Lloydletta's Nooz reported earlier on a piece he had at the State Central Committee meeting last June which emphasized a hard-line stance on immigration. (Screen shots here.)
Well now Andy Apklikowski reports that Coleman is supporting the DREAM Act. He publishes a constituent letter:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2007 (S. 774). I am supportive of this legislation.
The DREAM Act would permit states to determine state residency requirements for higher education purposes and would authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of alien students who are long-term U.S. residents and good members of the community. You will be happy to know that this legislation is included as part of the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348).
After careful consideration of the legal and security issues involved, I have supported comprehensive immigration reform, including strong border and interior enforcement, improved employer verification, and a guest worker program that allows long-time residents to earn a legalized status. I believe it is in our national security interest to bring people who are here illegally out of the shadows, and it would be unrealistic to deport 12 million people from our communities and our economy.
I could not, however, support the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348) in its current form. S. 1348 was never considered by a Senate Committee and was brought directly to the floor before most of us had a chance to fully review it. Senate leadership blocked many amendments, including my own, that would have improved the bill. The repercussions of this bill are too great, and I could not in good conscience support moving forward with legislation that is incomplete and unfinished. For this reason, I voted against a procedural motion on June 7, 2007 that would have pushed the bill forward without further debate. However, I am optimistic that the Senate will resume debate of immigration reform legislation in the near future.
I will continue to follow this important issue. I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.
United States Senate
Commenters at Andy's site respond. I'm sure Norm Coleman will be getting some calls.
1. Kevin Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
To be fair the bill and amendment numbers referenced above are not the same, so it’s not the exact same legislation. But essentially most of the crap has been carried over from one to the other.
2. Kevin Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
It should also be pointed out that when I criticize people because of the timing and definite lack of enthusiasm for his votes against amnesty last time around, people remind me that at least he voted the right way.
I fear I will be proven correct this time around.
3. J. Ewing Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
According to Hannity, this DREAM act is far WORSE than it has been described. Apparently the “in-state tuition” provision is just the lightning rod, while the details of the act include the granting of legal status to these illegals, of ANY AGE, just for applying to college. THEN it would allow them to apply for legal status for their parents, who could then apply for legal status for all of their children! It’s almost as much amnesty as the Amnesty Bill.
And this act rescinds a federal law prohibiting the granting of in-state tuition to non-residents, unless it applies to ALL non-residents. What are these people thinking? Why would anybody stand up for this ridiculous idea?
4. Kevin Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Hannity is correct.
Essentially there are enough loopholes in this that virtually ANY illegal immigrant could find a way to be “eligible”.
And to be eligible all you have to do is claim you’ve been here since you were 16. You don’t actually need to prove it.
I wonder how Norm Coleman responds to those who write opposing the DREAM Act.