Posted on 06/22/2006 2:19:34 PM PDT by calcowgirl
My Note: The following was posted on the Tom McClintock's website on June 19, 2006.
SB 349 was blocked by Democrats the same day as the quoted speech (April 2005), never making it out of the Senate Education Committee
(there were only 3 Republicans on the Committee, out of 12).
Senator McClintock authored SB 349, which would rescind the in-state tuition subsidy for illegal immigrants attending state universities and community colleges that was granted by AB 540 in 2001. However, a bill by Senator Gil Cedillo, SB 160, would allow illegal immigrant students to receive state sponsored financial aid in addition to the in-state tuition.
This speech was given to the Senate Education committee on April 6, 2005.
This measure rescinds the in-state tuition subsidy for illegal immigrants attending state universities and community colleges that was granted by AB 540 in 2001.Under current law, California taxpayers provide non-residents of the state of California – including foreign nationals illegally in the United States – the same in-state tuition subsidy as legal California residents – as long as they have spent three years in and graduated from a California high school.
On January 18th of this year, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated the total cost of the AB 540 waivers at the UC, CSU and Community College system at $120 million annually. According to the L.A.O., the University of California estimates that up to 13 percent of their waivers are for foreign nationals illegally in the United States and the Community Colleges estimate that up to 90 percent of their waivers are affected. Assuming a 13 percent rate at CSU as well, that brings the total cost to California taxpayers of providing the in-state tuition subsidies to foreign nationals illegally in the to as much as $75 million per year.
There are essentially three arguments made in favor of granting the in-state tuition subsidy to foreign nationals illegally in this country.
The first argument is that these students were innocent children when their parents illegally brought them to this country and had no choice in the matter. This may be true. But they are no longer children. They are of legal age. And as responsible adults, they have an obligation to obey the laws of this nation and that begins by establishing legal residency – as millions of legal immigrants have done.
And until they have established legal residency and agreed to abide by the laws of our nation, they have no claim on taxpayer funds.
The second argument is that these are largely disadvantaged young people who require a college education so that they can seek skilled jobs. But under federal law it is illegal to employ them in those jobs. The argument is self-defeating.
The third argument is that these are not recent arrivals to our country – many have been here for many years. That may be true. But why is it that the longer a person has broken a law the more excusable it is for them to continue to break that law?
In addition to costs of up to $75 million per year, this law creates absolutely indefensible inequities for legal immigrants to this country, and for out-of-state American citizens.
Consider two students from Mexico. One obeys every immigration law to come here legally. He files for the appropriate visas, he runs the gauntlet of the application process and he meets every requirement for legal status in the United States. The other has broken every immigration law for the last three years and is in the United States illegally.
The only difference is this: the LEGAL immigrant – who obeyed our laws -- will be charged nearly $23,000 to attend the University of California ; the ILLEGAL immigrant will pay $6,000 with California taxpayers contributing the remaining $17,000.
Or consider an American citizen who just moved here LEGALLY from Arizona . She will also be charged the out-of state tuition. And while she is waiting tables to pay her tuition costs, her taxes will be used to subsidize the illegal immigrant.
I recently read an appeal letter from the Department of the Navy protesting the non-resident designation by the University of California of a student named Lou-Anthony Palomique Limon.
He is the son of Chief Petty Officer Anthony Limon, stationed in Sigonella, Italy. Lou-Anthony graduated as valedictorian of his class from a DOD high school in Sigonella. The only American residence he has ever had is in California . But he was turned down for resident tuition last year, while thousands of illegal aliens were granted millions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies.
I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask that grown adults who are seeking thousands of dollars of taxpayer subsidies should be first asked to comply with our nation’s laws, starting with our immigration laws. This measure does so. And as representatives of the people of California , so should you.
PING!
McClintock Ping List.
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list
ping
I dropped another $100 in his till yesterday.
Senator McClintock is obviously pandering for increased support from his conservative base. The Senator is essentially operating a self-financed campaign and would appreciate your financial support.
SB 160 was introduced by Senator Gilbert Cedillo (a Mexican anchor baby) in 2005. The bill has been bouncing around the California Senate and has recently been re-referred to the Senate Education Committee.
BTTT
Tom McClintoick has never been known to "pander". He is one of the most honest politicians California has. If you go to his website he has been writing about illegal aliens for years. He disagrees with them getting any benefits and believes that they hurt California taxpayers.
I wouldn't call that pandering.
"....until they have established legal residency and agreed to abide by the laws of our nation, they have no claim on taxpayer funds."
Works for me.
I'm in CT. My check will be on it's way tomorrow.
SB160 will be going to the Assembly Appropriations Committee soon. Do any of you know if all members of the committee will be voting on SB160 funding, or will it be determined by a subcommittee? I'd like to call any and all committee members who will be dealing with this bill.
When will these people learn?
The will of the people matters not!
A liberal judge will soon set them straight!(sarc)
That Cedillo SB160 sounds rediculous. McClintock's SB349 is the right course IMO.
Oh, yeah, well just wait until the ACLU hears about this.
California thanks you!
Ultimately, it will have to pass both houses. But phone calls never hurt.
ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:
Chu (Chair),
Runner (Vice Chair),
Bass, Berg, Calderon, De La Torre, Emmerson, Haynes, Karnette, Klehs, Leno, Nakanishi, Nation, Oropeza, Ridley-Thomas, Saldaña, Walters, and Yee.
Chief Consultant: Geoff Long.
Principal Consultants: Julie Salley-Gray, Steve Archibald, Scott Bain, Chuck Nicol, Kimberly Rodriguez, Stephen Shea.
Secretary: Laura Lynn Gondek.
Room 2114.
Phone: (916) 319-2081.
1) Being one of the most honest politicians California has is truly being damned by faint praise.
2) Pandering is a morally neutral word. It implies the means to satisfy the ambitions of others.
The article was posted on the Senator's website to elicit more financial support from the Senators' conservative base. There was nothing new or intriguing about either SB 349 or SB 160. History was simply dredged up to promote more campaign donations through a transparent reminder that the Senator will work to frustrate such practices if he is allowed to remain in government service.
Just one more reason to keep these ethnically oriented weasels out of any political office.
McClintock bump
BILL NUMBER : S.B. No. 160
AUTHOR : Cedillo
TOPIC : Student financial aid: eligibility: California
Dream Act.
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
BILL HISTORY
2006
June 5 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to committee.
Mar. 9 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to committee.
Feb. 16 To Com. on HIGHER ED.
Jan. 31 In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
Jan. 30 Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 23. Noes 13. Page 3051.) To Assembly.V Jan. 19 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 5. Page 2996.) Read second time. To third reading.
Jan. 12 Set for hearing January 19.
Jan. 10 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to committee.
2005
May 26 Set, first hearing. Held in committee and under submission.
May 17 Set for hearing May 26.
May 16 Placed on APPR. suspense file.
May 9 Set for hearing May 16.
May 4 Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
May 3 From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 4. Page 839.)
Apr. 27 Placed on ED. suspense file. Set for hearing April 28.
Apr. 14 Set for hearing April 27.
Apr. 14 Re-referred to Com. on ED.
Apr. 13 Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
Apr. 4 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to committee.
Mar. 8 Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Mar. 1 Set for hearing March 15.
Feb. 24 To Com. on T. & H.
Feb. 9 From print. May be acted upon on or after March 11.
Feb. 8 Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Presently the bill is in the Assembly Committee on Higher Education which is the primary authority for this type of legislation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.