Tennessee Sen. Bo Watson draws backlash from business leaders in his district for bill targeting immigrant students
A Tennessee senator is drawing rebuke from business owners in his own district for a controversial bill targeting undocumented students.
The Tennessee Small Business Alliance, a statewide small business advocacy organization, condemned SB 836 which would require all schools in Tennessee to verify children have legal immigration or visa status prior to enrolling. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, who has has argued undocumented students are potentially a financial drain on Tennessee school resources, citing a rise in English language learners in the state.
The accompanying house bill, sponsored by House Majority Leader William Lamberth, R-Portland, would not impose requirements on local schools, the Tennessean previously reported.
In a statement, small business owner and constituent of Watson, Kelly Fitzgerald, said the bill is "not something legislators should be spending their resources on when there are much larger issues at hand in the current environment."
"We should leave children out of the conversation," she added.
The legislation, if passed, would open the door for policies that could "deprive millions of undocumented students across the country of their right to an education" said the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition in a social media post.
"The ripple effects would be devastating, not only for Tennessee's schools and communities but for our nation's future workforce, economy and core values," read the post.
On Tuesday, April 1, the Senate Finance committee voted 7-4 to advance SB 836. Here's what else to know about the bill and why it has become one of the most fiercely contested pieces of legislation that Tennessee lawmakers are debating this session.
Earlier this month, Fitzgerald joined 20 other business owners in urging Watson to abandon the bill. In a statement, she described the legislation as a "political stunt that's cruel, economically reckless and completely out of step with local values."
"My children are receiving a great education in our public schools, and I want every child to have the same rights and opportunities as mine do," she said. "Do our representatives believe that undocumented children — who had no say in their immigration status — should be denied a public education, even though their families already pay taxes that fund our schools?'
On April 1, over 20 Chattanooga-area businesses condemned the bill, disputing Watson and Lambeth's claims that the bill addresses fiscal concerns. The bill's fiscal note states the proposed legislation may jeopardize federal funding to the state and to local governments, however, exact impacts remain uncertain due to "unknown factors."
In 2023, Tennessee received a total of $3,368,495,310 in federal funding.
"Going after children to deny them an education when he knows it is already paid for by immigrants in our state isn't just cruel — it's unethical, fiscally irresponsible, and politically desperate," said the alliance in a statement.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been critical toward SB 836 and the companion House bill. On Monday, Rep. Jeremy Faison, R-Cosby, sided with Democrats to oppose the bill. House Democratic Caucus Chair John Ray Clemmons, D-Nashville, slammed the bill, calling it a drain on state resources.
"Our country has a broken immigration system. This isn't going to fix it. It's going to discriminate against innocent children who have no idea if they're undocumented or not," Clemmons said. "This is an education bill about punishing innocent children."
Despite both bills firmly advancing in the General Assembly, final votes will likely not fall along party lines reported the Tennessean.
Since being introduced, committee meetings have drawn hundreds of impassioned protestors. One protestor, Lynne McFarland, was arrested by Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers earlier this month and later carried away from her seat and to a patrol car.
Contributing: Melissa Brown
Diana Leyva covers trending news and service journalism for The Tennessean. Contact her at Dleyva@gannett.com or follow her on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, at @_leyvadiana
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Tennessee bill targeting immigrant students draws business backlash
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
12 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But in the Senate, it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. It also provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. But as debate in the state Senate seemed inevitable, dozens of Summit employees and leaders and members of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and labor unions made a big showing as well. The pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a May 12 statement after the vote that a majority of the Iowa Senate 'turned their back on Iowa agriculture.'
Hamilton Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A bill to let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit cleared the North Carolina legislature on Wednesday, however the path to joining the majority of U.S. states with similar laws remains uncertain. The GOP-backed legislation faces a likely veto from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, as well as pushback from a handful of Republicans who voted against the legislation in the state House. House Speaker Destin Hall acknowledged those concerns after Wednesday's vote. 'I would imagine that — math being math — that it's probably a low percentage relative to other bills,' Hall told reporters. If the bill becomes law, North Carolina would become the 30th state in the country to legalize permitless carrying of a concealed handgun, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. The legislation allows for eligible people with valid identification over the age of 18 to carry a concealed handgun. More than half of states with permitless concealed carry set their age limit at 21 and older, while the rest have the legal carrying age at 18, according to the NCSL. Currently, a person must be 21 and older to obtain a concealed handgun permit in North Carolina. To qualify, an applicant must pass a firearms safety training course and not 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun,' according to state law. Approving permitless concealed carry has been a goal of gun-rights activists in North Carolina for years, with House Republicans historically supportive of the idea. Some see it as the next step after Republican lawmakers successfully eliminated the permit system that required sheriffs to conduct character evaluations and criminal history checks for pistol applicants in 2023. Conservative advocates for the bill say it would strengthen Second Amendment rights for North Carolinians. Republican lawmakers also disputed that the bill would make the state more dangerous, as 'law-abiding citizens' would be the only people that would benefit from the permit elimination, not criminals, Republican Rep. Brian Echevarria said. 'Rights to keep and bear arms are constitutionally inseparable,' Echevarria said. 'If a person cannot own a firearm, they cannot bear a firearm.' The bill's passage tees up one of the first opportunities for a likely veto from Stein if he stays aligned with his fellow Democrats in the legislature. Stein has a more powerful veto stamp than his predecessor Roy Cooper , after Republicans lost their House supermajority last year that allowed them to override vetoes and enact their legislative agenda with relative ease. Now, House Republicans would need to count on a Democrat to join in their override efforts. Reaching that goal seems especially daunting, considering all of the present House Democrats — and two Republicans — voted against the bill. The governor's office didn't respond to a request for comment on the legislation, but House Deputy Democratic Leader Cynthia Ball said in a committee Tuesday that Stein was opposed to it. Several Democratic legislators said it would make communities unsafe by loosening who can carry a concealed handgun without training. Democrats also raised issue with the age limit set in the bill, saying it would put guns in the hands of young people who aren't yet mature enough to have one. 'Do you not remember when you were 18? We are prone and so susceptible to peer pressure, we are hotheaded, we are emotional,' Democratic Rep. Tracy Clark said on the House floor after retelling her personal experience of losing two friends in college to gun violence. Those seeking a permit for their concealed handgun — such as for the purpose of traveling with a firearm to a state that requires a permit — would still be able to do so. The bill also heightens the felony punishment for those who assault law enforcement officers or first responders with a firearm. A separate bill that makes gun safety courses available at North Carolina community colleges for people 18 and up passed in a near-unanimous House vote directly after the concealed carry permit repeal legislation was approved. ___ Associated Press writer Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Fox News
18 minutes ago
- Fox News
House advances Trump's $9.4B spending cuts package targeting NPR, PBS, USAID to House-wide vote
President Donald Trump's $9.4 billion spending cuts package survived a key hurdle on Wednesday afternoon, setting the measure up for a final House-wide vote later this week. Trump's proposal, which was introduced as legislation by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., would cut $8.3 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and just over $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes federal funding to NPR and PBS. The House of Representatives made a procedural motion known as a "rule vote," which passed mostly along party lines. The rule passing now allows for debate on the $9.4 billion spending cut measure, followed by a final House-wide vote. But it's not atypical for House leaders to include unrelated measures in rule votes, as is the case with the spending cuts package – House GOP leaders included a provision with minor changes to Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" to account for the Senate needing to amend the bill. That latter piece of legislation, a vast tax and immigration bill, is moving through the budget reconciliation process. By dropping the Senate's threshold for advancement from 60 votes to 51, it allows the party in power to skirt the minority – in this case, Democrats – on vast pieces of legislation, provided they adhere to a specific set of budgetary rules. House GOP leaders said they needed to make the recent changes to the bill to better adhere to the Senate's "Byrd Bath," when the Senate parliamentarian reviews the bill and removes anything not adhering to reconciliation guidelines. Whereas that deals with the government's mandatory spending processes that are more difficult to amend, the $9.4 billion spending cuts package tackles discretionary spending that Congress controls every year. It's called a "rescissions package," which is a formal proposal by the White House to claw back federal funds already allocated for the current fiscal year. Like reconciliation, the mechanism allows for a 51-vote majority in the Senate rather than 60. Congress has 45 days to consider it, or it is deemed rejected. Republican leaders have held up this rescissions package as the first step to codifying the billions of dollars of government waste identified by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Trump allies have also made clear they view this first package as a test of what kind of cuts congressional Republicans can stomach. And while the rule vote was expected to pass, the bill could have trouble ahead of its expected Thursday afternoon vote. Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., pointed out in a bipartisan statement that the media funding represents less than 0.01% of the federal budget and said taking that money away would "dismantle a trusted source of information for millions of Americans." Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told reporters on Tuesday that he got assurances that USAID cuts would exclude critical medical funding. "I feel better than what I was hearing last week, that was gonna be a total cut," he said, without revealing whether he would support the bill.
