in-state tuition | Texas Grizzlette

The first week of pre-filing for the 83rd Legislative Session is over, and there are already a number of high-profile bills in the works. After skimming the headlines and the already lengthy lists of House and Senate bills, here – in no particular order – are a few interesting or important ones I’m following. Perhaps surprisingly, I’m on the fence about most of them.

Drug testing for welfare recipients. Safety nets are there to catch people – temporarily. In Texas, we value self-sufficiency and design welfare programs to help those in unfortunate circumstances get back on their feet. Refusing benefits like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (which can be used to pay for just about anything) to drug users is certainly a reasonable concept. First, it ensures taxpayer dollars are not used for illegal drugs. Second, it discourages behavior that will prevent people from becoming self-sufficient.

As with most legislative issues, this one is all about the money. The Dallas Morning News notes that Florida’s drug testing program cost more than it saved in denied benefits. This doesn’t take into account the Floridians who may not have applied because they knew they would fail the test, but it’s definitely worth considering. If Texas implements a similar policy, funding needs to be weighed carefully.

SB 11, Nelson

Repealing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. I’ve written in support of in-state tuition before. I’ve always said it’s a policy I can live with, but not necessarily something I would advocate.

Honestly, I’m not sure where I stand this time. It’s a difficult ethical issue. Of course we want children who were brought here illegally through no fault of their own to become productive Americans. At the same time, we don’t want to incentivize illegal immigration. The bill to provide in-state tuition to certain illegal immigrants passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. It will be interesting to see if the tables turn in 2013.

HB 122, Larson

Prohibiting abortion-inducing drugs. If it isn’t already, Texas is well on its way to becoming the most pro-life state in the nation. (What can I say? We like being the best.) Once again, Senator Dan Patrick is leading the charge with this bill further limiting medical abortions.

SB 97, Patrick

Sales tax breaks for college textbooks. Among Senator Zaffirini’s 30-plus bills is one college students would love, making the textbook-buying process just a little less painful. She’s filed similar bills at least twice before, but they were lost among more pressing issues.

The bill has a few gaping holes, though. The exemption only lasts for two weeks each semester. This not only penalizes ~~lazy bums~~ students who purchase their books late, but also those who choose to get their books early so they can get a sense of what their classes will be like and arrange them several times on their bookshelf in alphabetical order, then height order, then class order. (Not that I’ve done this…) It also doesn’t apply to textbook rentals.

SB 46, Zaffirini

“Climate adaptation plans” for state agencies. Senator Rodney Ellis wants 11 state agencies to create new coalitions to address global warming.

Really. Because there aren’t any more pressing issues to discuss.

SB 78, Ellis

Protecting job applicants’ social media privacy. I don’t often promote Democrats’ bills, but I firmly believe Senator Chuy Hinojosa is on the right track with this bill, which would prohibit employers from accessing job applicants’ or employees’ social network accounts. It’s the 21st-century equivalent of demanding to read someone’s private emails or mail (something I hope most people would find outrageous).

Facebook, Twitter, Google+, et al have privacy settings for a reason. Facebook’s own policies state that users should not give out their passwords under any circumstances. It’s perfectly reasonable for employers to access public social media information, but demanding to see private content is not only intrusive, it could reveal information such as religion, political affiliation, or relationship status that could improperly influence hiring decisions.

SB 118, Hinojosa

Texting and driving. It’s baaaaack! It’s hard to tell people you’re against banning texting and driving. “But what about all the lives that could be saved?” they ask. And while it’s true that texting and driving is a really stupid thing to do, I don’t think the state should criminalize it for two reasons. One, the law already addresses distracted driving in general. Two, it’s almost unenforceable without serious privacy violations. Police officers could pull someone over for something as subtle as looking down or a glow from a screen at night. Without going through the person’s text messages – actually, all their apps – it would be next to impossible to know whether the person was actually texting or just typing in a phone number, adjusting their GPS, or checking the time, if they were using their phone at all.

If cities and towns want to ban texting and driving, that’s up to them. Several already have. But, in Governor Perry’s words, Texas should not micromanage competent adults’ behavior.

SB 28, Zaffirini / HB 27, Martinez Fischer / HB 41, Menendez / HB 63, Craddick / HB 69, Lucio / HB 108, Harless

Combining driver’s licenses and concealed handgun licenses. This bill would allow CHL holders to opt for a special driver’s license rather than a separate CHL card. I definitely understand the concept of making the licensing process more efficient (and making it easier on licensees). Folks over at the Texas CHL Forum have expressed concern over privacy, but I think the idea has merit, particularly since it’s optional.

HB 158, Taylor

High school courses on the Constitution. This one’s a no-brainer. Students need to understand our country’s foundation and system of government, and your average high school history course doesn’t cut it. (Trust me, I know. Elvis Presley and Paul McCartney got far more coverage in my AP U.S. History book than the Declaration of Independence.)

HB 49, Flynn

And at least one yet to be filed: Concealed carry on campus. With Senator Jeff Wentworth defeated by my very favorite incoming legislator, Dr. Donna Campbell, it’s unclear who will author the Senate bill. Either way, you can be sure this issue will come up this session.

What bills are you following?

This post was written for The New Texas Forum, a project of the Republican Party of Texas. It will also appear in the Forum’s first print edition of the academic year.

Have you heard? “The government is subsidizing illegal immigration! The Texas DREAM Act grants amnesty! Illegal immigrants are going to college for FREE!”

Hold your horses, folks. These statements, which are hurled at Gov. Rick Perry from both sides of the political spectrum, are simply not true.

In-state tuition for illegal immigrants is a hard policy to argue because it rests on such a thin line between supporting education and rewarding law-breaking. Admittedly, the governor didn’t argue the case well when he said opponents of this policy “don’t have a heart.” (He’s since recanted that statement.) But the people of Texas and the law support it and, when you know the truth, the policy is really not as controversial as it sounds.

Let’s start with the facts.

Those officially qualified as residents of the state of Texas are eligible for reduced in-state tuition rates at public universities. Resident status, as defined by the Texas Education Code §54.052 and §54.053, requires the following:

Citizens must have lived in Texas for a minimum of three years and have graduated from a Texas high school.
Non-citizens must have lived in Texas for a minimum of three years, have graduated from a Texas high school, and commit to starting the process of obtaining legal citizenship.

It’s that simple.

Critics say it’s a policy Texans don’t support. But it was overwhelmingly passed by the state legislature in 2001 with just five dissenting votes out of the 181 members in both houses. If that isn’t a majority, and a bipartisan one at that, I don’t know what is.

Other skeptics say it creates an unmanageable drain in tuition dollars and costs taxpayers millions. But in the 2010 fiscal year, only about 16,476 students out of 1.3 million, most at two-year community colleges, took the reduced rates. That’s about one percent – hardly a takeover of the public education system. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board estimated that, “assuming many of these students would enroll in less expensive schools or drop out altogether if faced with higher tuition costs,” the state would actually lose almost $92 million if the policy were repealed.

Still others say it’s the equivalent of amnesty. This is the one point that makes my internal alarm begin to chirp. I do not and will never condone illegal immigration or amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form – but the fact is, many of these students were brought to the U.S. by their parents. They are committing themselves to furthering their education, making a better life for themselves, and becoming productive citizens. This policy makes the best of a bad situation.

In the words of Geoffrey Tahuahua, Texas state chair of Students for Rick Perry, “Rather than allowing these kids to be a burden on the system, it’s better to encourage them to become educated contributors to our economy and our society.”

And Texas is not the only state to offer in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. According to CNN, California, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin have similar policies (though Wisconsin’s may be set to expire this year).

Bottom line, in-state tuition facilitates the education of young people and commits them to obtaining citizenship. That’s the crucial piece of the puzzle.

Finally, in-state tuition is just that: a state issue. Not once has Governor Perry advocated for the federal government or other states to adopt this policy. He has yet to indicate that he would do so as President. The fact is, this policy is legal, and it has no real negative consequences. Until the border is actually secured, I can see no reason to repeal this law.

You may not like it, but it works for Texas. And as y’all know, it’s never a good idea to mess with Texas.

Texas Grizzlette

Politics. Social media. Texas.

Tag Archives: in-state tuition

Perry’s in-state tuition works for Texas