President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 24, 2009 08:10 PM UTC
60 Comments
But I think it is a steep uphill climb here.
These are children who have grown up in our state – how anyone can oppose this is beyond me.
keep that in mind while reading my question 🙂
Nancy Spence had a good point (she was on something last weekend) that if you aren’t a citizen, you can’t work here. Making education for enriching our workforce impossible.
Obviously the working thing is legitimate, so why not handle the citizenship part first, before investing in the education?
(If your response has to do with everyone getting an education, don’t bother. I already think that, but, as a nation, part of why we invest in ed. is because of the return. Here’s hoping my intent is clear.)
Anyone who is qualified for this can apply for citizenship and will have it granted upon graduation.
As I’ve posted previously, to deny public education to those who have proven themselves as achievers is to cut our noses to spite our faces.
I’m very much against illegal immigration and I want to see a decrease in legal immigration. But to see a kid dragged north by their parents long ago to not get an education that will ultimately benefit us is flat out stupid.
Say, what is “resident” anyway? Maybe like living in CO for the last ten years? Yeah, good enough for me.
And- here’s the DREAM Act –
http://dreamact.info/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D…
How is “educating our residents is always beneficial to our society, regardless of employment status”? That just makes no sense. If we educate them and then ship them out of the country, just seems like we are benefiting the society where they were born.
I’m not really against this, as long as they still have to pay tuition – even at the lowered in-state rate. I’m curious though, how widespread is this problem? How many illegal immigrants do we have that are prepared and wanting to go to college, but just can’t do it because of the difference in the tuition rates?
is clear to me and I share your concerns.
Frankly, I’m torn on this issue. I would be more comfortable if the child/student were a citizen (born in the state as opposed to transported here after birth).
Passing in-state tuition represents Colorado preparing our residents for the DREAM Act or comprehensive immigration reform. By passing tuition equity we will benefit even more from the federal government’s actions on immigration reform.
Just last week, President Obama restated his support for immigration reform:
http://www.google.com/hostedne…
Even President Bush supported immigration reform. It is not a question of if, it is just a question of when these kids become Americans. I hope it’s sooner rather than later because the energy, creativity, ambition, and patriotism they bring to our country are of great benefit to all their fellow Americans. And all the better if they have college degrees!
Congressman Jared Polis
Some of these kids don’t even realize they aren’t citizens until they have to do their paperwork for college.
It may be a tough fight to get this bill passed, but I think it will show who the leaders are in the legislature (and Governor’s mansion).
…kids from Nebraska in-State tuition (presumably because they don’t pay State Income Tax here in Colorado) and it’s not viewed as inequitable, why are the children of illegal immigrants classified as victims and the kids from NE are not?
Families from Nebraska living here for 3 years would be classified as in-state residents.
Being classified as residing here includes paying State Income Tax, does it not?
I’d be surprised if illegal immigrants payed State tax, which is where the money is derived from.
Also, it’s rewarding bad behavior. Make the feds pull their heads out of their asses and fix this, but until then, I’d say no.
Well if it is simply a tax issue for you, then let’s look at what taxes are paid…
Sales tax… The last time I went to the store, it was automatically collected. I wasn’t asked if I were a legal resident, they just charged them to my bill.
Property tax… I own my house, but I bet most of these families rent. I am sure the landlord uses that rent money to pay for the property tax. If he/she doesn’t, then they are crazy.
Income tax… OK, I’m sure that a few families get paid under the table. However, according to the Social Security Administration, about 75% are paying income tax and Social Security.
…funds State higher education?
Look, I work with Mexican nationals and their children. No Xenophobia here, just want to fix the problem the right way.
This is not the right way. It’s a principle.
If 75% are having payroll deductions but not filing, whose social security numbers are they using? DO you want to continue to let that be such a mess?
That is why I ALSO support Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
btw… Have you seen the fiscal note on this bill? It is a net positive for the state.
But it sends the wrong message. Breaking the law shouldn’t be rewarded. Even if it’s a stupidly enforced law.
Jared works for us in the only place where these laws can actually be fixed, if they’d just take some time away from kissing the unions’ feet, trying to figure out a way to unionize 20 million illegals and get pragmatic about it, then we’d have a solution by fall semester.
I won’t hold my breath.
The law was broken by parents, the kids are innocent bystanders.
Let them be PhD’s and help our nation!
In order to get the in-state tuition rate, my girlfriend filled out the “minor claiming emancipation” portion of the in-state residency petition. She also didn’t have a job…thus, payed no state income tax obviously. She got the in-state rate after her freshman year…
Basically, if you live in the state for a year and are over 22 (or claim you’re emancipated) you can get in-state tuition.
what, with all of your income and all. All of the college students with whom I hung out had virtually no income, or not enough to have to pay much income tax. In fact, we all filed our 1040EZ to get a refund. Paying income tax has zero to do with establishing residency.
Families of illegals here pay sales tax, they also likely pay income tax (they may not file, but the deductions are coming out of their checks anyway…and if they are being paid under the table, then we have an issue with the employers) and the kids are residents of Colorado as opposed to the Nebraska residents who have no ties to Colorado at all.
I’m not sure I support granting the children of undocumented residents in-state tuition, but I don’t care for your argument against it.
…then they are most likely engaged in identity fraud.
No. THis is the wrong way to fix this.
Jared – get busy. 🙂
How about a Mexican migrant worker ID card to cross the border. It guarantees minimum wage for work, and takes out the appropriate taxes for public services. Different than citizenship.
THen maybe we can get both the Hilda Solis and Tom Tancredos of the world to STFU.
Oh, yeah. No union membership for Mexican citizenship. Very important.
I disagree with you on the union membership issue. If a Mexican Citizen is working here legally, why should they not be allowed to join a union?
Further, are you singling out Mexican Citizens or would your rule apply to all Non-American Citizens?
I have problems with foreign citizens’ money going to fund candidates. So if they were able to utilize union contracts without the political contributions piece of pie being taken out, then I’d be ok with it.
But then, the union would have no use for them and would start whining about them ‘taking American jobs’.
that corporations who do business in foreign countries (ie. earn foreign money) should be prohibited from funnelling money to candidates via their PACs?
Or is your problem only with Union money?
foreign members of unions are paying dues for services provided. The union gives money to Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)to fight for EFCA.
Foreign citizens buying a Ford in France are paying for a product and the cash is shipped back to the US. Ford gives cash to Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) to fight against increased CAFE standards via their PAC.
In both cases Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) has received campaign cash indirectly from foreign citizens.
Since these are students we are talking about, the students aren’t using the fake IDs. Why punish them for what their parents are doing.
As for barring immigrant workers from joining unions, that is just a blatant union busting technique.
are going to need ID’s to get into school too. It is very likely they are going to end up using false identification as well(unless they were born here, in which case they are legal citizens and it shouldn’t be an issue).
They would need an ID, but if SB170 passes, they could use whatever ID they had. The record of their immigration status would be part of the education records and protected as such.
After we correctly interpret the 14th Amendment.
The problem is not the identity fraud. It’s the system that creates a need for it.
This is a great demonstration of why the free market is so much better than government.
If there are 20 million foreigners that would love to pay whatever taxes we’d like them to in order to work here, and probably don’t really want to become citizens, and they’re vital to our economy….
…only the federal government could find a way to fuck that up so badly that there’s no possible solution on the horizon.
There’s a need for the labor. There’s a need for the employment. There’s a willingness to pay for the collateral costs associated with residency while performing that employment.
And yet we have people starving in the desert and hiding for years to avoid a law that won’t be enforced.
This is an Ass/Head/Removal moment.
Seems like you are sorta supporting the idea of the free movement of labor.
However… Do you support the right of labor to organize?
And what about taxation without representation? Should someone be subject to the same tax as me but have no representation?
Define your version of “Free movement of labor” for me.
Of course labor can organize. They have the right to bankrupt any industry that they can trick into representing the workforce.
Yes. Foreigners earning wages in the US should be taxed for the public services they use.
The Constitution is for US Citizens.
When labor can move… freely…
Globalization?
What do you mean? Migrant labor?
Make your point and then maybe I’ll understand what you’re asking me.
that are receiving TAPR money were unionized?
Banking came down because of the government forcing the industry to make loans to people that couldn’t or wouldn’t pay them back.
If government stays out of the picture, the weak fail, and the strong and competent survive (and profit).
LB, you’re not so good when you oversimplify complicated issues by blaming the one participant or factor that you don’t like.
Please google-search the NYT website for their very good article about the collapse of Washington Mutual (aka WaMu). It was published just before the new year.
Were created by government meddling in bank loans.
It goes back almost thirty years and if not the main cause, was the linchpin that brought down the industry.
..but it wasn’t created by gov’t meddling in bank loans.
It started when the Feds started mandating banks start loaning more aggressively in markets they had previously ignored.
When that worked, some fool with a bad math formula figured that everyone was a great candidate for a subprime loan, somehow figured that they would never stop paying on it even when the rigged mortgage rate exploded.
I would throw in a discussion about credit default swaps, but I’m still recovering from yesterday’s debate.
So, do me a favor, and read this:http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all
They can be the recipients of the union’s negotiating, but no dues that go to political campaigns or PAC’s.
do you think that “American” companies (begs the question if there is any such thing as an “American” company these days, but that is another discussion for another time) that earn money in foreign markets should forbidden from using any money earned in those foreign markets to donate to political campaigns or fund their PAC activities?
Are you consistent in your application of rules to unions and corporations?
we will take your silence on the question as your answer:
“I have no problem with corporate fat cats using money obtained from foreigners to give money to conservative causes but I have a real problem with liberal unions using money obtained by selling their services to foreigners to donate to liberal causes because I am a conservative and we are consistent only in our inconsistencies.”
Just checking in since yesterday.
I think the money from corporations that have entities is a much more complicated situation than foreign citizens working in the US having money come out of their paychecks directly into Dem political coffers.
Do you have an example? Maybe I could answer more completely.
Person in France buys a Ford car. Ford shifts a portion of the profit to their PAC who in turn makes a contribution to Sen. Debbie Stabinow (D-MI) to reward her for helping to block stricter CAFE standards.
Not sure how a corportation situation is more complicated than a union, which is really nothing more than another business….a union member pays a union for a service while the French person I describe above pays Ford for a product….I suppose to make the comparision more in line we could use a Swedish person going on a cruise on Royal Caribbean Cruise line who then takes some of their profit shifts it to their PAC who then makes a political contribution to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) for her help in revising the Passenger Vessel Services Act.
That doesn’t bother me as much. Ford (US Corporation) earned the money and is choosing where to spend it. There is no foreign concern trying to influence US politics.
In the case of unions and foreign nationals, that’s exactly what’s happening, or even worse, the nationals don’t understand where their money is going.
Is Royal Caribbean a US company? If so, as long as they’re within the law they can take the money which they earned and put it into any PAC they’d like.
you are wrong.
Unions are nothing more than a business. The members are paying dues for services received (they advocate on the employees’ behalf—sort of like having an attorney on retainer). The union should have every right that any other business has to set up PACs and fund candidates that are sympathetic to their cause…just like Ford and Royal Caribbean (and yes, it is a US company based in Miami).
The fact that some members of the union may not know who the union is funding is no defense either. Remember the old phrase, “Let the buyer beware”. It applies here. Do you know how your money is spent when you buy a service from a retailer? Is it the proper role of government to regulate how that money is spent to “protect” you, the consumer from inadvertantly supporting a cause you may not approve of…or is it your role as the consumer to educate yourself on such matters?
Ironically, you’ve almost stepped into a position of advocating for what I would term a “Nanny State” solution to what you perceive as a problem.
A “Nanny State” supporting conservative….now that is something I never thought I’d see!
As long as the union members from whom the dues are taken are US citizens.
you are setting up an unfair double standard for one type of business verses another…ie. union vs. all other private industries. Were you willing to restrict all US based businesses from directing any of their profits earned from foreign nationals into the electoral process, then I might agree to restrict unions from using similarly earned monies.
The thing is to get foreign intent of any type out of the money part of our elections (whores that our politicians are).
totally opposed either. I just want consistency in applications of the rules between business and labor (which is also why I oppose both EFCA and card check decertification of a union).
I believe that if you live here and meet the residency requirements, you should qualify for in-state tuition.
Why would we want to give in-state tuition to people from other states? Their out of state tuition helps support our public university system.
I don’t think anyone is being classified as a “victim” here, it just seems like a no-brainer that kids who grow up here in Colorado and go through our schools should qualify for in-state tuition, regardless of the federal government’s inability thus far to get its act together regarding formally making them Americans. The federal government will get it right, and with the help of tuition equity in Colorado our newest Americans will be educated and ready to work.
Congressman Jared Polis
At The Bell Policy Center, we thoroughly endorse Senator Romer’s legislation.
We believe SB 170 will have a very positive impact on Colorado. After all, the bill is really about education, not immigration. Expanding access to higher education generates a whole range of benefits for our state.
By allowing Colorado’s qualified undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates, we can make college more affordable for them. More of these students would attend college, and that will strengthen our economy, improve health and nutrition, lower dropout rates in our primary and secondary schools, decrease crime and help build stronger, more civically engaged communities.
Senate Bill 170 will immediately help Colorado compete with the 10 other states – including five states that border Colorado – that have already passed similar legislation. As an added bonus, the legislation does not cost Colorado taxpayers a single dollar and will provide new revenue for our public colleges and universities – as much as $2.3 million a year, according to the fiscal note drafted by the Colorado’s nonpartisan Legislative Council.
If it’s a question of fairness, Colorado’s undocumented community contributes $150 million to $200 million in taxes to the state coffers each year. All of the students that would benefit from this bill were brought to our state by another person, and many have lived nearly their entire lives here.
If it’s a question of law, SB 170 fully complies with federal provisions. Federal law does not prohibit states from passing in-state classification laws for undocumented immigrants and in fact affirmatively gives states the authority to do so. No court has overturned any of the laws in the 10 other tuition-equity states. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals here in Denver tossed a challenge to the law passed in Kansas.
I want my legislators to support this bill.
When did two wrongs make something right. Or should I say correct. People came here illegally with children and these children are illegal. They need to go back to their home countries and let them get their education there. I bet these kids speak Spanish as well as they speak English.
I am sorry I want my American born child to be admitted to our Colorado colleges without having to compete with illegals at the same tuition no less. Colorado colleges are full already, let them go back to Mexico, or whatever country they are from and go to College there.
your children will lose out to the children of illegal immigrants? Do your children know you have so little faith in their academic abilities?
And I don’t always agree with him or appreciate his tactics.
But he’s right on this one.
If these kids – bright kids, by the way – go to college, we’re all better off.
Your American child will be allowed to go to college. That’s not the point. If she’s smart, has good grades, and the drive to succeed then there’s no problem, right? I mean, you’re not threatened by some kid who comes from abject poverty, had to overcome a language barrier, grow up on the margins of society, raised on substandard wages by parents who struggle in poor working conditions, and who even then manages to get good grades and graduate, are you? I mean, someone would have to be seriously smart and determined to overcome all those obstacles. Surely, my own child isn’t going to have her spot in the class of 2014 stolen by some kid who had to go through all that?
I want the best and the brightest in the work force. If a kid can overcome and even thrive with all those obstacles against him, damnit, I want that kid out there trying to cure cancer, fight global warming or inventing something. And I want him putting his talents to work for this country. And I want him to love this country and be grateful everyday to be an American and pay taxes.
The problem with the xenophobic arguments against this idea is the fact that we’re talking about a small group of talented kids who have talent, drive and determination. I’m in agreement with the idea that some people are a drain on society and we need to punish those who milk the system and give nothing back. I’m the first in line to say adios. But the smart ones? I want to put them to work. And instead of importing people from India or China or wherever else, I want to look closer to home and if that’s off of Federal Blvd, hallelujah! Put ’em to work. Make them sign up for citizenship and pay taxes out the nose like everybody else. And make damn sure they never forget the gift that this country is giving them.
And the Hispanic community isn’t off the hook in this deal. If they’re going to be a growing part and percentage of the population, they have to carry their weight. That means driving home the message that education is the only way to get ahead in this country, discouraging gang activity, having the talk about the birds and the bees and cutting down the teen pregnancy rate, and loving this country before just as much if not more than the place you came here from. I’ve seen these traits in so many Latinos that I have met but they all need to get the memo.
And let’s face it. The problem with people like Schutheis, Tancredo, etc. is that they have their head buried in the sand.
Even if we sealed the border tomorrow, the number of Hispanics in the US today isn’t going to drop. Truth is, the Anglo fertility rate is dropping while theirs isn’t. So we have two choices, either pretend we’re going to deport each and every single immigrant we see and let that take care of it or we can face the facts and say let’s get them educated, work with them to make them productive members of our community and welcome them to that most sacred of American institutions, the tax system. You want to be a citizen? OK, pay some serious fines, get in line and prove to me how much you want to be here.
I choose the second option. And while we’re at it, we need to find a tough but fair immigration policy that addresses the US need for cheap labor. If they had a way to come here, work and then go back home with their money, they’d jump at it, I’m sure. How else do you explain the fact that so many immigrants send so much money back home? They miss it and never forget their home country. So, let ’em come over here for work, go home to visit the familia and then come back to work some more. Give ’em a traceable ID system that weeds out the bad guys from the workers. And, once again, tax the hell out of ’em.
They speak Spanish as well as English! Well, that’s certainly a criteria to discriminate! Probably members of Al Queda!
How many of these Colorado residents do you think will bump your kids? I’m guessing like, zero. Or two.
Keep up the good work!