I have not read a solid analysis why this bill was tanked by the legislature. It truly went down in flames . I assumed that it would probably be a close call, but it turned out to be a disaster.
Has the public really spoken?……or was it simply a strong lobbying effort by its opponents? Is it fiscal restraint on the part of the legislature or really a social backlash?
Please share widely!
I think the reason the bill failed (on the question of moving it to third reading for crying outloud) is that the conservative talk machine scared House members away. It proves to me that Dems have little spine even in our supposedly “liberal” (don’t get me started on that) state.
<
p>
It also didn’t help that the Speaker didn’t put any muscle behind it (see the Boston Globe article) and basically “refused to twist arms” because he did not “want to force people to vote for something that will harm them in their districts.” He came out in support of the bill, and I know talked to a lot of the kids who were affected by it, but then couldn’t show any real leadership and at least talk about the issue on the floor? C’mon. If you look at the debate transcript, you can see that they had only voted on 2 out of 11 amendments when they went on a very long recess (which means that deals are being made) and came back to vote on the whole issue. They didn’t even consider the other 9 amendments which might’ve made the issue more tenable to some people who were on the fence.
<
p>
But at the end of the day, they knew they didn’t have the two thirds to override the assured Romney veto, and in that case anyone who didn’t feel morally obligated to stick their necks out, simply didn’t.
we can’t forget the meaningless resolution that the vast majority of House members voted to send to Congress asking them to solve the problem. This provided enough cover for those House members who were wavering or on the fence to say they did something (even though it was nothing).
<
p>
This is also an issue (sort of like gay marriage) where I believe there is a silent majority. The majority of MA residents are fair-minded and don’t have a problem with in-state but will they be motivated to take action on a political level — no. They are more worried about housing, heating costs, etc…
<
p>
What it comes down to is House members did not want to face opposition candidates this next election cycle and therefore voted, not on the merit but instead on what was best for their political future.
Very good point SomeDem. Lyda Harkins and her resolution. Which sorta kinda stands with the undocumented students but then promptly passes the buck and agrees with the idea that Massachusetts would get sued if we did this (nevermind that the suit in Kansas was thrown out for lack of standing and that I have never been able to find this famed California suit the opposition keeps talking about). Very good cover for Dems who didn’t want to take a stand.
My rep, Jeff Perry led the fight against the bill.
<
p>
I think it had something to do with the word “illegal”.
<
p>
I think he realized that taking money from those of us who can barely afford to educate our own, legal, resident children, and giving it to those who are “undocumented”, (and yes, illegal), is not only unfair, but it’s a sure-fire way to find himself looking for a new job, come next November.
<
p>
The majority agreed.
I’m sorry but your facts are simply wrong. To clarify — the in-state tuition bill was not giving money away to anybody. It simply would’ve allowed kids who’d attended a Massachusetts high school at least 3 years and graduated from one to pay in-state tuition rates. The reasons they don’t fall under in-state tuition right now are varied: some are indeed undocumented, but some are in the midsts of a 3-10 year paperwork process to getting their green card and are fully legal, there are even more classifications that blur the lines.
<
p>
That being said, the bill would’ve actually been a source of revenue to the state. According to the independent Mass Tax Payers foundation. 2+ million in revenue over four years according to them.
<
p>
According to the Lt. Governor Healy the bill would’ve cost “14.4 million over four years” to the tax payer but she never explained where she got that figure. Regardles, that number is simply wrong. Want to know why? Because the only way to arrive at anything close to that number is if you assume ALL 400 kids who would’ve benefited from this legislation would be paying out-of-state tuition and receive a ‘break’ in their payments if the bill had passed. Even if this were true, it wouldn’t be a cost, it would be lost revenue. Regardless, it’s pretty unrealistic since these students cannot receive any loans or financial aid because of their non-resident status and would have to pay the full cost of college out of pocket. That is why in-state tuition is so important.
State Colleges are not self supporting.
<
p>
The “in state” rates are subsidized by the Commonwealth.
“The Commonwealth” being you and me.
<
p>
If a student is “in the legal pipeline” – that’s one thing.
If their status is “blurry”, that’s another thing altogether.
<
p>
I am a lifelong legal resident of this state.
If I submit “blurry” documents to the state for any purpose, I am levied, fined, and prosecuted.
<
p>
Further, my dependent children can be denied state scholarships and grants if I have any “unresolved obligations” to the Commonwealth.
<
p>
I don’t hold anyone to a higher standard than I, myself am held to.
<
p>
If you want the benefits of state citizenship, then attain state citizenship.