logo
Senate panel advances bill that would no longer allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition

Senate panel advances bill that would no longer allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition

A bill that would make college less affordable for undocumented students, including those who have called the state their home for most of their lives, is advancing in the Texas Senate.
The Senate's K-16 committee voted 9-2 on Tuesday to bring Senate Bill 1798 to the chamber's floor for a full vote. It would eliminate undocumented students' eligibility for in-state tuition and require those previously deemed eligible to pay the difference between in- and out-of-state tuition.
State Sen. Mayes Middleton , who authored the bill, said taxpayers are subsidizing higher education for people in the country illegally, which he estimated cost $150 million in the 2024-2025 academic year.
'These are funds that could have been used for lawful residents, perhaps even to lower tuition and fees,' Middleton said during an April 22 Senate education hearing when the bill was discussed.
The House is contemplating similar legislation. House Bill 232 by state Rep. Cody Vasut , R-Angleton, would require students 18 or older to provide proof that they had applied to become a permanent U.S. resident to be eligible for in-state tuition.
Both bills would also make the students liable for covering the difference between in- and out-of-state tuition should their school determine they had been misclassified or if their application for permanent residency in the U.S. is denied.
The Senate's measure would go further by allowing universities to withhold a student's diploma if they don't pay the difference within 30 days of being notified and if the diploma has not already been granted.
The Senate bill also bars universities and colleges from using any state money on financial aid to help undocumented students, requires them to report students whom they believe have misrepresented their immigration status to the Attorney General's Office, and ties their state funding to compliance with the law.
Groups that advocate for more restrictions on immigration have expressed support for the Senate's bill.
'This dismantles one of the many incentive structures that help drive illegal immigration into our state. Certainly not the biggest incentive structure, but one of a plethora,' said Texans for Strong Borders president Chris Russo, who has connections to a white supremacist movement .
Many undocumented students spoke for hours in opposition to both the Senate and the House bills during testimony before lawmakers in recent weeks. They said investing in them has paid dividends for Texas.
Emiliano Valencia, who was brought to the U.S. when he was 2 years old, said paying in-state tuition and working as a bank teller made it possible for him to earn a bachelor's degree in finance, start a restaurant and later a construction company in the state.
'Altogether, I've created over a hundred jobs,' he said. 'I'm not an American by paper, but I am in my heart and in my work ethic.'
Out-of-state tuition is typically three times more expensive than in-state tuition.
In 2001, Texas became the first state to extend in-state tuition and grant eligibility to undocumented students. Twenty-three states now offer it, too, although Florida recently repealed its law.
As it stands, Texas law allows undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition if they have lived in the state for three years before graduating from high school and for a year before enrolling in college. They must also sign an affidavit stating they will apply for legal resident status as soon as they can.
These so-called 'affidavit students' accounted for only 1.5% of all students enrolled at Texas universities in 2023, said Luis Figueroa, chief of legislative affairs at the liberal think tank Every Texan.
Each new graduating class of 'affidavit students' generates $461.3 million to the Texas economy per year, according to the American Immigration Council .
While efforts to eliminate in-state tuition for undocumented students have failed in the Texas Legislature in the past, these bills are concerning because they come at a time when the federal administration has made immigrants public enemy No. 1, said Faye Kolly with the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Kolly submitted written testimony opposing the House's version of the bill. While it doesn't explicitly eliminate in-state tuition for undocumented students like the Senate's version does, both bills would have that effect.
'Just because it gives a glimmer of hope doesn't mean a vast majority of students are going to be able to meet that criteria,' she said.
Kolly said she included in her written testimony her assessment of a recent executive order from President Donald Trump.
Trump ordered 'the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and appropriate agency heads,' to 'identify and take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of state and local laws, regulations, policies and practices favoring aliens of any groups of American citizens.' Trump said this included state laws that provide in-state tuition to undocumented students.
Kolly thinks the 2001 Texas Dream Act does not conflict with federal law because it is tied to students' residency, not their legal immigration status.
'Everyone in Texas qualifies under the same pathway for in-state tuition, and so there isn't any discrimination against U.S. citizens, and oddly this bill, if it passes, because it does single out people based on their immigration status, might violate federal law,' she said.
___
This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Five takeaways from New Jersey's primaries for governor: How the candidates are handling Trump and more
Five takeaways from New Jersey's primaries for governor: How the candidates are handling Trump and more

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Five takeaways from New Jersey's primaries for governor: How the candidates are handling Trump and more

The matchup in New Jersey's race for governor is officially set — and Tuesday's primaries also laid down big indicators about the state of both political parties after the first major intraparty contests since the 2024 election. Republican Jack Ciattarelli, a former state legislator, easily won his party's primary with President Donald Trump's endorsement, underscoring Trump's significant sway over the GOP electorate. U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill won the crowded Democratic primary, pitching herself as the candidate with the best shot at holding on to the governorship and steering past ideological and antiestablishment sentiment simmering in her party. She defeated candidates who were to her left and to her right. The race to replace term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, one of two governor's races this year, is expected to be competitive. Trump lost the state by 6 percentage points in November, a 10-point swing in his direction compared with his 2020 margin. Here are five takeaways from Tuesday's primaries: Sherrill won as many Democratic voters were weighing which candidate would be most electable and as each Democratic candidate pitched a different path forward for the party. Sherrill's victory suggests some Democratic voters want to dust off the party's successful playbook from the 2018 midterm elections, when she flipped a longtime Republican-held House seat. In that campaign and in her primary run this year, Sherrill stressed her background as a Navy helicopter pilot and a former federal prosecutor and pitched 'ruthless competence' as a counter to Trump. 'It just seems so obvious to me what the path forward is. It's effectively govern,' Sherrill recently told NBC News. 'And this is what I've been doing since 2018 when I first ran, right? ... I say to people, 'What's keeping you up at night?'' 'I tell people it's not maybe the sexiest tagline, but ruthless competence is what people in New Jersey want to see in government,' Sherrill added later. 'And that's what I've always provided, and that's what I think stands in stark contrast to the most incompetent federal government we've probably ever seen in this nation.' Still, while Sherrill won with over a third of the vote, the results revealed a fractured party. Two candidates who pitched themselves as more progressive, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, won a combined 36% of the vote. Two of the more moderate candidates, U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer and former state Senate President Steve Sweeney, got 20% combined, while teachers union president Sean Spiller won 10%. After having come just 3 percentage points shy of defeating Murphy in 2021, Ciattarelli made one thing clear in his bid four years later: He's all in on Trump. Like many prominent Republicans, Ciattarelli wasn't always on board — he criticized Trump as a 'charlatan' in 2015. And while he embraced Trump during his previous bid for governor, he didn't campaign with him. That led Ciattarelli's opponents, including his top competitor, former radio host Bill Spadea, to try to frame him as insufficiently loyal to Trump. (Spadea had voiced criticism of Trump before he fell back in line.) But Trump's endorsement of Ciattarelli cemented his front-runner status, helping hasten the end of the campaign. And in a nod to Ciattarelli's past criticism, Trump tried to inoculate him from any attempt to undercut his Trump bona fides. 'Jack, who after getting to know and understand MAGA, has gone ALL IN, and is now 100% (PLUS!),' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post announcing his backing. Tuesday's result suggests that Trump's seal of approval was good enough for most GOP primary voters. By late Tuesday evening, Ciattarelli was carrying all of the state's 21 counties. Ciattarelli's vote share was at 67% by late Tuesday evening, compared with just 22% for Spadea. State Sen. Jon Bramnick, who had been critical of Trump, had won just 6%, followed by two other candidates who had each won less than 3% of the vote. Ciattarelli thanked Trump in his victory speech for his 'endorsement and strong support,' making a joke about his being a 'part-time New Jersey resident.' (Trump owns a home and a golf course in Bedminster.) But Ciattarelli spent most of his speech focused on a general election argument, not on shoring up his base — indicative of the line he'll have to walk in a state Trump lost three times, even after the improvement he showed last year. Both parties are grappling with antiestablishment sentiment, wondering how to handle it, channel it or just avoid getting run over by it. But Tuesday's results were also a reminder that political institutions still have some staying power. New Jersey's traditional political machines were dealt a blow last year following a lawsuit from Democrat Andy Kim during his Senate run, when a court ordered that county parties could no longer give advantageous ballot positions to their preferred candidates. That diminished the sway those parties had Tuesday, but they still demonstrated some power. Ciattarelli was the only Republican who competed for county party endorsements. Fulop didn't compete for Democratic county party endorsements, and Gottheimer sat some out, as well. Some county parties split between the candidates, with Sherrill earning the most endorsements from 10 of the 21 counties. While Sherrill was carrying 15 of the state's 21 counties late Tuesday, Gottheimer was winning his home county, Bergen, which endorsed him. Sweeney, the only candidate from South Jersey, fared far better in the six counties that backed him. He was winning 40% of the vote in Gloucester County while garnering 7% of the statewide vote. The county party endorsements were no guarantee of victory: The Essex County Democrats, for example, endorsed Sherrill. But as of late Tuesday evening, she was trailing Baraka in Essex County, where he is mayor of Newark, the state's largest city. Even in that instance, though, the party endorsement may have helped Sherrill cut Baraka's margins in his home base. Tuesday night's victory speeches were also important table-setters, indicative of how each party is looking to frame the general election. And New Jersey's general election this year may foreshadow much of what we see on the campaign trail around the country in the 2026 midterms. Outside of a quick thanks to Trump, Ciattarelli kept his focus tightly on Sherrill and New Jersey Democrats in his victory speech. He criticized her as 'Phil Murphy 2.0,' arguing that she has 'enabled every extremist and costly idea Phil Murphy has put forth,' and he even revived a key criticism of Murphy from his 2021 campaign. He also criticized Sherrill's focus on Trump as a deflection. 'Mark my words: While we focus on these key New Jersey issues, my Democratic opponent will do everything in her power. Trust me ... if you took a shot every time Mikie Sherrill says 'Trump,' you'd be drunk off your ass every day between now and Nov. 4,' he said. 'But every time you hear her say 'Trump,' I want you to know what it really means: What it really means is Mikie doesn't have a plan to fix New Jersey,' he continued. During her victory speech, Sherrill leaned heavily on her biography but also emphasized a dual mandate — a fight against New Jersey Republicans and also against Trump, a recipe that Democrats have successfully leaned on in past midterm elections. Calling Ciattarelli a 'Trump lackey' who shouldn't lead the state, Sherrill criticized 'Trump and MAGA Republicans in D.C. [who] want to raise your taxes and take away your health care and education dollars.' 'This country is too beautiful to be beholden to the cruelty and self-interest that Jack and Trump are trying to hoist on her,' she said. 'The future is built on hard work and hope, and here in New Jersey, we're known for our grit, our tenacity — maybe a little bit for how loud we are — but it's going to take a strong voice to cut through the noise from Washington and deliver for the people,' she said. 'So I stand here tonight doing just that. And as a mom of four teenagers, you guys know I'm not going to put up with the incompetent, whiny nonsense coming from aggrieved MAGA Republicans.' Tuesday's results showed how money matters in campaigns — and how it has its limits. On the Democratic side, Sherrill won despite having been outspent by some of her opponents whose outside groups dropped millions of dollars on the race. The largest outside spender was Working New Jersey, a super PAC funded by the state's teachers union, which Spiller leads. The group had spent a whopping $35 million on the race as of May 27, according to the latest campaign finance reports, while Spiller's campaign had spent $342,000. As of late Tuesday, Spiller had about 10% of the primary vote. Gottheimer and Fulop were also boosted by outside groups that spent millions of dollars on the airwaves. (Gottheimer drained his congressional account to fund the outside group supporting him.) Sherrill got support on the airwaves from One Giant Leap PAC, which spent less than either Gottheimer's or Fulop's groups but spent most of its funds in the final weeks of the race. Ciattarelli and an aligned outside group, Kitchen Table Conservatives, outspent the other Republicans. And Ciattarelli touted his strong fundraising as proof that he would be a formidable general election candidate. This article was originally published on

Poll: Colorado voters do not want to see funding cuts for assistance programs
Poll: Colorado voters do not want to see funding cuts for assistance programs

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Poll: Colorado voters do not want to see funding cuts for assistance programs

DENVER (KDVR) — As the spending plan known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill makes its way through the U.S. Senate, new polling is out here at home, giving insight into how some Coloradans feel about programs that could see cuts under the proposal. The poll by Healthier Colorado shows that support for programs like SNAP and Medicaid is strong among Colorado voters. Safe2Tell report involving sexual misconduct leads to arrest 'They are going to rip this away from Colorado, but also the 36 other states that have utilized this,' said Congresswoman Brittany Pettersen. The congresswoman representing Colorado's seventh congressional district is concerned that substance abuse programs funded by Medicaid could be gutted if cuts inside the spending proposal in Washington come to fruition. 'With the budget proposal, they are taking states' ability to apply for the waiver that we utilized in Colorado and across the nation to draw down federal dollars to support treatment programs for those who are struggling with addiction,' Pettersen said. The concern over cuts comes as new data from the Centers for Disease Control shows a 35% drop in fentanyl deaths among young people in Colorado. New polling data from a Healthier Colorado survey out today also shows how some Coloradans may feel about the potential cuts to services. The survey, conducted between late last month and the early part of this month, polled 675 Colorado voters. 49% of them are unaffiliated voters, 26% are registered Democrats, 23% are registered Republicans. Aurora City Council will not hold in-person meetings until Kilyn Lewis lawsuit concludes Of the folks polled, 48% of people surveyed say they want to see an increase in Medicaid funding, and 25% said they would like to see it stay about the same. Only 21% say they would like to see a decrease. The survey also polled people about SNAP benefits, with 83% of people surveyed saying they support funding those benefits. 404 of the 675 people who took the survey live in Colorado's eighth congressional district. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Arizona governor vetoes bill banning teaching antisemitism, calls it an attack on educators

time33 minutes ago

Arizona governor vetoes bill banning teaching antisemitism, calls it an attack on educators

PHOENIX -- Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed a proposal that would have banned teaching antisemitism at the state's public K-12 schools, universities and colleges and exposed educators who violate the new rules to discipline and lawsuits. The proposal would have prohibited teachers and administrators from teaching or promoting antisemitism or antisemitic actions that create a hostile environment, calling for the genocide of any group or requiring students to advocate for an antisemitic point of view. It also would have barred public schools from using public money to support the teaching of antisemitism. Educators would have personally been responsible for covering the costs of damages in lawsuits for violating the rules. Hobbs, a Democrat, said Tuesday that the bill was not about antisemitism but rather about attacking teachers. 'It puts an unacceptable level of personal liability in place for our public school, community college, and university educators and staff, opening them up to threats of personally costly lawsuits," she said in a statement. "Additionally, it sets a dangerous precedent that unfairly targets public school teachers while shielding private school staff." Hobbs described antisemitism as a very troubling issue in the U.S., but said students and parents can go through the state's Board of Education to report antisemitism. The measure cleared the Legislature last week on a 33-20 vote by the House, including a few Democrats who crossed party lines to support it. It's one of a few proposals to combat antisemitism across the country. Democrats tried but failed to remove the lawsuit provision and swap out references to antisemitism within the bill with 'unlawful discrimination' to reflect other discrimination. The bill's chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Michael Way, of Queen Creek, called the veto 'disgraceful,' saying on the social media platform X that the legislation was meant to keep 'egregious and blatant antisemitic content' out of the classroom. 'To suggest that it threatened the speech of most Arizona teachers is disingenuous at best,' he added. Opponents said the bill aimed to silence people who want to speak out on the oppression of Palestinians and opened up educators to personal legal liability in lawsuits students could file. Students over the age of 18 and the parents of younger pupils would have been able to file lawsuits over violations that create a hostile education environment, leaving teachers responsible for paying any damages that may be awarded, denying them immunity and prohibiting the state from paying any judgments arising from any such lawsuits. Last week, Lori Shepherd, executive director of Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center, wrote in a letter to Hobbs that if the bill were approved it would threaten teachers' ability to provide students with a full account of the holocaust. Under the bill, 'those discussions could be deemed 'antisemitic' depending on how a single phrase is interpreted, regardless of intent or context,' she said. The bill would have created a process for punishing those who break the rules. At K-12 schools, a first-offense violation would lead to a reprimand, a second offense to a suspension of a teacher or principal's certificate and a third offense to a revocation of the certificate. At colleges and universities, violators would have faced a reprimand on first offense, a suspension without pay for a second offense and termination for a third offense. The proposal also would have required colleges and universities to consider violations by employees to be a negative factor when making employment or tenure decisions. Under the proposal, universities and colleges couldn't recognize any student organization that invites a guest speaker who incites antisemitism, encourages its members to engage in antisemitism or calls for the genocide of any group. Elsewhere in the U.S., a Louisiana lawmaker is pushing a resolution that asks universities to adopt policies to combat antisemitism on campuses and collect data on antisemitism-related reports and complaints. And a Michigan lawmaker has proposed putting a definition of antisemitism into the state's civil rights law.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store