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

What will Trump's new homelessness executive order mean for California?
What will Trump's new homelessness executive order mean for California?

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What will Trump's new homelessness executive order mean for California?

An executive action taken by President Donald Trump on Thursday, aiming to push cities and states to remove homeless people from the streets, could make California governments' ability to secure Federal funding contingent on taking such steps and changing the state's current approach to homelessness. Trump signed an order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek to reverse federal and state judicial precedents and end consent decrees that limit local and state governments' ability to move homeless people from streets and encampments into treatment centers. The move, first reported by USA TODAY, also redirects federal funds to ensure the homeless people impacted are transferred to rehabilitation, treatment, and other facilities, though it was unclear how much money would be allocated. Here's what to know about Trump's executive order on removing homeless people from the streets. More: In major decision, Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps What did Trump's executive order say? Under the order ‒ which the White House has titled "Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets" ‒ Bondi is also required to work with the secretaries of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Transportation to prioritize federal grants to states and cities that "enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering, and urban squatting, and track the location of sex offenders." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, in a statement to USA TODAY, said Trump is "delivering on his commitment to Make America Safe Again and end homelessness across America." "By removing vagrant criminals from our streets and redirecting resources toward substance abuse programs, the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe in their own communities and that individuals suffering from addiction or mental health struggles are able to get the help they need," Leavitt said. More: The average American is closer to being homeless than being Elon Musk What order may mean for California In recent years, California has become a national poster child for the issue of homelessness, the challenges it poses and the difficulty governments can have with meaningfully addressing it. The US Senate Housing Committee reported earlier this year that a recent homeless count found that just over 187,000 people were homeless in California. That represented a 3% increase from the year before, less than the 18% increase observed nationwide. But it was still the highest homeless population of any state and accounted for 28% of the homeless people in America, while the state makes up just 11.7% of the population. The report also said that 66% of homeless people were "unsheltered," the highest percentage in the nation. In recent years, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has made several efforts to help — and, increasingly, push — cities in the state to address issues with homelessness and people living without shelter. In 2023, the state made $1 billion in funding available through grants to communities to address homelessness. A year later, urged cities to take action to make homeless encampments illegal in their cities and take action to move people off their streets and provide them with shelter and services. Earlier this year, he released a "model ordinance" that he encouraged cities to use as a template for passing their own laws banning camping in their cities. "There's nothing compassionate about letting people die on the streets," Newsom said in a statement he issued at the time he released the model ordinance. "Local leaders asked for resources — we delivered the largest state investment in history. They asked for legal clarity — the courts delivered. Now, we're giving them a model they can put to work immediately, with urgency and with humanity, to resolve encampments and connect people to shelter, housing, and care." Trump's order pushes for many of the same approaches and aims Newsom has advocated for, while making the government's eligibility for Federal grant money contingent on communities taking steps to get people off the street and into treatment and showing success in doing so. The order says that eligibility for grants will be based on cities and states' ending "housing first" policies. Such policies emphasize an approach to addressing homelessness focused on getting unhoused people into permanent housing as a first step to successfully transitioning them out of homelessness. All California housing programs have been required to adopt a "housing-first" model since 2016, with a bill that would've ended that requirement failing to advance out of committee earlier this year. On Thursday, a spokesperson for Newsom criticized the order to KQED, saying it was based on "harmful stereotypes and ineffective policy" in comparison to Newsom's executive order on encampments that she said had been based on the law and facts. But she also said that Trump's imitation of Newsom (even poorly executed) is the highest form of flattery. Trump's action follows major Supreme Court decision on homeless camps Trump's action comes after the Supreme Court ruled in June 2024 that that people without homes can be arrested and fined for sleeping in public spaces, overturning a lower court's ruling that enforcing camping bans when shelter is lacking is cruel and unusual punishment. The 6-3 decision, split among ideological lines in the conservative-majority court, upheld a ban in Grant Pass, Oregon, prohibiting homeless residents from sleeping outdoors. Homeless residents of the southern Oregon city of 38,000 face fines starting at $250 and jail time for repeat offenses. More: Homelessness rates jumped by double digits in 2024 as Americans battled to afford housing In a statement, the National Homelessness Law Center condemned Trump's order, characterizing it as misguided at best, and counterproductive and dangerous at worst. "The safest communities are those with the most housing and resources, not those that make it a crime to be poor or sick," said Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center. 'As a licensed mental health professional, I know that forced treatment is unethical, ineffective, and illegal." "People need stable housing and access to healthcare," Rabinowitz said. Rather, Trump's actions will force more people into homelessness, divert taxpayer money away from people in need, and make it harder for local communities to solve homelessness." Across the U.S., more than 771,800 people lived without housing in 2024, according to a HUD count taken annually on a single night in January. It was the highest tally ever recorded, a 18.1% jump than in 2023, when officials counted about 650,000 people living in homeless shelters or in parks and on streets. Many cities have struggled to build more affordable housing in recent years, while some communities have pushed for harsher laws banning tents and sleeping in public spaces. More: The homeless population is increasing. Will Trump's second term make it worse? Trump has often expressed his distaste of homeless camps, singling out the removal of encampments on parks and federal land in Washington as a priority. Trump, in a 2023 campaign video, said: "We will use every tool, lever, and authority to get the homeless off our streets. We want to take care of them, but they have to be off our streets.' Other items in Trump's order include language that seeks to ensure that grants intended for substance use disorder prevention and recovery don't fund drug injection sites or illicit drug use. The order also prohibits convicted sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance from being housed with children and supports new homeless programs to exclusively house women and children. Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison. Paul Albani-Burgio covers growth, development and business in the Coachella Valley. Email him at This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: How Trump homelessness order could impact California Solve the daily Crossword

Examining reports Texas man who moved family to Russia died in Ukraine war
Examining reports Texas man who moved family to Russia died in Ukraine war

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Examining reports Texas man who moved family to Russia died in Ukraine war

In late July 2025, amid high media interest in Derek Huffman, a Texas man who moved his family to Russia to escape LGBTQ+ values in the U.S., a claim (archived) circulated online that Huffman had died in combat after enlisting in the Russian armed forces. One X user wrote, "American Derek Huffman, who fled to russia over 'LGBT propaganda,' was killed on the front lines by a drone strike." The user attributed the claim to The Maltese Herald, a news site from Malta that ran the story on July 23, 2025. The claim also circulated on Facebook (archived), Instagram (archived), Threads (archived), Bluesky (archived), Reddit (archived) and TikTok (archived). Snopes readers searched our page, asking whether the claim was true. We found no evidence Huffman had died in combat at the time of this writing. The Huffman Time YouTube channel, where the family documented their move to Russia, told several commenters on July 24 that Derek Huffman was alive. We also found no evidence of a reported video showing Huffman's death. DeAnna Huffman, Derek Huffman's wife, told Snopes via email on July 25 that "we are not doing any interviews or answering any questions at this time." A U.S. State Department spokesperson said the department was "aware of unconfirmed media reports of a U.S. citizen killed in Ukraine," and reiterated a warning against U.S. citizens traveling to Russia. We also reached out to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to confirm whether Derek Huffman had died in combat and await a reply. The claim appeared to stem from a July 23 report in The Maltese Herald. That report, which the Herald has since updated, claimed Derek Huffman died in a drone strike on the front lines of the Russia-Ukraine war. It further claimed that footage of Huffman's death circulated online, but did not provide any links. We reached out to The Maltese Herald to ask why it initially believed the story to be true and await a reply. The updated version of the Herald's report included screenshots of the Huffman Time YouTube channel, run by DeAnna Huffman in her husband's absence, denying reports of his death. Despite this, the report still included the sentence "Derek Huffman, the US citizen from Texas, has been confirmed killed on the Ukrainian front lines by a drone strike." The Maltese Herald also had not updated an X post (archived) that claimed Derek Huffman died in combat. DeAnna Huffman, via the Huffman Time YouTube Channel, replied to a comment on July 24 reading, "Update: Derek has passed," writing in a series of comments: Why are you here lying? He's with his unit and for safety, not allowed to. Let people talk and lie. We know the truth, and when safe, it will eventually be widely seen. Yes, I understand you believe everything that the news says… and my husband and I have been laughing about it. You're more than welcome to believe the lies. Huffman said her husband was "alive and well." We found no reports in Russian media about Derek Huffman dying. On July 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov told Russian state media he had not previously heard about Huffman joining the armed forces but that it was possible for foreigners to volunteer. Snopes previously reported that Huffman enlisted with the Russian armed forces as a way to secure Russian citizenship for his family. Huffman said he moved himself, his wife and three daughters from Texas to Russia in order to escape LGBTQ+ values in the U.S. "Anti-Woke Dad Who Moved Family to Russia Sent to War Zone." The Daily Beast, 20 Jul. 2025, Bennetts, Marc. Texan Who Fled 'Woke' America Has Been Sent to Putin's Front Line. 22 Jul. 2025, "Derek Huffman Confirmed Killed by a Drone Strike." The Maltese Herald, 23 Jul. 2025, Huffman Time. "Girls Show Their Art, Summer Hats & Russian Life Updates 🇷🇺 | Big News & Fun Moments!" YouTube, 15 Jul. 2025, Reyes, Ronny. American Who Joined Russian Army to Escape "woke" US Has Been Sent to the Frontlines, Wife Says. 22 Jul. 2025, "Песков прокомментировал данные о добровольце из США Хаффмане на СВО." TACC, Accessed 25 Jul. 2025.

Federal judge dismisses Trump administration's lawsuit against Chicago over its sanctuary city policies
Federal judge dismisses Trump administration's lawsuit against Chicago over its sanctuary city policies

NBC News

time41 minutes ago

  • NBC News

Federal judge dismisses Trump administration's lawsuit against Chicago over its sanctuary city policies

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by the Trump administration that sought to block the enforcement of several "sanctuary policies" in Illinois that restricted the ability of local officials to aid federal immigration authorities in detainment operations. In a 64-page decision, District Court Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, a Biden appointee, granted a motion by the state of Illinois to dismiss the case after determining the United States lacks standing to sue over the sanctuary policies. The judge noted in the ruling that Illinois' decision to enact the sanctuary laws are protected by the 10th amendment, which declares that any powers not specifically given to the federal government, or denied to the states, by the Constitution, are retained by the states. 'The Sanctuary Policies reflect Defendants' decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law—a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by the [Immigration and Nationality Act],' the judge wrote. 'Because the Tenth Amendment protects Defendants' Sanctuary Policies, those Policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.' The federal judge wrote that granting the administration's request would create an "end-run around the Tenth Amendment." 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment.' Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker praised the dismissal, which he said will ensure state law enforcement is "not carrying out the Trump administration's unlawful policies or troubling tactics." "As state law allows, Illinois will assist the federal government when they follow the law and present warrants to hold violent criminals accountable. But what Illinois will not do is participate in the Trump administration's violations of the law and abuses of power," Pritzker said in a statement. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump Justice Department sued the state of Illinois and Cook County, the home of Chicago, in February for policies it argued infringed on the ability of federal authorities to enforce immigration laws, the first lawsuit by the administration aimed specifically at targeting "sanctuary jurisdictions," a label applied to states, cities, counties or municipalities that establish laws to prevent or limit local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. In the 22-page lawsuit, filed days after Attorney General Pam Bondi was confirmed by the Senate, the Justice Department sought to block state, city and county ordinances that prohibit local law enforcement from assisting the federal government with civil immigration enforcement absent a criminal warrant. Bondi said the policies "obstruct" the federal government. 'The challenged provisions of Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County law reflect their intentional effort to obstruct the Federal Government's enforcement of federal immigration law and to impede consultation and communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out federal immigration law and keep Americans safe,' the lawsuit indicates. The administration has taken similar action to target sanctuary jurisdictions across the country, including a lawsuit this week against New York City, which was described by the Justice Department as 'the vanguard of interfering with enforcing this country's immigration laws' in a complaint filed on Thursday. The administration filed a separate lawsuit targeting New York state in February over it's 'Green Light Law,' which enables undocumented immigrants to apply for noncommercial driver's licenses and bars state officials from turning over that data to federal immigration authorities. The Justice Department in June filed a complaint against Los Angeles for immigration policies it argued interfere and discriminate against federal immigration agents by treating them differently from other law enforcement agents in the state. The suit came as Trump administration officials increasingly sparred with California Democratic leaders after immigration detainment efforts in the state led to clashes between protesters and federal authorities, and resulted in the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops. In January, Trump signed an executive order directing Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions 'do not receive access to federal funds' and to consider pursuing criminal or civil penalties if localities 'interfere with the enforcement of Federal law.' A federal judge in April blocked the effort to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, finding that Trump's order violated the Constitution's separation of powers principles. That judge blocked an earlier effort by Trump in 2017.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store