REP. CANDELORA: (86^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the concerns that I have with this Bill is this exclusion that's referenced. If we go to the federal statute, what it's looking for is actually findings of fact that are subjective. It speaks to if an individual is a non-immigrant alien, it speaks to the person's intent.

Whereas, under our current law, an individual that's seeking in-state tuition benefits are producing objective documentation that we can determine whether or not they're entitled to it.

And from a discussion here, I guess there hasn't been an issue with people being denied in-state tuition benefit where they then turn around and say, no, I'm actually a resident, I'm entitled to it.

And the reason being is because we have this documentation that's been stated. We have a driver's license or we have a transcript.

If we look at the federal definition, you know, some of these definitions for a person to be deemed a non-immigrant alien, we need to look at their intent of whether or not they wish to stay in Connecticut or to leave the state and go back to their home country.

I'm concerned this provision is actually going to require a college to make factual findings in order to convey this benefit. And I don't think we've given enough thought to this because I can see situations very easily where people are seeking this benefit and the colleges are denying them.

And I think it is significant here because one of the whole premise for having this statute is to allow for, you know, immigrants to be educated and make an investment in our future.

The person's intent, it is important to discern because if we make this investment and they're not actually staying in the State of Connecticut, I'm not sure how good that investment would be.

We've talked about today about investing in our immigrant population and one of the things that greatly concerns me is we still have not yet had a discussion about investing in our students that are currently in the system. I had an opportunity to take our Learn Here, Live Here Program on the road.

And I spoke in Danbury at West Conn. It was a beautiful day. It was one of the first days of spring where we had real nice weather and when I showed up, I basically had no doubt I'd have only a couple of people in the room because you can't compete with that kind of weather on a college campus.

I was shocked that we had about 30 students come into the room and asked a lot of questions and had a lot of concerns. How they were going to be able to afford to continue to live here in Connecticut.

Following that, I've had phone calls from people all over the State of Connecticut when that story was run asking me questions of how can I help keep my child in Connecticut.

And here we're prioritizing a Bill investing in our future with the irony that most college students in Connecticut are moving out statistically. So I think that this Bill is ill placed.

It's not prioritized. I think our first priority should be, let's retain our students, and then let's focus on our immigration population.

The other just general concern I have with this Bill, and it also points to intent, is that we're willing to allow a student to be entitled to this benefit with an affidavit just stating that they will file such an application as soon as he or she is eligible to do so.

And I think that there should be more of clear intent, rather than something down the future in order to entitle them to this benefit, because, again, we're investing in our future.

We want to make sure that these individuals stay. And finally, I have to say that I probably got the most constituent response when this Bill was first debated back in Committee.

I was not on that Committee, but I've had a number of constituents come to me. You know, one of the perceptions out there is that residents in Connecticut are entitled to the in-state tuition because they're paying taxes and through those taxes we are investing in our colleges and universities.

And so the individuals in Connecticut are willing to support our university system because they know in the future that their children are going to be entitled to this program.

And I had a lot of irate constituents tell me, how could we be affording this benefit to individuals that are not necessarily paying taxes into our system?

Now, right or wrong, that is the perception that's out there. And because of these reasons I cannot support this Bill. Thank you.