‘I don't want to drop out': Youth ask Florida GOP to keep in-state tuition for undocumented
At a press conference on Tuesday in front of the Miami-Dade School Board building in downtown Miami, several South Floridians directly pleaded with Gov. Ron DeSantis and Tallahassee legislators to keep the policy in place.
Idalia Quinteros, a first-generation immigrant from El Salvador, said that when she started applying for college, 'it felt like every single door was slammed in my face.' She couldn't apply for financial aid, qualify for most scholarships, take out loans, or get a job without a work permit.
'The light at the end of the tunnel was the in-state tuition waiver. It made college more affordable and gave me the opportunity to pursue my dreams,' said Quinteros, who now has an associate's and a bachelor's degree.
The bipartisan measure, signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott in 2014, adjusted residency requirements for higher-education purposes so that having access to in-state tuition rates was no longer tied to immigration status.
Educators, activists, and community leaders fear that if the policy is repealed thousands of undocumented youth in Florida will no longer be able to afford going to college. About 13,000 undocumented seniors graduate high school in the state annually, according to the President's Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a university leaders' group that advocates for immigrant students and conducts research on the effect of immigration policies on universities. There are also over 43,000 undocumented college students in Florida.
Demands to keep the in-state tuition policy come after Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed state lawmakers in recent weeks to repeal it. Republican legislative leaders have drawn up their own immigration proposal, which DeSantis has criticized, but it includes a provision that would eliminate in-state tuition for undocumented students.
Under the current law, undocumented students in Florida can get a waiver and pay Florida-resident tuition fees at public and state colleges as long as they meet certain requirements. They must have gone to high school in the state for at least three consecutive years and enrolled in college within two years of high school graduation. The 2014 legislation also benefited the children of veterans, students without reliable housing or living in abusive households, and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the immigration program that lets some undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children to work..
READ MORE: Goaded to act by DeSantis, Florida lawmakers rebuke governor, unveil own immigration plan
Florida Lieut. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez, who advocated for the law a decade ago as a state representative, recently said she no longer supports the policy, saying that the U.S. looks 'very different today than it did then.'
'It's time to repeal this law. It has served its purpose and run its course. Florida will not incentivize illegal immigration through this law or any other,' she said said on her X account.
READ MORE: Florida lieutenant governor backs off support of in-state tuition for undocumented students
Advocates disagree.
'What has not changed is that children still need affordable education… What's sad is that they are attacking kids,' said immigration advocate Yareliz Menendez Zamora. Florida Student Power Network, American Friends Service Committee, Seeds of Resistance, and other activist organizations hosted the press conference.
Gaby Pacheco, a Miami immigration advocate that leads TheDream.US, the nation's largest college aid program for undocumented youth, said that the waiver had enabled more than 600 scholarship recipients from their programs to go to college.
'Cutting off Dreamers' opportunities to pursue and afford higher education is not only harmful to their future success, but shortsighted and harmful to Florida's overall future and potential economic growth,' said Pacheco, who came to the U.S. as a child.
Valeria Maldonado, 20, a nursing student at Miami-Dade College who came to the U.S. from El Salvador as a toddler, said that her focus had always been school because of her desire to pursue a career and help her family.
'I am here to ask not only Ron DeSantis but all our representatives across the state to make a real change, and not to hinder my growth, or create more challenges for me to become a professional in the medical field,' said Maldonado. ' I do not want to drop out and nor do my peers.'
Miami Herald staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this story.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
19 minutes ago
- Fox News
Tim Walz leading Dem effort to turn bipartisan group against President Trump: report
Progressive governor and failed vice presidential candidate Tim Walz is leading a Democratic effort to turn one of the country's most influential bipartisan groups against President Donald Trump, according to a report by a mainstream media outlet. Walz, the governor of Minnesota and one-time running mate of former Vice President Kamala Harris, is threatening to pull out of the bipartisan National Governors Association (NGA) over concerns it is not doing enough to push back against Trump, according to The Atlantic. The Atlantic reported that two unnamed people "familiar with the governors' thinking" shared that at least two Democratic governors — Walz and fellow Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly, who is head of the Democratic Governors Association — are opting to stop paying their NGA dues this month. The two governors will not renew their membership in the organization out of frustration with its inaction against perceived violations of states' rights by the Trump administration. The concerns raised included the Office of Management and Budget briefly pausing disbursements of federal funds in January, the clash with Democratic Gov. Janet Mills over transgender athletes and Trump's deployment of the California National Guard to respond to the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. The outlet reported three other unnamed sources saying that Walz and Kelly are not alone and that the offices of other Democratic governors are similarly frustrated with the NGA. One of the unnamed sources said "when you are also paying dues with taxpayer dollars, it has got to be worth it, and they are going to have to demonstrate that. Right now, they are not doing that," the outlet reported. The source also claimed "there have been ongoing concerns about the NGA among the Democratic governors and staff, off and on, for years." The NGA has existed as a forum for bipartisan collaboration among governors since 1908. The organization lists all 50 governors as well as leaders of five U.S. territories as members. Eric Wohlschlegel, NGA communications director, told Fox News Digital the group "exists to bring governors from both parties together around shared priorities." Amid the Walz-led controversy, Wohlschlegel said NGA's "mission hasn't changed." "Every public statement NGA issues reflects bipartisan consensus," he said. "So far this year, all but one statement has had that consensus, and when governors don't agree, we simply don't issue one. That's how we preserve our role as a bipartisan convener, a principle we won't compromise." A source familiar with the situation blamed the controversy on "Democratic infighting, unspoken campaign jockeying and a few anonymous voices looking to reshape a nonpartisan institution into a political one." That source pointed out that, despite all the noise about controversy, the NGA's summer meeting in Colorado Springs this weekend is expected to have "record turnout" with 13 Republican and seven Democratic leaders attending. They also noted that "no governors are on the record expressing discontent with the NGA. No allegations of misconduct, governance failure or mismanagement have been raised." "What's behind the noise?" the source added. "There's an internal power struggle currently and no consensus among Democrats right now on how to lead, how to message or how to govern in a divided environment. "Several Democratic governors are vying for national attention, testing messages for future campaigns rather than collaborating on consensus governance," the source added. "The NGA's bipartisan model is working exactly as it's supposed to. "When a party can't agree with itself, it becomes easy to take shots at bipartisan institutions that don't serve short-term political goals." Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, the outgoing NGA chair, and Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, the incoming chair, for comment on the Walz mutiny. Though not addressing the controversy directly, Conor Cahill, a spokesperson for Polis, told Fox News Digital the governor "has been honored" to lead the NGA and to "work across the aisle with governors on education, permitting reform, standing up to federal efforts to strip away gubernatorial authority around the National Guard and elevating the priorities of states." He added that "during this polarizing time, bipartisan organizations are needed more than ever, and NGA must continue to demonstrate value to all governors and effectively communicate governors' opinions on various matters with the public and the federal government." Abegail Cave, a spokesperson for Sitt, who will become NGA chair this weekend, told Fox News Digital "people seem to forget NGA is a bipartisan organization, not a political one." "Coming to bipartisan consensus is difficult, but governors from across the political spectrum are addressing the real challenges facing Americans every day," Cave said. She said that Stitt "looks forward to leading this organization and finding more areas of collaboration in the coming year." Fox News Digital also reached out to the offices of Walz and Kelly but did not receive responses by the time of publication.
The Verge
19 minutes ago
- The Verge
Paramount-Skydance merger approved after companies agree to government speech demands
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved Skydance's $8 billion purchase of CBS-owner Paramount after the companies agreed to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs but feature a 'diversity of viewpoints from across the political and ideological spectrum.' In light of the Trump administration's critiques of CBS's alleged anti-conservative bias — including collecting a $16 million settlement over the president's lawsuit over an allegedly deceptively edited video of then-Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes — the companies' commitment to address bias in the lawsuit likely means featuring more conservative programming. Skydance agreed to employ an ombudsman for at least two years, 'who will receive and evaluate any complaints of bias or other concerns involving CBS.' 'Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly. It is time for a change,' Republican FCC Chair Brendan Carr said in a statement announcing the agency's approval. 'That is why I welcome Skydance's commitment to make significant changes at the once storied CBS broadcast network.' He said the commitments 'would enable CBS to operate in the public interest and focus on fair, unbiased, and fact-based coverage,' and mark 'another step forward in the FCC's efforts to eliminate invidious forms of DEI discrimination.' Carr also boasts that Skydance 'reaffirms its commitment to localism as a core component of the public interest standard,' and that the approval will 'unleash the investment of $1.5 billion into Paramount.' Carr has made no secret of his distaste for news coverage he sees as disproportionately unfavorable to the right and DEI policies he believes contribute to unfair treatment. He's opened investigations into all three major networks as well as NPR and PBS (NBCUniversal and its owner Comcast are investors in The Verge parent company Vox Media). A week ago, CBS announced it was retiring The Late Show, hosted by Trump critic and comedian Stephen Colbert. The network said it was 'purely a financial decision.' The FCC's only remaining Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, dissented, writing that, 'In an unprecedented move, this once-independent FCC used its vast power to pressure Paramount to broker a private legal settlement and further erode press freedom … Even more alarming, it is now imposing never-before-seen controls over newsroom decisions and editorial judgment, in direct violation of the First Amendment and the law.' Still, she gave Carr credit for calling a vote on the matter, rather than rubber-stamping the merger through one of the agency's bureaus, like it did for the Verizon-Frontier merger, which similarly required an end to DEI programs. Gomez warns that this agreement is just the canary in the coal mine. 'The Paramount payout and this reckless approval have emboldened those who believe the government can—and should—abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage,' she writes. 'It is a dark chapter in a long and growing record of abuse that threatens press freedom in this country. But such violations endure only when institutions choose capitulation over courage. It is time for companies, journalists, and citizens alike to stand up and speak out, because unchecked and unquestioned power has no rightful place in America.' Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Lauren Feiner Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Business Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Entertainment Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Film Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Policy Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Streaming Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All TV Shows
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
US appeals court makes decision on landmark California ammunition background checks case
A divided federal appeals court on Thursday said California's first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In a 2-1 vote, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California upheld a lower court judge's permanent injunction against enforcing the law. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said the law 'meaningfully constrains' people's right to keep and bear arms. Advertisement The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, Calif. declared a law that requires gun owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition in California unconstitutional. Getty Images She also said California failed to show the law was consistent with the country's historical tradition of firearm regulation as required under a 2022 landmark US Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. 'By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,' Ikuta wrote. Advertisement The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who defended the law, was disappointed by the decision. 'Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options,' a spokesperson said. The office of California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has called the January 2024 injunction 'extremist, illogical, and incoherent,' had no immediate comment. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said hte law 'meaningfully constrains' citizens' right to bear arms. REUTERS Advertisement All three judges on Thursday's panel were appointed by Republican presidents, though appointees of Democratic presidents hold a 9th Circuit majority. California can ask an 11-judge appeals court panel or the Supreme Court to review the decision. 'Overreaching The plaintiffs included Kim Rhode, who has won three Olympic gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. In a joint statement, the group's president and general counsel Chuck Michel called the decision a victory against 'overreaching government gun control,' while Rhode called it 'a big win for all gun owners in California.' Advertisement Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Many gun rights groups and 24 mostly Republican-led US states submitted briefs supporting the law's opponents, while a few gun safety groups sided with California. Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, in a statement said California's law imposed a 'minimal burden'–a $1 fee and one-minute delay–for most firearms owners seeking ammunition. 'Background checks for ammunition sales are common sense,' she said. Voters had in 2016 approved a California ballot measure requiring gun owners to undergo initial background checks to buy ammunition, and buy four-year ammunition permits. Legislators later amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase. California said it received 191 reports in 2024 of 'armed and prohibited individuals' who were blocked through background checks from buying ammunition. Law not 'Heavy-Handed,' dissent says Advertisement The injunction was issued by US District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego, who has ruled in several cases in favor of gun owners. An appeals court panel put the injunction on hold during California's appeal. California said several old firearms restrictions supported the background checks. These included colonial era rules requiring licenses to produce gunpowder, the disarmament around 1776 of people who refused to take 'loyalty oaths,' and late-19th century rules requiring government permission to carry concealed weapons. Advertisement Circuit Judge Jay Bybee dissented from Thursday's decision. He accused the majority of flouting Supreme Court guidance by effectively declaring unlawful any limits on ammunition sales, given the unlikelihood a state can point to identical historical analogues. The law 'is not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms,' Bybee wrote. Advertisement President George W. Bush appointed Ikuta and Bybee to the bench, while President Donald Trump appointed Circuit Judge Bridget Bade, who joined Thursday's majority. The case is Rhode v Bonta et al, 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-542.
