Testimony on HB 2787, Feb. 13, 2013, by Cynthia Kendoll

House Bill 2787 – Instate Tuition Benefits for students illegally in the United States

It doesn’t matter which side of the immigration debate you’re on. 

In order for a law to be good, it has to be specific, actionable, and deliver what it promises. 

HB 2787 fails that test.

Section 18 d. stipulates that to be eligible for the benefits of this bill, a person has to “intend” to become a citizen.  This overlooks two key facts:

First, the State of Oregon has no standing to determine this intent.   Any attempt to do so would amount to guesswork. 

Second, in order for illegal aliens to pursue citizenship, they must return to their country of origin and  reside there while following the process legally.  This would preclude any student from obeying the provisions of the bill. Even the DACA program does not convey citizenship.

The only way that this bill could become broadly applicable is with the passage of a mass amnesty at a Federal level, as many pundits and politicians have suggested is “inevitable.”

However, we must consider that several major amnesties have come before Congress in the past twenty years, under presidents from both parties, and not a single one has become law.  The current amnesty push that is being foisted on the American people is already beginning to come apart at the seams.

Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until the Federal immigration issue is resolved before rushing to pass state laws that could contradict Federal law?

Clearly, banking on a Federal amnesty to make enforceable the provisions of this bill is reckless and shortsighted. 

This bill is bad for several reasons, but one reason should concern advocates from both sides of the debate:  The fact that HB 2787 still promises far more than it can deliver.

Thank you.

Cynthia Kendoll, Salem, OR