Greg Brophy position on in-state tuition for illegal aliens
I was at the Tanner today, and saw that the Tancredo and Brophy campaigns both had tables. In fact Greg Brophy himself was present, but was occupied speaking with others and I didn't have time to wait. I asked the volunteer at Brophy's table about the Tancredo campaign's allegation that Brophy supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. The Volunteer gave me a copy of a recent email from his campaign to others. Rather than risking improper paraphrasing or leaving content and context out, here is the entire text of the Brophy campaign's response (it appears to be Mr Brophy himself since it says "Greg B" at the end):
******************************************
I'll paste below what I wrote about why I voted for in-state tuition (ASSET). Note that we do give in-state tuition to military and to executives who have been recruited to work here (or their kids as it were). Also, to the people who say why can't a Kansan get in-state tuition here? It's because they get in-state tuition in Kansas, the state in which they live.
ASSET
Two things have happened to make me re-examine my long held position against in-state tuition for illegal alien children.
One is a gradual change, over the past ten years representing Eastern Colorado, I've had the opportunity to meet a lot of great kids, some of whom would benefit from the passage of this bill. I don't ask them, but occasionally their teachers tell me. Combined with the experience of living in the best town on the Plains, it's hard to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room. There are lots of young 'people who were born in another country sitting beside kids who were born in Eastern Colorado.
The other was more sudden. A quick dawning of a realization forced by statements made during the GOP Presidential Primary about illegal aliens just going home or self deporting. I have fallen for that siren song before, but knowing the kids that live in my area, I was struck: this is their home. They cant go home. They are home; looking at the kids in any classroom in Eastern Colorado, you can't tell who is an American and who isan illegal alien. They all look the same; they are the same. They are Kit carson Wildcats, Burlington Cougars, Holyoke Dragons, Wray Eagles or Yuma Indians (the Indians aren't much good at football, but Yuma Indians they are, 43-0)
They'd be as much at home in Chihuahua as my kids would.
These kids are fully assimilated into our culture. They play Wii and Xbox. They play football, basketball, baseball and they participate in the sport of the Gods, wrestling. Unfortunately they still play the sport of European socialists too, but no one is perfect.
These are emotionally based reasons for re-examining a position I have held for a decade. If I voted solely based on emotion, I could easily swap my position, basically, act like a Democrat.
But I need more than mere emotion to drive a vote, after all, there are moral and principled arguments against granting this benefit to kids who came here illegally. I'll let others make that case.
Are there moral and principled arguments for the proposal?
If you accept the notion that they are not leaving, then the answer is yes, definitely. If you still hold tightly to the idea of self deportation, well, maybe then too.
Families with modest incomes that have been here for years, whether they have come from Michigan or Mexico, are effectively net tax recipients. A family of four or five making median household income on the Plains pays no income tax. Period. It doesn't matter if they are here legally or not. They all pay sales taxes, property taxes etc., though. They are all paying into the system and that is all that is required, that and liVing here for at least a year to get in-state tuition for college.
If one cares to break out of the earning group that doesn't pay taxes and become a net tax payer, one who pays more in taxes than receives in benefits. The best way is through education. Go to college. Maximize that human-capital; pursue happiness.
I believe that's the stage two thinking principle that matters. Our Founders wrote that we have certain inalienable rights, one of those is the pursuit of happiness. The ability to own the fruits of your labor; in most cases, those fruits are greater if you are college educated. State policy currently denies some kids who have lived here for years access to higher education at the same rates as the rest of their classmates. We can change that. If you accept the reality, they are not going to self deport, you ought
to remove a barrier to their natural right to pursue happiness.
In the state legislature, we can't solve a broken immigration system that denies people the opportunity to pursue the American dream, but we can defy those federal authorities when their policies are contrary to the foundational tenants of our Republic. I'm willing to do that on Second Amendment grounds, why not be willing to do in on pursuit of happiness grounds too?
We give in-state tuition to kids of executives recruited to work in Colorado. We give in-zest ate tuition to military families that have just come to Colorado. ASSET gives in-state tuition to kids who have lived here at least three years, and in most cases nearly their entire lives.
Greg B.
