Thread: Dirty Tricks: All ALIPACers to Colorado asap!

Originally Posted by Kiara

Just recieved this from Keith King: I did not support the bill in the appropriations committee today and will continue to fight the bill. Keith.

"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."

I got this email as well.

ANOTHER DAY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, PLEASE CALL AND EMAIL IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY!!! STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING IN YOUR STATE!!!!
THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEDICATION PATRIOTS!!!

I made calls to all Senators' offices last evening and this morning. I had hoped to work on this yesterday afternoon but wasn't able to get off work as early as I thought I would. I left messages on all voice mails with the exception of Senators Bacon and Carroll. Their voice mails are full.

I will try them later today.

from my email

---

Dear (REMOVED BY MOD),

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.

Sincerely, Senator Paula E. Sandoval

This morning I recieved the following from Jennifer Veiga: 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.

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€

This one is from Mark Scheffel: Dear Mrs.______



Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I sympathize with your views, and understand your frustration. I would like you to know that I have voted against Senate Bill 170 in committee, and will do so again on the Senate floor. I encourage you to contact Senator Romer, the sponsor of the bill, to express your views.

Senator Romer can be reached at: (303) 866 4852 and (303) 780 9445.



Sincerely,



Mark Scheffel

State Senator

[quote="Kiara"]This morning I recieved the following from Jennifer Veiga: 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.

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€

Paula Sandoval

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.

Students under this bill will also be paying full price and beyond the full price as they will not receive any state subsidy as all other in-state students receive today.

Sincerely, Senator Paula E. Sandoval

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark Scheffel
Dear

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I sympathize with your views, and understand your frustration. I would like you to know that I have voted against Senate Bill 170 in committee, and will do so again on the Senate floor. I encourage you to contact Senator Romer, the sponsor of the bill, to express your views.

Senator Romer can be reached at: (303) 866 4852 and (303) 780 9445

Sincerely,

Mark Scheffel
State Senator

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shawn Mitchell
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Josh Perry

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

From: "mark scheffel" <mark@markscheffel.us
XXXXXXXXXX
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:02:29 -0600

Dear XXXXXX,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I sympathize with your views, and understand your frustration. I would like you to know that I have voted against Senate Bill 170 in committee, and will do so again on the Senate floor. I encourage you to contact Senator Romer, the sponsor of the bill, to express your views.

Senator Romer can be reached at: (303) 866 4852 and (303) 780 9445.



Sincerely,



Mark Scheffel

State Senator

This one from Josh penry:

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


Illegal Immigrant Education Bill Moves Past Hurdle
By Colleen Slevin, AP Writer
DENVER (AP) --
A bill allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition
survived a narrow committee vote in the Colorado Senate on Wednesday,
with Republicans accusing majority Democrats of using bare-knuckle
"Tom DeLay tactics" to keep the measure alive.

Democrats scheduled the vote during the absence of a Republican
senator whose vote likely would have stalled the bill.

That prompted Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry of Grand Junction to
compare the Democrats to DeLay, the Texas Republican whose strong-arm
tactics as speaker of the U.S. House earned him the nickname "The
Hammer."

Democrats denied manipulating the schedule.

The Senate Appropriations Committee endorsed the bill on a 5-4 vote
and sent it to the full Senate for debate.

Committee member Sen. Ted Harvey, a Highlands Ranch Republican who
opposes the bill, was absent. He told The Denver Post he went to
Florida to help his father-in-law, who has Alzheimer's disease, move
to Colorado.

Had he been present, the vote would have been 5-5 and the bill
wouldn't have made it out of committee.

The bill had originally been scheduled for a vote Friday, when Harvey
is due to return, but it was rescheduled for Wednesday.

Penry said Democrats didn't give Republicans enough time to ask for
another Republican to temporarily take Harvey's place on the
committee. He accused Democrats of moving up the vote to take
advantage of Harvey's absence.

"It's either that or an amazing coincidence. It's reminiscent of what
the Republicans did in Washington. These are Tom DeLay tactics," Penry
said.

Committee chairman Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, said the tuition bill
was moved up to help clear out a backlog caused by delays in balancing
the state budget.

Tapia said the tuition bill, which has been awaiting a vote for nearly
three weeks, and others were moved up because their fiscal analyses
were complete. He said that clears the way for the committee to vote
on more than a dozen other bills Friday.

Bill sponsor Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, accused Republicans of using
"gimmicks" of their own.

The Appropriations Committee is technically supposed to consider only
the financial implications of bills, and since fiscal analysts have
said the tuition measure won't cost the state money, there was no
reason to wait for a vote, Romer said.
((c) 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)