Statement on SB 170
April 06, 2009
I cannot support SB 170 in a climate where the state is cutting or eliminating over $1 billion of benefits to the people and is facing a $300 million cut to higher education, which virtually ends higher education as we know it in the State of Colorado.
The plight of children who have done nothing wrong nor know no other country as home is a real one but would not be solved by this bill because under current federal law they remain at risk for deportation and have no lawful path to employment. Federal immigration reform is desperately needed to bring a real solution to this and many other problems. The process for legal immigration in this country is broken and needs to be fixed.
SB 170 identifies a real problem but does not provide the solution. I believe the bill is currently at odds with federal law (8 USC 1623) and brings a real risk of the state being sued — and losing.
Printable Version of this Page
<< Next post ||
Previous post >>
We want to thank you for not supporting SB 170.
David & Glenna Gieck
Colorado Natives
— David & Glenna Gieck · Apr 6, 07:06 PM · #
So if the DREAM Act passes and you could see that SB 70 (or something like it) would be a fiscal + for CO would you support it then?
I don't necessarily disagree- but which part of the federal law do you see SB70 at odds with?
— Michael · Apr 6, 07:34 PM · #
As a Colorado native, community organizer, and someone who has long been an admirer of your political career, I was appalled to hear the vote this afternoon. As you pursue further political office, your vote today will follow you, as similar votes followed Joan Fitzgerald, with likely similar career results. It's a sad day in Colorado.
— Jessie Ulibarri · Apr 6, 11:17 PM · #
Thank you for representing us, your constituents! So many of us will be happy to sing your praises during the next election. The overwhelming majority of AMERICANS want the laws enforced, and are not for open borders. Thank you for taking a courageous stand. Perhaps more politicians will listen to what the people truly want, rather than the lobbyists!
— Marie · Apr 7, 01:35 AM · #
I know you are taking a lot of heat for your vote on the SB 170. I listened to Senator Baca calling you every name in the book and accusing you of not being a progressive. Having followed you tenure at the capital, I know better. Many progressives had problems with this bill and the entire concept. We have limited resources. These resources should first go to citizens, then to those who obeyed the rules.
If admission to state universities were available to all Coloradans who wanted to go at a cost which the middle and working class could afford, I would probably not have a problem with the concept if there were money in the budget. But, we don't live in this ideal world. With limited resources, choices have to be made. I know this was a difficult one, but I want you to know that I, a progressive – from the days I marched for civil rights and against the war in Viet Nam to my years as a union lawyer to my current work for the adoption of a single payer health system – support you.
— James Dodd · Apr 7, 07:56 AM · #
Thank you for not voting along party lines and putting the welfare of our state before politics with your no vote on SB170. Our state is in financial trouble and we will end up like California, if we are not careful.
— Janet · Apr 7, 08:38 AM · #
Dear Sen. Carroll,
I was very disappointed in the response to your vote by Polly Baca (I heard her on the Mario Solis-Marich show on AM760). She seems to believe that you betrayed the entire Latino community with your vote — as if there is a single and unified voice in that community. As a Latino, I do not feel betrayed by your vote.
I, personally, am actually in favor of the most radical of solutions — open borders — but I would also back that up with strict and rigorous enforcement of U.S. wage laws, benefits, etc., which would create a truly competitive environment in which Americans are not being undercut by foreign workers.
With that said, I am not, once again, disappointed by your vote. Sen. Romer, serving in a reliably liberal district, was grandstanding with this bill, but the remainder of his record certainly is less than progressive, in my opinion. I would have liked to see this bill passed, but I also understand and respect why you did not support it.
I'm just embarrassed that Polly Baca was so vitriolic as to suggest that we focus our efforts on kicking you out of office, instead of getting more progressives elected. What a shame she is so narrowminded!
— Kevin · Apr 7, 10:19 AM · #
Let's be clear, folks. This bill was a net ZERO financial commitment for the state. It would have cost the taxpayers NOTHING.
Second, Sen. Carroll's reason for not supporting the bill yesterday was that there was federal law that would override the state law. However, Jennifer Viega stated over and over that this was a false premise; that in every case except one, the federal action was overturned in court. The one that hasn't is still pending.
Sen. Carroll's reason for not supporting this, therefore, is false. She knows it. The reason she states on this page is not the reason she stated in her town hall yesterday. Which one is it, Senator?
A progressive that cannot understand basic justice and votes with xenophobic right-wingers is no progressive. If you cannot understand how this situation is just like women who cannot vote through no fault of their own, or people of color who are blocked from voting through no fault of their own, then you really are a bigot at heart.
You have a chance to make this up in your heavily Hispanic district, Senator. It will be back next year. Your ambitions for Attorney General will be fruitless if you cannot see basic justice.
— Andrea Merida · Apr 7, 10:51 AM · #
Morgan:
Congratulations on voting your conscience on SB170. Your rationale made perfect sense. Of course you know I would oppose it for many different reasons, but I commend your courage as I am sure you are taking heat. I had a heck of a time completing my Masters Program when I left the military. I was on the extended plan, due to costs when I left the military. The state did not consider me a Colorado resident even though my entire military service was here in Colorado. Thanks again for doing the right thing.
Dan Miraflor
Aurora
— Dan Miraflor · Apr 7, 11:06 AM · #
Morgan,
I want to thank you for your informative "town hall meeting" yesterday morning and for your NO vote on SB170. Your explanation of the NO vote was excellent, more people should understand.
I'm looking forward to seeing you at the meeting on April 16th!
Elaine
— Elaine · Apr 7, 11:38 AM · #
SB 170 would not have raised state higher ed costs, and it is disingenuous to state otherwise here. Moreover, "threat of lawsuits" with no specifics as to why or how this is the case is little more than canned deflection. How about telling the truth, Morgan. You voted no out of fear of uninformed nativist outrage. Now these same people are posting on your blog and giving you strokes. Hope it feels real good.
— Bill · Apr 7, 12:24 PM · #
I am disappointed in your vote on SB170, despite generally supporting your votes in the legislature. If we continue to scapegoat undocumented people, especially children, and continue to deny them opportunity to education because of vague notions of who "deserves" consideration, it only continues to perpetuate negative attitudes about people who come here, work hard, and pay taxes.
I agree that the drastic proposed budget cuts to higher education in Colorado are extremely unfortunate, but SB 170 would not have exacerbated that issue. In fact, it is my impression that it had no fiscal note attached, thus, there was no cost to the state for passing this bill.
Also, to scapegoat undocumented folks when talking about higher ed cuts, instead of addressing the horrible law that is TABOR, seems a little irresponsible to me.
— Laura · Apr 7, 01:31 PM · #
I think education for all is important. I'm not necessarily on one side or the other on this bill – I can see both sides.
However, I was at Coffee with Carroll Monday morning, very sad to see a mob of angry folks nailing you about your stand. You held your ground and stayed civil even when they weren't. Further I didn't appreciate David Sirota slamming you about your vote this morning on AM760 either, as you have had him as a guest before on your panel.
Anyone who knows you knows you are a true progressive, and you are also trying to be honest and fiscally responsible.
I'm sorry some feel the need to flame you and play politics with this issue for their egos and cheap political points. Don't let them get you down. Keep up the good work! You are a gem!
Scott, Aurora
— Scott · Apr 7, 02:05 PM · #
As a Colorado Native, I recognize the value of our immigrant population and am sad that they are currently oppressed and unable to take advantage of in-state tuition to become even better contributors to our society. In the case of SB170, I trust you to have made a difficult but perhaps legally prudent decision. I know you didn't do it out of selfishness or from a mean heart.
— Carol Blackard · Apr 7, 02:19 PM · #
As a non-Latino and a progressive, I stand with Polly Baca and Mario Solis Marich 110%. To Kevin, I say when your ox is gored, you won't consider that issue to be so narrow. How happy the Republicans must feel with the split between Latino Democrats and who I will call Pseudo Progressives. How do you like being in bed with the likes of Peter Boyles, Tom Tancredo and other rabid racists? If you sleep with dogs, you get fleas. Senator Carroll, your argument is disingenuous at best. Even the Republican opposition admitted the bill would not increase taxes. Investments in education result in long-term benefits to the taxpayer. Too bad you seem too shortsighted to realize that. At least you are willing to allow criticism on your website. Thanks for sharing my passion for the First Amendment.
— Jim Wilkinson · Apr 7, 03:11 PM · #
Good God I am so glad you are showing your true colors you are not "PROGESSIVE" You CAVED to the republican bull your excuse does not hold water.
It would NOT cost the State of Colorado a dime but would have brought in MORE funds for the State.
— VIcki · Apr 7, 06:22 PM · #
oh yes it would have been at least 5 million to the State of Colorado.. WAKE UP pay attention to the PROGESSIVE movement not the republican bull
— VIcki · Apr 7, 06:24 PM · #
LEt see if youget this 500M – 300M = 200MILLION PROFIT for Colorado
— VIcki · Apr 7, 06:29 PM · #
It's astounding to realize that Colorado is lagging progressive states like Oklahoma, Utah and Texas which have already passed similar legislation. Given my understanding of the issues, your vote appears to be more of a cop-out made in deference to a questionable federal law rather than being a courageous stand.
Why?
BTW – David Sirota did not slam you as Scott from Aurora suggested above. He was very disappointed, but respectful in his comments towards you. I look forward to hearing you discuss this topic on his morning program in the very near future.
— Jeff McLane · Apr 7, 08:51 PM · #
I want to say I am so disappointed in your vote on 170. Your rationale about voting against this does not make sense, we are not paying for these people to go to college!! We are merely giving them the opportunity to not be restricted to jobs as janitors, cleaning people, and fast food employee. Your message seems to be: you are not wanted here, you will never be any thing but a second class citizen. I hope this vote will haunt you everytime you run for office.
— James Vallejos · Apr 7, 10:14 PM · #
Dear Sen. Carroll,
I applaud and support your bold and brave stand against SB 170.
AS a registered Democrat, I have been deeply discouraged by the level of "ramrodding" of policies that has been occurring at both the Federal and State levels as Democrats have shoved our policies thru legislation. Such action only continues to build partisan hatred. That is discouraging.
I had hoped that the vote I had cast for "change" last November would have resulted in showing how Democrats take the "High Road" over the Republican side of the aisle.
Sadly that has not been the case as Democrats have clearly been showing their revenge over the disappointing Bush years at all levels of Government.
SB 170, aside from being at odds with federal law (8 USC 1623), was a perfect example of the Democrat ramrodding that has been taking place.
As such I was happily shocked when you took the bold step you did to stand against this bill and actually represent your constituents instead. THANK YOU.
— Rob · Apr 7, 10:40 PM · #
As a democrat, I am ashamed of your vote. It is a slap in the face to your constituents and we will remember this.
— Reggie Loggins · Apr 8, 10:30 AM · #
HI Sen. Carroll,
Thank you for not supporting SB170. I have not always agreed with some of your stands but I do support you in this. I know this is difficult but I hope you will continue to oppose this effort to grant in-state tuition to these people.
— Brian Pals · Apr 8, 11:21 AM · #
I am appalled that you have let some of your fear mongering constituents interfere with your ability to accurately read and interpret a bill. This is a zero financial commitment for the state. In addition, the threats of lawsuits do not justify a "no" vote- not here or in the ten other states with similar legislation.
You cannot be AG if you are unable to read legislation without allowing your own hate and fear interfere.
— Lei · Apr 8, 12:49 PM · #
^^^^Read this post above^^^^
THIS is the real reason you voted against it Sen. Carroll. Brian Pals refers to "these people" with casual vitriol that barely hides his prejudice. This just just drips with ignorance.
It doesn't make it better when you try to deceive people about why you voted the way you did. To be honest, your rationale is ass-backwards since it not only encourages prejudice, but also discourages people from bettering themselves and going to college. I have a family member who is personally affected by this, and I hope you could look her in the eye and tell her she doesn't deserve to go to college despite her academic achievements. The truth of the matter is that you pandered to prejudice and hate, and I'll keep this in mind next time I see your name on the ballot. Your statement justifying your vote was too vague and an insult to your constituents' intelligence. You're a lawmaker for goodness' sake, grow a backbone.
— Diego Del Campo · Apr 8, 04:34 PM · #
Senator Carroll,
Thank you for examining the merits and rejecting SB170.
Had our laws been enforced in the first place, fewer illegals would be here and SB 170 would not have come up to cause so much conflict, and waste so much time, effort and money.
I do sympathize with the plight of the kids of illegals, but blame for the plight lays solely on the shoulders of the parents who disregarded our laws and made the decision to bring their kids illegally across America's borders to milk Colorado tax payers for thousands of dollars in value from federally mandated K-12 education, school subsidized or free lunch, and medical programs. Despite long term ramifications for their kids, it's their parents or guardians causing the problem, not Coloradoans.
Respectfully,
Mike
— Mike Jonett · Apr 8, 08:46 PM · #
I think you are absolutely correct in saying that SB 170 is at odds with federal law. I don't understand why there are so many legislators in Colorado who are not aware of this. You have helped spare the State of Colorado from an expensive lawsuit which our state would have likely lost. The public obviously needs to be educated about federal law vs. state law. Apparently, our schools are not doing the job.
Those who would like to see the federal law changed need to contact their U.S. senators and representatives.
— John Cleveland · Apr 9, 11:35 AM · #
Senator,
Thank you for not following party lines and also for rejecting SB170, now is not the time for this kind of legislation. Thanks again for being brave and know that most of the people that are disappointed are not in your district.
Sincerly Supportive,
Jake
— Jake · Apr 9, 01:36 PM · #
I am in agreement with Senator Carroll's vote on SB170. The bill was in conflict with federal law, which would have invited lawsuits against the State of Colorado. Legislators have a responsibility to refrain from passing laws that could make the State liable for damages, and that responsibility trumps party lines and ideology. Senator Morgan's vote is a vote for the rule of law and her duty to the people of Colorado as a legislator.
Although many who support her vote do so on the grounds that illegals shouldn't be here in the first place, I seldom hear the underlying cause of the problem discussed, and that is the willingness of employers and businesses to hire illegals for reasons of economic expediency. Until the root cause of the problem is addressed, nothing will change.
— Lon Howell · Apr 9, 04:04 PM · #
Senator Carroll,
Thank you for listening to your constituents and not supporting SB170. I empathize with those that are in this country because their parents brought them here illegally. Those that supported the measure made a bold statement, that is "we want to send a message that the laws mean nothing."
I disagree with your reasons but appreciate your position. The process for legal immigration is not broken, it needs to be revised and to achieve a comprehensive solution we must have secure borders. The problem been failure to enforce the laws in place. This concerns me greatly. When, in a popular government, there is suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only from the corruption of the republic, the state is certainly undone.
— Dale Hughes · Apr 9, 10:12 PM · #
Senator Morgan's vote is a vote for the rule of law and her duty to the people of Colorado as a legislator.
This reasoning sounds more CONSERVATIVE REPUBILCAN.
If you think by coming back and voting for the dream act is going to save you that is as wrong thinking as your vote AGAINST SB170.
"WE THE PEOPLE" will NOT forget this. OLD time governing if you hadn't noticed was VOTED OUT 11/2008
— VIcki · Apr 11, 05:29 AM · #
I fully support Senator Carroll's vote, and her reasoning. She stated it would violate the Federal law, I read the law and I will place it on here.
(a) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not
lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the
basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for
any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of
the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an
amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen
or national is such a resident.
Illegal aliens, or undocumented immigrants use whatever term you are comfortable with, are not eligible on the Basis of Residence within the State. For any Post Secondary Education Unless a Citizen (legal Citizen of the USA) is eligible for the same instate tuition as a state resident.
So either everyone receives instate tuition assistance, or only those who qualify as a State resident and is not denied because the Federal Law Prohibits it.
Just because the other 10 states ignored the Federal Law, is not reason enough for our state to ignore the law. We have laws in which we obey, or we don't, I favor obeying the law, I also favor changing laws if they no longer benefit the people. NOT ignoring the law.
Some say the Bill would have not cost the state anything. I disagree. Although the Budget would not be affected in terms of increasing the amount; but the cost would have been a denial of a Student who has Legal Status.
In State tuition assistance is a finite program, there are more Freshman Students applying than there are funds…This is just the Students who qualify.
There is said to be 500 students who are undocumented otherwise here illegally who would seek instate tuition assistance.
So had the bill passed, and there is more student than there is financial aid, who is going to decide what 500 legal and qualified students are going to be denied in order to fill the demand for Illegal undocumented students? And if those families took this to court do you think they would not win a lawsuit, or discrimination battle based on unlawful, unconstitutional actions.
Senator Carroll's concerns are genuine, I believe she is looking for the long term solution, not a feel good short term bill that doesn't afford the undocumented student any real security or benefits.
I believe the best management is to provide a clear, and just pathway to citizenship for these kids, education is not the only benefit in our country, it is one of many. Being here illegally is a life time of obstacles, With their education, and professional skills they still cannot legally obtain a job in this country as a Nurse, PA, Attorney, Engineer, etc..all of these professions you need to have a legal status here. Receiving SS benefits needs legal status here, etc.
So why is this not the fight we should be after?
— Robert · Apr 11, 03:12 PM · #
Honorable Senator Carroll,
I admire yourcourage to say NO to a bill that is aheavy burden on every Taxpaying american. We elected you all to represent US citizens and not cater to the needs of those who have broken our laws and are living here ILLEGALLY. What part of our constitution don't Romer, Baca and Sandoval understand? Why should US citizens bear the burden of these people who de3plete our resources. We spend $100 billion every year towards the Illegals living here. This covers health care which US citizens cannot get. Free Education and public services. No onther country will tolerate this nonsense. 30 Million people have invded our country and are taking over. This must end. Solution:1) Mr. Calderon must pay for all our medical bills as we are paying for their bills. Our hospitals are closing. 2) One barrel of oil for every illegal living in our country / month 3) The money they send home must be taxed. 4) They must pay for their own health care 5) Local police must be authorized to verify the legal status of any suspect.6) All the criminals in our jails must be deported. 30% of the illegals are criminals. This amounts to 9 million. Many more to be done. Our country cannot sustain such a heavy burden. Instead of punishing the lawbreakers, we are rewarding them with incentives.
Has Romer gone insane? How does this massive transfer of wealth from Legals to Illegals improve our economy? Yes he is aiming at the Governor's office.
I am aconservative. I will support you and your colleagues as long as you protect the interests of US citizens. You can count on my financial support and any other way.
Respectfully,
Philip
— Philip · Apr 12, 04:34 PM · #
We want to thank you for looking out for Colorado and voting no on SB 170. Thank goodness we have someone like you looking out for us.
Thankfully,
John and Renee Zelenoy
— Renee Zelenoy · Apr 13, 02:06 AM · #
SB 170 identifies a real problem but does not provide the SOLUTION.
Thank you Morgan for being brave and voting your heart on this one.
— Mark · Apr 13, 04:09 PM · #
Sen. Morgan Carroll is a true progressive, despite the slams that uninformed persons have launched against her on this site. She has long fought the good fight, and the hard one, to help unions and labor and working people who are not yet represented. She is not against immigrants, but rightly votged against SB 170 because it may well have conflicted with federal law. Our Congress is too lazy or too bribed to reform our nation's immigration laws. That, combined with Colorado's serious education budget gap, were two good reasons for Senator Carroll to vote against SB 170 at this time. It may be revived later, and at that time it would deserve a renewed analysis.
— Ray · Apr 23, 04:00 PM · #