Undocumented student bill passes 8-7 in TN House committee
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WJHL) — It was another committee stop, another close margin Monday for a Republican-sponsored bill that would challenge the federal law requiring all children be provided a free public education regardless of legal immigration status.
PREVIOUS: Educators, lawyer speak on TN proposal to require schools to check students' legal status
The House Government Operations Committee voted 8-7 in favor of Rep. William Lamberth's (R-Portland) House version, HB 0793, with Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby) joining six Democrats in opposition.
The bill, which has a companion measure sponsored by Sen. Bo Watson (R-Hixson), would allow public school systems in Tennessee to require K-12 students without legal status in the country to pay tuition or face denial of enrollment. While that decision for school districts is optional in the current bill, it does require that each school district statewide collect documentation from each enrolling student that they are a citizen or are otherwise legally in the United States.
The measure, if it becomes law, is likely to land in federal court. The 1982 Plyler v Doe Supreme Court decision established a right of all students, regardless of immigration status, to be provided a free public education.
'We're not talking about immigrants, we're talking about illegals,' Rep. Monty Fritts (R-Kingston) said during discussion on the bill. 'There is a distinct difference. 14th Amendment, both Section 1 and Section 4 help us understand that. There is not greater act of rebellion in these United States than illegally coming across that border.'
The bill has been roundly condemned by Democratic members of both the House and Senate, and drawn guest speakers in opposition at most of its stops in various committees. That trend continued Monday, with continued arguments that it's inhumane, economically questionable and would stick school systems with a large unfunded mandate.
But proponents also continued to defend the bill, saying school systems already collect demographic information, including birth certificates in arguing any additional costs would be minimal. They also argued that aside from that, school systems are perfectly welcome to continue serving undocumented students, while others could help recoup what they say are quickly escalating costs to provide ELL (English Language Learner) courses.
Tiffany Anderson, a teacher in rural Bedford County south of Nashville, was one of two guest speakers who voiced their opposition to the bill.
Anderson called the bill 'a direct assault on our children's rights to free and equitable education. It would take away their freedom to learn simply because of who they are or where they were born,' she said.
Anderson said undocumented Tennesseans pay an estimated $300 million-plus in taxes each year, helping support the state's education system, among other services.
Calling it an effort 'to score cheap political points' that is using children as 'pawns,' Anderson spoke of the fact that her students' backgrounds, including immigration status, have never mattered in the school or classroom.
'I've watched my students including undocumented students grow up to become productive members of our community,' Anderson said.
'I never believed I would stand in front of a committee to explain why my students not only should be allowed to continue getting a free public education but deserve it,' she added.
Fritts argued that the 14th Amendment, whose Equal Protection Clause Plyler v Doe cites as a basis, actually has other language that should support the Tennessee bill.
'I would offer that when you read the 14th Amendment, take some time with it and understand that that's an all-encompassing document,' Fritts said. 'It is timeless — those words are timeless. While they were written following the Civil War and the use of the word 'rebellion' certainly between the United States and the Union. But there is no greater act of rebellion in the United States than to illegally cross into these United States.'
Fritts also made a brief response to opponents' arguments that the bill is a misguided way to respond to the country's immigration problem.
'The last thing I would offer would be this,' Fritts said. 'We don't necessarily have a broken immigration system now. President Trump's correcting that.'
Fritts's comments contrasted markedly with an impassioned floor speech from Rep. John Ray Clemmons (D-Nashville). Clemmons said immigrants tend to make an outsized contribution to the U.S. economy, citing everything from small business creation rates to patents to representation in the Fortune 500.
'None of this is possible without an education to which these children are constitutionally guaranteed,' Clemons said, referencing the Tennessee Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution.
'There is nothing fiscally sound about this and we know it's not going to fix the broken immigration system in this country.'
Clemmons argued the bill was not about fixing a broken immigration system.
'This is about denying innocent children of their God-given right as guaranteed by this state constitution to get an education, as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court,' he said. 'If I sound frustrated and if I sound mad as hell it's because I am. We cannot keep doing this to our children.'
Clemmons thanked committee chairman before concluding:
'There is nothing in this that speaks to good public policy. There is nothing in here that has even a hint of love in it. We are better than this. We must be better than this as a state.'
In the House, the bill now moves to the Finance, Ways, and Means Committee. In the Senate, it has been referred to the calendar committee for placement before the full Senate. A number of Republicans in both the House and Senate have voted against the bill in committee, including four out of 15 senators and about half a dozen house members.
Compared to the numbers voting in favor and given the 27-6 Republican margin in the Senate and the 75-24 margin in the House, a higher percentage of Republicans than have opposed it so far would have to materialize for the bill to fail. If it passes, it is almost certain to face legal challenges.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who won the first NYC Democratic mayoral primary debate?
Ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo won Wednesday night's Democratic mayoral primary debate — because his opponents' relentless attacks did more to elevate him than drag him down, a Post panel of veteran campaign strategists said. The thrice-elected Democrat took some gut punches, but there was no knockout blow or major blunder on his part, the political analysts on both sides of the aisle said. 'I tuned in to see a mayoral debate, not a debate about Andrew Cuomo,' quipped campaign strategist Ken Frydman of the nine-person debate moderated by NBC 4 NY and Politico. 'By making Andrew the debate, they elevated him,' said Frydman. Because Cuomo was constantly under fire, he got more airtime to respond to each jab and by default dominated the more than two-hour debate, the political experts said. 'Everyone tried to land a punch on Andrew Cuomo, but failed,' said campaign strategist O' Brien 'OB' Murray. 'The first 20 minutes gave Cuomo the center stage, literally and figuratively,' he said, referring to the ex-gov's position in the middle of the group of candidates standing on the dais at 30 Rockefeller Center. 'He handled the attacks and was able to deflect. They actually gave him more airtime than they should have,' Murray said. Republican campaign strategist Bill O'Reilly said the verbal pummeling Cuomo received from most of his eight primary rivals does not alter his status as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. 'It was Andrew Cuomo vs. the Lilliputians, and the Lilliputians fell short. That's the bottom line,' O'Reilly said. 'Someone needed to trip up the former governor to slow his momentum, but it was clear from the jump that wouldn't happen. Cuomo hasn't lost a step since leaving Albany, and the field lacked the skill to crack him.' Cuomo also counter-attacked, taking shots at his biggest threats in the polls — 33-year-old Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, a state Assembly member from Queens, and City Comptroller Brad Lander. The former governor delivered the best line when he said, '[President] Trump would go through Mamdani like a hot knife through butter,' O'Reilly noted. Frydman said the candidates and moderators did force Cuomo to squirm to defend his record as governor, including his controversial nursing home policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and his approval of the unpopular 2019 bail reforms. They also tried to make him answer for the spate of sexual misconduct accusations leveled against him — which he denied, but which forced his resignation in 2021. Some of the other candidates had 'breakout moments' — including former Bronx Assemblyman Michael Blake, City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and Mamdani, said political adviser Yvette Buckner. 'That will have voters wanting to learn more about them, their policies and their candidacy,' she said. Frydman too said Adams' performance 'moved the needle' for her campaign, which has been slow to gain momentum despite support from state Attorney General Letitia James. 'She introduced herself to Democratic voters well enough on substance to move up in ranked-choice voting,' he said. But Cuomo's comfortable lead over second-place Mamdani in recent polls should hold, Frydman said. O'Reilly agreed, but said Mamdani remains Cuomo's 'greatest threat' for the nomination in the June 24 primary. Two of the panelists agreed that Lander is competent, but his persona didn't translate on TV. 'He oozes insincerity in a car-salesman-type way,' O'Reilly said. But he said Brooklyn state Sen. Zellnor Myrie's sincerity came across 'easily,' calling him a rising star in the Democratic Party. Murray concurred, saying Lander has a 'stage presence for radio and a delivery for print. He confirmed why he has his wife and daughter on videos, instead of himself.' Another candidate, former city Comptroller Scott Stringer, who previously ran for mayor in 2021, didn't break through, the panelists said. 'Stringer was Stringer — flat, and after a second run for mayor, still didn't connect to voters,' Murray said. All but two of the Democratic contenders will debate again on June 12, save for Blake and state Sen. Jessica Ramos, who failed to meet the campaign funding threshold. Nine days of early voting will precede the primary, beginning on June 14.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Zohran Mamdani ripped for refusing to recognize Israel as Jewish state: ‘Dangerous point of view'
Jewish leaders condemned Democratic socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani Thursday for his repeated refusals to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state — slamming it as a disqualifying and 'dangerous' point of view. 'It's more than problematic,' said Joseph Potasnik, executive vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis. 'Jews see this as a dividing line. 'There are 22 Arab Muslim states,' Potasnik noted. 'In Mamdani's world, there isn't room for one Jewish state. He doesn't want a Jewish State.' Mamdani, a pro-Palestinian state Assembly member from Queens who has supported the BDS movement to boycott Israel, has repeatedly been dogged by the issue as he campaigns for the Democratic mayoral nomination. During Wednesday night's NBC 4 NY-Politico primary debate, Mamdani hedged and again refused to answer the question. 'I believe Israel has a right to exist,' he said. 'As a Jewish state?' the moderator pressed. 'As a state with equal rights,' Mamdani replied. But when Mamdani was asked to clarify during a Thursday morning interview on Fox 5's 'Good Day New York,' he said he opposes Israel's right to exist — as a Jewish state. 'Because I'm not comfortable supporting any state that has a hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion or anything else,' he told anchor Rosanna Scotto. 'In the way we have in this country, equality should be enshrined in every country in the world.' Fellow Queens Assembly member Nily Rozic, who was born in Israel, said, 'He doesn't recognize the Jewish state and its right to exist — a method of dehumanizing the Jewish people and a way to sow unnecessary divisions in society.' She added: 'That's a dangerous point of view for any elected official, let alone one who aspires to be mayor.' Brooklyn Assemblyman Kalman Yeger, who is also Jewish, said that Mamdani's refusal to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state was not all that surprising. 'Not at all shocking that the most prominent antisemite running this year can't bring himself to acknowledge the right of the Jewish state to exist. His hatred for Jews is boundless,' Yeger said. Democratic National Committee delegate from New York Robert Zimmerman, a pro-Israel Jew, said Mamdani's answer on 'Good Day' was chilling. 'Mamdani clearly disrespects the memory of the 6 million Jews lost in the Holocaust and further empowers those who engage in antisemitic rhetoric and violence,' Zimmerman told The Post. Like the Democratic Socialists of America that back him, Mamdani is a staunch foe of Israel and even supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against the Jewish state. Jewish civil rights groups such as the Anti-Defamation League said the BDS movement smacks of antisemitism because it seeks to harm the world's only Jewish State. Mamdani is running second in recent primary polls to ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo on Thursday was endorsed by the Far Rockaway Jewish Alliance, the largest Orthodox Jewish group in Queens — a sign that the more conservative ultra-orthodox Jewish communities will back his candidacy.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
National Guard arrives in Los Angeles as fallout from immigration raids continues
California National Guard troops arrived in Los Angeles on Sunday in a show of force following scattered clashes between immigration agents and protesters and amid a widening political divide between California and the Trump administration. The move by President Trump to activate nearly 2,000 guardsmen marked the first time since 1965 that a president has deployed a state's National Guard without a request from that state's governor. The decision was met with stern rebukes from state and local officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom who said the deployment was "not to meet an unmet need, but to manufacture a crisis." Newsom's office on Sunday afternoon sent a formal letter to the Trump administration asking them to rescind their deployment of troops. "There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the state from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required," the letter reads. On Sunday afternoon, there were tense moments outside a federal detention center in downtown L.A., with officers firing tear gas and nonlethal rounds at protesters. But other areas that had seen unrest over the last few days, including the Garment District, Paramount and Compton, seemed calm. It was unclear exactly how many troops were deployed to Los Angeles as of Sunday afternoon. The National Guard's 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, based in San Diego, said Sunday that 300 personnel were on the ground to protect federal property and personnel. Trump administration officials have seized on the isolated incidents of violence to suggest wide parts of L.A. are out of control. On Sunday, Trump took to social media to claim 'violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking' federal law enforcement. "A once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals," he wrote, blaming Democratic politicians for not cracking down earlier. While officials have not said how long the immigration enforcement actions will continue, Trump told reporters Sunday, 'we're going to have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country." Many California officials, who have long been at odds with Trump, say the president was trying to exploit the situation for his political advantage and sow unneeded disorder and confusion. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the deployment of federalized troops a "chaotic escalation" and issued a reminder that "Los Angeles will always stand with everyone who calls our city home." While most demonstrators have gathered peacefully, some have hurled objects at law enforcement personnel, set garbage and vehicles on fire and defaced federal property with graffiti. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation in Los Angeles over the past week has resulted in the arrest of 118 people, including some who have been convicted of drug trafficking, assault, child cruelty, domestic violence and robbery, according to the agency. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin and Republican politicians who support Trump's immigration actions have characterized the protests as riots intended to "keep rapists, murderers and other violent criminals loose on Los Angeles streets." On Sunday morning, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) addressed roughly two dozen National Guard soldiers posted outside the Metropolitan Detention Center on Alameda Street. She had arrived at the center to inquire about Service Employees International Union California President David Huerta, who was injured and detained while documenting an immigration enforcement raid in downtown Los Angeles on Friday. "Who are you going to shoot?" Waters asked the solders. "If you're going to shoot me, you better shoot straight." Remnants of tear gas used by law enforcement during protests Saturday lingered in the air around the building, at times forcing Waters to cough. Waters, an outspoken critic of the president, called the deployment of National Guard troops an unnecessary escalation of tensions and accused Trump of "trying to make an example" out of Los Angeles, a longstanding sanctuary city. Leonard Tunstad, a 69-year-old Los Angeles resident, rode his bike up to the edge of the loading dock where troops were stationed and asked them if they really wanted to be loyal to a president that "had 34 felony convictions." He said he felt compelled to shout facts about Trump at the guardsmen because he feared the young men have been 'indoctrinated against their own citizens.' Tunstad said he believed the deployment was a gross overreaction by the Trump administration, noting the city has been home to far more raucous protests that were handled by local police. 'This is just a show. This is just a spectacle," he said. A Department of Homeland Security officer approached one of the louder demonstrators saying that he 'didn't want a repeat of last night' and didn't want to "get political." He told protesters as long as they stick to the sidewalk and don't block vehicle access to the loading dock there wouldn't be any problems. Later, DHS and California National Guard troops shoved dozens of protesters into Alameda Street, hitting people with riot shields, firing pellets into the ground and deploying tear gas to clear a path for a caravan of DHS, Border Patrol and military vehicles to enter the detention center. Jose Longoria struggled to breathe as clouds of tear gas filled Alameda Street. He pointed to a white scuff mark on his shoe, saying that a tear gas canister had hit him in the foot, causing him to limp slightly. "We're not armed. We're just peacefully protesting. They're acting out,' Longoria said of the officers. Julie Solis, 50, walked back and forth along Alameda Street holding a Mexican flag and urging the crowd to make their voices heard, but to keep the scene peaceful. She said she believes the National Guard was deployed solely to provoke a response and make Los Angeles look unruly to justify further aggression from federal law enforcement. 'They want arrests. They want to see us fail. We need to be peaceful. We need to be eloquent," she said. National Guard troops were last summoned to Los Angeles and other Southern California cities in 2020, during the George Floyd protests. Those deployments were authorized by Newsom. However, the last time the National Guard was called on by a president without a request from a state governor was 60 years ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Antonio Villaraigosa, former speaker of the California Assembly and a former L.A. mayor, said Trump's move was "meant to incite more fear and chaos in our community." 'Trump's military-style mass deportation ICE raids in California have gone too far, tearing families apart and threatening public safety," he said in a statement. "The raids at stores and workplaces are wrong, just as it's wrong to separate families with raids at schools, graduations, and churches." In Paramount, a group of camouflaged National Guard troops were stationed in a business park with armored vehicles where a Department of Homeland Security office is located. Jessica Juarez walked along Alondra Boulevard with a trash bag full of spent tear gas canisters on Sunday morning. Her voice grew hoarse as she helped a group of volunteers clean up after clashes between protesters and law enforcement the day before. United States Attorney Bill Essayli told NBC in an interview that an officer suffered a broken wrist and others were injured by rocks and cement block pieces that were thrown at them during Saturday's protest. He said it was "an extremely violent crowd," but officials are "undeterred." An acrid odor still hung in the air from the gas and flash bang grenades law enforcement fired on protesters Saturday, while scorched asphalt marked the intersection outside a Home Depot where federal authorities had staged. "I'm proud of our community, of the strength we showed," said Juarez, 40. "It's like they put so much fear into Paramount and for what? These guys didn't even clean up after themselves." The images of Paramount shrouded in smoke and flanked by police in riot gear are unusual for this community of about 50,000 residents. In many ways, the city became the starting point for the escalating federal response. "What else do you call it but an attack on Paramount and the people who live here?" said resident and union organizer Alejandro Maldonado. "People in the community were standing up to unjust immigration policies." For some, the fight between Los Angeles residents and the federal government is akin to David and Goliath. "It really does seem like they wanted to pick a fight with the little guy," union organizer Ardelia Aldridge said. Staff writer Seema Mehta and Brittny Mejia contributed to this report Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
