In-State Tuition for Illegals Bill In Oregon

email sent to me today and I URGE all of you to call to deny American tax dollars going to ILLEGAL aliens!!!! Its the biggest no brainer in the history of earth! Im all for sending help and aid to Mexico for their poverty stricken famlies. But this is simply stealing money from tax payers!!!


Another in-state tuition for illegal aliens bill is approaching a vote! The illegal alien supporters hope to pass this unpopular legislation in Maryland, Connecticut, and Oregon this year!

We must stop their bills as we have in over 20 states! We are very close to getting in-state tuition for illegals stopped in Wisconsin and Kansas!

Below is an email from a great group called OFIR, Oregonians for Immigration Reform, PO Box 1438, McMinnville OR 97128
Website: http://www.oregonir.org Email: ofir@oregonir.org

Please use ALIPAC's strategic message when you respond to their call for aid below. We need ALIPAC supporters from all states converging efforts on Oregon today!

ALIPAC Message
"Please oppose in-state tuition (SB 742) for illegal aliens as such bills are opposed by 80% of Americans because they would replace innocent American students in the limited seats in our colleges with illegal aliens at taxpayer expense!"

OFIR Alert
----
SENATE TO VOTE ON SB 742 INSTATE TUITION FOR ILLEGALS

March 27, 2011
OFIR members and supporters:

As of Friday, the Oregon Senate was set to vote on Senate Bill 742 next Tuesday, March 29. It is possible the vote could be delayed. If that happens, OFIR will notify members as soon as possible. Meanwhile, please continue to contact senators listed below and urge them to oppose SB 742.

SB 742 would give illegal aliens in Oregon in-state tuition, a $17,600 per year benefit. A $17,600 benefit that would be denied to an American citizens who went to high school in Idaho, Washington, California or any other state.

At a time when average Oregonians are forced to cut back, public schools are reducing staff and care for our disabled citizens, why is the Oregon Senate voting on a bill that would drive us further in debt?

Please consider calling members of the Oregon Senate and politely asking them to vote NO on SB 742.

E-mail addresses and phone numbers of Oregon State Senators, 2011

Senator Jason Atkinson (503) 986-1702 sen.jasonatkinson@state.or.us;
Sen. Alan Bates (503) 986-1703 sen.alanbates@state.or.us;
Sen. Lee Beyer (503) 986-1706 sen.leebeyer@state.or.us;
Sen. Suzanne Bonamici (503) 986-1717 sen.suzannebonamici@state.or.us;

Sen. Brian Boquist (503) 986-1712 sen.brianboquist@state.or.us;
Sen. Ginny Burdick (503) 986-1718 sen.ginnyburdick@state.or.us;
Sen. Peter Courtney (503) 986-1600 sen.petercourtney@state.or.us;
Sen. Richard Devlin (503) 986-1719 sen.richarddevlin@state.or.us;
Sen. Jackie Dingfelder (503) 986-1723 sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us;

Sen. Chris Edwards (503) 986-1707 sen.chrisedwards@state.or.us

Sen. Ted Ferrioli (503) 986-1950 sen.tedferrioli@state.or.us;
Sen. Larry George (503) 986-1713 sen.larrygeorge@state.or.us;
Sen. Fred Girod (503) 986-1709 sen.fredgirod@state.or.us;
Sen. Mark Hass (503) 986- 1714 sen.markhass@state.or.us;
Sen. Betsy Johnson (503) 986-1716 sen.betsyjohnson@state.or.us;

Sen. Jeff Kruse (503) 986-1701 sen.jeffkruse@state.or.us;
Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson (503) 986-1725 sen.lauriemonnesanderson@state.or.us;

Sen. Rod Monroe (503) 986-1724 sen.rodmonroe@state.or.us;
Sen. Frank Morse (503) 986-1708 sen.frankmorse@state.or.us;
Sen. David Nelson (503) 986- 1729 sen.davidnelson@state.or.us;
Sen. Alan Olsen (503) 986-1720 sen.alanolsen@state.or.us
Sen. Floud Prozanski (503) 986-1704 sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us;

Sen. Diane Rosenbaum (503) 986-1700 sen.dianerosenbaum@state.or.us;

Sen. Chip Shields (503) 986-1722 sen.chipshields@state.or.us;
Sen. Bruce Starr (503) 986-1715 sen.brucestarr@state.or.us;
Sen. Chris Telfer (503) 986- 1727 sen.christelfer@state.or.us;
Sen. Chuck Thomsen (503) 986-1726 sen.chuckthomsen@state.or.us;
Sen. Joanne Verger (503) 986-1705 sen.joanneverger@state.or.us;
Sen. Doug Whitsett (503) 986-1728 sen.dougwhitsett@state.or.us;
Sen. Jackie Winters (503) 986-1710 sen.jackiewinters@state.or.us

----


The ALIPAC Team
AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION PAC
www.alipac.us

Its unbelievable that politicians would even consider this with the state our country is in financially and the amount of americans out of work.

I don't see a problem with that, I would support it.

March said:

I don't see a problem with that, I would support it.

Click to expand...

Anyone here surprised by this statement?

I don't see anything wrong with giving in-state tuition to people who live in the state. What's wrong with that?

March said:

I don't see anything wrong with giving in-state tuition to people who live in the state. What's wrong with that?

Click to expand...

As is common for the pro-illegal side you totally ignore the "illegal" aspect. Again..anyone surprised?

Change the law and make them legal. Problem solved.

March said:

Change the law and make them legal. Problem solved.

Click to expand...

Just make them legal? Thats it? That's your solution? Never mind all the various issues that would make such a move stupid? Amnesty was already done and tried. All that did was encourage even more illegal immigrants came to the US. The US does not have an unlimited supply of resources.

Yes that is the best solution to this "problem." Why would that be stupid? Elaborate.

I believe immigration is a good thing, it's healthy for our economy, and should be encouraged.

March said:

Yes that is the best solution to this "problem." Why would that be stupid? Elaborate.

Click to expand...

For one and an abvious one, we don't have unlimited resources. We have very limited resources that can only supply X amount of people. Second opening our borders allows the rest of the worlds scum (by scum I am refering to criminals) to enter willy nilly with nothing to check them. Third with no border enforcement you would allow possibility of terrorists to enter our country with dirty bombs. Fourth even if you just advocate keeping the borders as they currently are but allow amnesty you do nothing to solve the problem of more illegals coming to the US like this latest batch. We've already tried amnesty during the Regan administration. Back then it was only a couple million, which is far easier to assimulate than the current 12-20 million.

March said:

I believe immigration is a good thing, it's healthy for our economy, and should be encouraged.

Click to expand...

Regulated legal immigration IS healthy for our economy. Indeed the majority of Americans according to poll results have no problem with legal immigration and agree that it is good for our economy. But on the same token the majority also realize that illegal immigration is bad for our economy and are against illegal immigration. Lets give a mundane example of what I, and many others are saying....

Mr. Smith runs a cookie store. One of his major promotion deals is giving away one free cookie with every purchase on Fridays.(one cookie normally costs $1...just a number off the top of my head..nothing more) At first everything is going dandy. Buisness is good and rising. People love the promotional deal. Until one day a person comes in and buys one of those 10 cent pieces of candy that always seems to be by various cash registors. He gets his free cookie. The customer realizes "hey! This is a great deal!". An hour later he comes back with a friend and they each buy those 10 cent candies....each getting a free cookie. As the day continues this happens 3 more times...each time each person brings a friend of thier own. Next Friday comes along and the same thing happens all over again...only with even MORE people this time. Pretty soon it gets to the point where if Mr. Smith doesn't enforce some sort of rule or take the promotion away completely then all of this is going to start costing him money. If it went on long enough unchecked he could even lose his buisness. All because of a promotion that had no rules to follow other than to just buy something.

Going by your logic of changing the rules to allow easier access to citizenship (from what i've been able to tell you wouldn't even mind throwing the border wide open) then Mr. Smith would have either left the promotion in place or just gave them away with no requirements to anyone that showed up or even just extending the promotion to every day of the week. All of which would have put him out of buisness either together or just one of em.

See in the begining the promotion brought in customers (immigrants) a plenty. Those customers were earning that buisness money. And then came the ones (illegals) that took advantage of a loophole in the system (open borders). Those that took advantage of the loophole made the whole situation worse for everyone...even if all Mr. Smith did was add a rule stating that people must buy X amount of dollars worth of good to qualify for the promotion.

You'll note that in this scenario no one intentionally did anything against the rules. It was just an example of what it would be like to open up our borders and give citizenship to everyone. While restrained immigration is certainly good for us, unrestrained is not. And since there has to be restrained immigration for the good of the country there must in turn, indeed by its very nature, be illegal immigration. Giving those that come here illegally amnesty or services which make thier lives comfortable is exactly like just having our borders wide open and giving citizenship to everyone willy nilly.

On to the house for a vote.

Senate Bill 742
Relating to exemption from nonresident status for higher education.
Provides that certain students are entitled to exemption from nonresident tuition and fees at state institutions of higher education.

Measure activity
* Feb 17, 2011: Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.
* Feb 22, 2011: Referred to Education and Workforce Development.
* Mar 3, 2011: Public Hearing held.
* Mar 17, 2011: Public Hearing and Work Session held.
* Mar 24, 2011: Recommendation: Do pass with amendments. (Printed A-Eng.)
* Mar 28, 2011: Second reading.
* Mar 29, 2011: Made a Special Order of Business by voice vote.
* Mar 29, 2011: Third reading. Carried by Morse. Passed.

Senate vote March 29, 2011
Third reading. Carried by Morse. Passed.
YES 18
Member Party City Dist.
A. Bates D Ashland 3
L. Beyer D Springfield 6
S. Bonamici D Beaverton 17
G. Burdick D Portland 18
P. Courtney D Salem 11
R. Devlin D Tualatin 19
J. Dingfelder D Portland 23
C. Edwards D Eugene 7
M. Hass D Beaverton 14
L. Monnes Anderson D Gresham 25
R. Monroe D Portland 24
F. Morse R Albany 8
D. Nelson R Pendleton 29
F. Prozanski D Eugene 4
D. Rosenbaum D Portland 21
C. Shields D Portland 22
C. Thomsen R Welches 26
J. Verger D North Bend 5
NO 11
Member Party City Dist.
J. Atkinson R Central Point 2
B. Boquist R Dallas 12
T. Ferrioli R John Day 30
L. George R Sherwood 13
F. Girod R Stayton 9
J. Kruse R Roseburg 1
A. Olsen R Canby 20
B. Starr R Hillsboro 15
C. Telfer R Bend 27
D. Whitsett R Klamath Falls 28
J. Winters R Salem 10
NOT VOTING 1
Member Party City Dist.
B. Johnson D Scappoose 16

Click to expand...

3 Republicans voted for it.

Edit: The bill has had it's 1 reading in the Oregon House, and interestingly enough the House is split evenly with 30 Dem and 30 Rep members.
Should be an interesting vote.

I am going to say the bill looks good after further review. As I see it, if the state of Oregon issues a high school diploma then that HS diplomas holder is granted the right not to pay the higher non-resident fee(for 5 years)if attending certain colleges. They must also be planning on becoming a permanent resident or citizen.

IMO if the state already issued a HS diploma then why would they discourage these people from attending college in their home state.

Page 1 of 1 SB 742 - A
FISCAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION Measure: SB 742 - A
Seventy-Sixth Oregon Legislative Assembly – 2011 Regular Session
Legislative Fiscal Office
Prepared by: John Terpening
Reviewed by: Paul Siebert, John Borden
Date: 3-22-2011
Measure Description:
Provides that certain students are entitled to exemption from nonresident tuition and fees at state institutions of higher education.
Government Unit(s) Affected:
Oregon University System (OUS), Oregon Judicial Department
Summary of Expenditure Impact: See Analysis
Local Government Mandate:
This bill does not affect local governments' service levels or shared revenues sufficient to trigger Section 15, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution.
Analysis:
The measure provides that students who are not a citizen or lawful permanent resident are entitled to an exemption from paying nonresident tuition and fees for enrollment at state institutions of higher education provided the student has met certain conditions stipulated by the measure. Among the conditions is the requirement that the student plans to become a citizen or lawful permanent resident, as determined by rule of the State Board of Higher Education. The exemptions from nonresident tuition and fees for students continue for a maximum of five years after initial enrollment. The measure allows for a direct review of challenge to law by the Oregon Supreme Court. Currently students cannot qualify for resident tuition rates if they are not a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The fiscal impact is indeterminate. The number of students that would qualify for the exemption is unknown. If students that qualify for the exemption choose to enroll at a state institution of higher education that may not have otherwise enrolled, an institution would experience an increase in tuition revenue. However, if a student that qualifies for the exemption is currently enrolled at a state institution of higher education and paying nonresident fees, the institution would experience a decrease in tuition revenue. Additionally, the exemption benefit to the student varies by institution, from no change between resident and non-resident at Eastern Oregon University to over $17,000 per year for full-time undergraduates at the University of Oregon. The Oregon University System (OUS) notes that students that qualify for the exemption may still choose not to enroll as they will not be eligible for federal or state financial aid.
The Oregon University System assumes a minimal expenditure impact as a result of this measure as few students appear to qualify and does not anticipate the need for new staff or special services.
The Legislative Fiscal Office (LFO) believes that this measure could have a fiscal impact on the Oregon Judicial Department, but that impact is considered minimal.

Click to expand...

I guess my real disappointment should be over the idea that a 17,000.00 fee is imposed on a person from out of state that attends college there.