just think is our guy goes to him and starts the debate and rep. king starts say "mandates? not only did i not say that, i know the bill doesn't mandates anything.
as for the "allow" part. what are you referring to? as it stands the bill repeals the 1996 clinton law.:

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.

(a) In General- Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) is repealed.
(b) Effective Date- The repeal under subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546).



it gives states the option to do what it wants. heck, school like ucla could go from giving instate to not even allowing future individuals to apply. university of alabama could go from not allowing to apply to offering free tuition.

there have only been one age limit and that was of 30. the rest were in the SAA. and i would rather see no age limit and force dreamies to prove they have been here for five years. they were in some soccer or volleyball team that won it all in 2007 and they can use that roster or picture. i would rather see the hardship clause go because the person will have six years to do two years of something. during those six years they can work and drive and all. but someone who can at the age 12 back in 1984 cannot even apply.

i have coordinated/initiated/took part of dozens and dozens of actions such as this one in the past with dozens of people throughout the country. we always did our research and made sure things were kosher. our approach to rep. smith would have been different and with no escape clause.