only Democrat joining the three Republicans who were present to vote against it. The bill now can move back to the Senate floor for final approval, where debate could be testy.

"I'm really disappointed," King said after the meeting. "The bill would have died if he (Harvey) would have been here today."

He said there was a deliberate strategy by Democrats to take advantage of Harvey's absence.

"They could have easily put the bill back on (the committee schedule) on Friday," King said.

Tapia said he scheduled the meeting in an attempt to ease a backlog of bills that had stacked up on the committee's agenda.

Romer also said after the hearing that there was nothing underhanded on the part of Democrats. He said Republicans could have assigned another one of their members to take Harvey's place

"They (Republicans) knew the bill was on the (committee schedule)," Romer said. "They have the right to appoint another member to the committee. They chose not to."

Not so, Republicans countereed, and Democrats know it.

"They announced the change of date yesterday, and a change of committee assignment requires a resolution, which has to be calendared -- so it takes two days," Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry said. "They gamed the system and exploited Sen. Harvey's difficult personal situation with real, shall we say, audacity."

http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_12047859

I did not support the bill in the appropriations committee today and will continue to fight the bill. Keith


State Senator

Senate District 12

State Capitol Building

Denver, CO 80203

303-866-4880

keith@keithking.org


















False Hope for Illegal Immigrants



Having started three charter schools in Colorado Springs and constantly fighting to empower Colorado's students, I have come to understand the value of a quality education.



The result of quality higher education is the opportunity for skilled, meaningful work. This is something that is not accessible to illegal immigrants even if they attend universities and are given instate tuition. Senate Bill 170 would give them false hope for their future.



So why don't these students just become legal residents? Well it's not that easy. Denver Post columnist Tina Griego states, "The law says if you entered the country illegally - even if you were still in diapers when you did it - then you must return to your home country to be processed for legal re-entry." Continuing, she writes, "It is for this reason that State Sen. Chris Romer's amendment to his in-state tuition bill requiring students to sign an affidavit declaring intent to pursue citizenship is a well-meaning but empty gesture" (Immigration 101 Might Change Minds, March 10, 2009).



Due to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, if a resident that is here illegally is offered postsecondary education benefits all citizens must be offered the same benefit - regardless of their state residency status. This means that if SB-170 was passed residents from any state could come into a Colorado college and request instate tuition. This issue has been brought up before the courts in California. If all out-of-state students were granted instate tuition status, higher education revenue losses would be somewhere around $263,890,969 (Colorado Department of Higher Education).



This bill was originally claimed to have no fiscal impact on the state. When it came up in the Senate Education Committee, I decided it needed to be sent to the Appropriations Committee so they true fiscal impact could be determined. My motion failed in committee, but my motion was accepted on the floor. Now in Appropriations, SB-170 is running into bipartisan opposition.



We have compassion for these young men and women, but I do not believe it is appropriate for us to give them false hope.





----

NOTE: You are receiving this email because you have contacted Senator King via email. If you wish to be removed from his mailing list please let us know (keith@keithking.org).

Questions? Comments? Email us at keith@keithking.org.

I wrote to all the legislators that were listed and got one answer back so far today as follows:

Dear _____,

Thank you for your email regarding SB 170. I did support the bill in the appropriations committee. The purpose of appropriations is to make a determination on the financial aspects of the bill. According to our fiscal analysts, the bill actually generates revenue through tuition. This is a positive for our institutions of higher education.

Also, I might add that members are absent at times for votes both in committee and on the senate floor. That does not preclude us from conducting business.

Sincerely, Senator Paula E. Sandoval

I do not feel this has answered my question really. So any student paying tuition is a gain or a revenue.

One of the main arguments that are used to coerce us to accept the “In-State Tuition for illegalsâ€

I can think of a couple of other examples of “sneaky legislative tricksâ€

‘Sneak attack’ on illegals tuition bill?

Measure passes through committee while foe out of town
Gene Davis, DDN Staff Writer
Thursday, April 2, 2009

Critics of the controversial legislation that would grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants say Democrats pulled a “sneak attackâ€

Thank you very much for taking time to share your concerns about SB
170 with me. I always appreciate hearing from Coloradans, even when
they do not agree with my stance. Even though I may not be able to
change your opinion about this bill, I wanted to take a second to
explain the many benefits of this legislation, correct several
misconceptions about this legislation as well as immigration laws, and
hopefully convey to you why I will be supporting Sen. Romer’s bill.
For the record, the Republicans could have appointed a replacement for
Sen. Harvey, while he was out of town, but for some reason, chose not
to.

Senate Bill 170 is good for our economy, strengthens our communities,
keeps us competitive with other Western states, and provides an
opportunity for more Coloradans to seek higher education. First, and
contrary to some popular beliefs, SB 170 is not just a matter of
generosity, but also an economic development strategy to bolster the
state’s economy. The passage of SB 170 will not cost Colorado tax
payers a cent! Also, studies have indicated that college graduates
are less likely to get caught in a cycle of poverty and crime, and
that they tend to be more productive and civically engaged; they vote
more, and are more likely to contribute to the state tax base. The
states with higher percentages of college graduates have higher
productivity and attract more high-growth biomedical, technology, and
new energy corporations.

Second, we are already funding undocumented students’ K-12 education
(as federal law mandates), and we will be wasting this initial
investment if we do not provide an opportunity for these students to
pursue higher education and ultimately give back to the state.
Undocumented students are currently ten times less likely to attend
college and realizing this futility, often drop out during high
school. Tuition equity is by no means a free pass to college.
Instead, all SB 170 does is to permit this portion of Colorado’s
population to pay in-state tuition. These students will still have to
apply and be accepted, so only the qualified students will benefit
from the bill’s passage.

Third, SB 170 provides an opportunity for Colorado to stay competitive
with our nearby states. Ten other states currently have passed
tuition equity legislation, and many of these are Western states:
California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York,
Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Washington. California and Texas have
calculated that any costs associated with this legislation were
minimal when compared with spending on social programs and the higher
rates of crime that would result if nothing was done.

Fourth, when discussing SB 170, I have often heard the argument that
it is “unfairâ€

Dear xxxx,

I continue to oppose SB09-170.

In a year when Colorado will cut college funding for legal residents
in this state, it is inappropriate to even consider tuition subsidies
for those who are in this country illegally.

I was also extremely disappointed with the bad faith shown by the
Democrats in the Appropriations Committee yesterday. Exploiting the
hardship of another Senator to pass a bad bill is doubly bad faith

See below:

Thanks for writing,
Josh

As a Coloradoan thank you to other State support.

Abel Taffe was the committe chairman. He is involved in a State Fair scandal.

Both he and Romer are crooked as a dogs hind leg. They are Teflon robots for the pro illegal movement and furthering there carrers.

Bacon an Williams are on that committe. Williams called for The govoners pannel on the killing of a toddler in her district by and illegal. Then She, Bacon and Boyd went on to defeat both state wide everify and impound on a seperate committee. More Teflon robots. I really question Bacons motives. He has a heavily illegal area and is a wind up toy for the Chamber of Commerece

the democrats are using a lot of cards here to please their friends in the Chamber of Commerce and Laraza. This is leaking to the street and people are upset.

Thanks for your efforts