Undocumented student bill passes 8-7 in TN House committee

Yahoo

08-04-2025

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.