Confusion continues across Texas college campuses after the state issued guidance on a recent court ruling that ended in-state tuition for many undocumented students. Advocates say the proposed rules fail to clarify key questions about who remains eligible.
As reported by The Texas Tribune, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board released proposed rules following a June federal court decision that significantly curtailed the Texas Dream Act, a law that had allowed undocumented students living in the state to pay in-state tuition. The ruling now requires students to prove they are “lawfully present” in the U.S. to qualify for in-state rates, but how that term is defined remains unclear.
Student advocates warn the lack of specificity is causing institutions to misinterpret the law, wrongly denying in-state tuition to students who qualify. Some colleges have issued guidance or updated websites incorrectly, suggesting students protected under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are no longer eligible, despite state lawyers confirming in court filings that DACA recipients meet the new criteria.
“The rules don’t help at all. They create even more confusion,” said Julieta Garibay, co-founder of United We Dream, as quoted by The Texas Tribune. “You’re just going to have, again, more people getting wrongly denied.”
Among the missteps, Blinn College in central Texas incorrectly stated DACA students must pay out-of-state tuition, a claim it has since retracted. Laredo College similarly issued a policy disqualifying DACA recipients, according to the Laredo Morning Times.
Barbara Hines, a co-author of the original Texas Dream Act, emphasized the urgency for clarity. “If I’m a student, I’m reading what is on the web pages of these schools,” she told The Texas Tribune. “That’s why it’s so important that the web pages be updated and make clear that lawfully present students need to meet the exact same requirements that they did before.”
Concerns Over Lawful Presence
The Coordinating Board’s proposal suggests colleges use the Core Residency Questionnaire to evaluate eligibility, and allows schools to request “reasonable documentation,” without defining what constitutes that standard. The lack of a clear definition of “lawful presence” has drawn concern from legal and policy experts.
Kristin Etter, director of policy and legal services for the Texas Immigration Law Council, warned that the proposed rules may not only be insufficient but potentially harmful.
“At the end of the day, it’s the student who now has to… worry about getting all of their personal information handed over into an armed law enforcement agency,” Etter told The Texas Tribune. “All of their most sensitive information, about themselves, about their family, so they can access higher education in Texas.”
Advocates also objected to the board’s proposal to eliminate undocumented students’ eligibility for tuition waivers. “It was the only lifeline that students had after the 24-year-old law was taken away,” said Garibay.
Economic Impact of Policy Shift
Without access to in-state tuition or waivers, some may be forced to drop out. Despite this, Charles W. Contéro-Puls, assistant commissioner for student financial aid at the coordinating board, stated in the proposal that repealing the Dream Act would have no impact on the state’s economy.
That conclusion contradicts a recent analysis by the American Immigration Council, which estimates the policy shift could cost Texas more than $461 million annually in lost wages and spending power. “Obviously rolling it back is going to negatively impact Texas,” said Chelsie Kramer, director of Texans for Economic Growth. “We’ve shown that time and time again.”
