The student government of Texas A&M University failed to overturn a veto Wednesday night on a student senate bill that would have expressed student disapproval of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.
The bill would have allowed the student government at Texas A&M to lobby state officials on the issue of in-state tuition, and “to clarify what demographics receive in-state tuition and oppose measures to give in-state tuition to persons residing in the United States illegally.”
Earlier this month, the student senate passed the same bill with 61 percent of the vote following debate that drew an unusually large crowd. A&M Student Body President Jacob Robinson vetoed the bill, stating that the bill did not address the root of the immigration issue and overstepped the jurisdiction of the student senate.
“We have a whole branch of our student government association dedicated to state issues, so it’s certainly a legitimate purpose of our organization,” said Justin Pulliam, co-author of the bill and member of the External Affairs committee, which handles relations between the students of A&M and state, federal, and local governments.
“We don’t think it’s right to give automatic in-state tuition to illegal aliens,” he said. “We just don’t think it should be given across the board to illegal aliens while most other American citizens would have to pay a much higher tuition rate.”
According to Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, this type of student action is unusual.
“Most student action has been in favor of in-state tuition by illegal aliens, and that hasn’t had that much effect on state legislatures,” he said. “[But] they’re Americans and their parents are voters, so [the A&M bill could have had] effect than the pro-in-state tuition agitation by illegal immigrants.”
The debate over immigration is already heating up at the state level in Texas. Many state representatives support abolishing in-state tuition benefits for undocumented students on economic grounds. Pulliam pointed to state Rep. Leo Berman (R.-Tyler), who will likely file legislation similar to the A&M bill this spring.
“The $42 million we’re spending on these illegal aliens should be benefits going to Texas students in the form of loans or grants which they aren’t getting,” he said.
In other states, such as Kansas and California, out-of-state students have brought legal action before the courts based on Federal laws regarding in-state tuition. U.S. code section 1623 states that “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit.”
In Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, for instance, the student plaintiffs claim that California’s statute granting illegal aliens the right to attend California universities at in-state rates violates the civil rights of U.S. citizens who live outside the state and must pay out-of-state tuition. The California Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs on Monday, Nov. 15, upholding California law which grants in-state tuition benefits to students, regardless of citizenship, who attend and graduate from high school in California.
California is one of ten states that currently have laws permitting undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at state-funded colleges and universities. In-state tuition is becoming a more significant benefit to students and parents facing a national recession. While the in-state tuition benefit is rarely used by undocumented students in some states, because California and Texas both claim a high population of illegal immigrants, the numbers receiving the benefit each year are higher in both states.
“It’s going to be U.S. citizens and legal residents who are either going to end up less likely to get into these schools or less likely to get tuition subsidies if they’re also shared with illegal aliens,” Krikorian said. “At A&M, what might be a broadly felt sentiment in other schools is more likely to be expressed then at a place like UT (University of Texas) for instance, which is much more left-wing.”
Although in-state tuition remains on the front-lines of the immigration controversy, the Federal government may soon eliminate the section of law providing a basis for lawsuits such as Martinez v. Regents of the University of California.
The DREAM act, a bill first introduced in 2001 and most recently re-proposed by Sen. Richard Durbin (D.-Ill.) earlier this fall, would abolish the penalty to states that provide in-state tuition without regard to immigration status.
Durbin credits student activists, such as the group Campus Progress, with pressuring senators to vote for the bill, which may be brought to a vote before January 3 during the lame duck session or attached as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act next year.
Alicia M. Cohn is a member of the Student Free Press Association.
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.