Texas House Bill HB1927

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 2/28/11
• Refer: 3/7/11

Caption

Relating to a requirement of lawful presence in the United States for receipt of state educational benefits and to the determination of resident status of and tuition rates for students by public institutions of higher education.

Impact

The implications of HB 1927 are significant, as it would directly affect the residency classifications of students based on their immigration status. By prohibiting state educational benefits for individuals lacking lawful presence, the bill could deter undocumented students from attending public colleges and universities in Texas, thereby impacting their educational opportunities. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is tasked with implementing rules to enforce this requirement, which will apply to tuition and fees starting from the 2011 fall semester.

Summary

House Bill 1927 establishes a requirement for lawful presence in the United States as a condition for receiving state educational benefits and determining tuition rates at public institutions of higher education. The bill mandates that individuals not authorized to be present in the U.S. cannot be classified as residents for the purpose of receiving educational aid or determining tuition fees. This change aims to align educational policy with immigration enforcement and restrict access to state resources for undocumented individuals.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1927 is largely polarized. Supporters of the bill argue that it is a necessary step in ensuring that only those who have legal authorization can access state educational resources, thus motivating compliance with immigration laws. However, opponents view the bill as discriminatory, arguing that it effectively penalizes students for their immigration status, limiting their chances for education and upward mobility. This rift highlights the broader national debate on immigration policy and its intersection with educational access.

Contention

Notable points of contention include discussions on fairness and equity in education. Critics argue that the bill disproportionately impacts minority students and those from immigrant families, potentially leading to a generation of uneducated individuals who are barred from higher education due to the actions of their parents. Proponents, on the other hand, stress the importance of ensuring that taxpayer-funded educational benefits are reserved for legal residents, suggesting that the bill promotes accountability within the educational system.