The Texas Legislature will convene on January 14 and end on June 2. Our elected representatives have already begun filing bills, and, if you want to keep up with them, you're already behind. Well, I am behind. I decided a few weeks ago that it was time (well past time, I'm sure) to start paying attention to what the Texas Legislature is doing. Now that my fellow Americans have decided to send an <authoritarian> to the White House, I can't rely on wiser heads to counter the <voting choices> of my fellow Texans, who keep sending <practitioners of non-social behaviors> and/or <persons with narrow points of view> back to Austin. Whether I can keep up with all the <ill will> and <contradictory value systems> remains to be seen. This, however, is my beginning.
To begin, I have created a tracking list of bills that I think either proactively support or violate human rights. I am using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as my measuring stick either way. I started my review of the bills filed in the Texas House (I haven't gotten to the Senate yet), and I have selected an initial 18 for tracking. (More will be selected as I have time to continue reading.)
- HB 156 - Water quality protection, disaster preparedness
- HB 157 - Water quality report
- *HB 160 - Requires federal authorization for residence to receive in-state tuition
- HB 164 - Regulations for migrant labor housing
- *HB 167 - Prohibits DEI considerations in contracts with government entities
- *HB 168 - Minimum age to marry
- *HB 174 - Childcare services, disabilities, discrimination
- *HB 178 - Requires ethnic studies public schools
- *HB 179 - Statute of limitations for child abuse claims
- HB 180 - International border control
- HB 182 - Rest breaks for contractors with public entities
- *HB 183 - Library book review and criteria for acceptance
- *HB 186 - Prohibition of social media accounts under age 18
- *HB 190 - Eligibility for reduced/free tuition for pre-K
- HB 193 - Increase minimum wage to $15
- *HB 194 - Standards for faith-based child care
- *HB 196 - Add instruction to public schools about life at conception
- *HB 197 - Conditional expansion of Medicaid
Several of these bills--marked with an asterisk--deal with schools, children, and youth. The UDHR is particularly concerned with protecting children from exploitation for adult purposes and guaranteeing access to education. Regardless of how "simple" or "benign" they may seem, each bill can lead to further implications for the future welfare of the children and youth of this state.
Consider HB 160, filed by Terri Leo-Wilson, from Galveston, which removes certain criteria for establishing residency in order to qualify for "in-state" tuition at Texas institutions of higher education and adds the prohibition that "a person who is not authorized under federal statute to be present in the United States may not be considered a resident of this state for purposes of this title." The bill seems fair on its surface, the implication being that "in-state" tuition is substantially cheaper than "out-of-state" tuition and that the difference in those rates is subsidized by the taxpayers of Texas. The catch is that, if you live in Texas (or even just pass through it), you pay Texas taxes. Renters (and hotel customers) contribute to property taxes. Drivers pay fuel taxes. Shoppers--for food, for clothes, for toothpaste, etc.--pay sales taxes.
If the bill is not about fairness in funding, then it could be about the legalities of immigration. The basic requirement (unchanged) is one-year of continuous residence in Texas by the student--or a parent of the student--prior to the "census date of the academic term." The bills adds a new layer of regulation to the basic residence requirement by requiring that the student (without reference to their parents) be "authorized under federal statute" to reside somewhere in the United States. Presumably all students who claim to be Texas residents would have to prove their citizenship or federally recognized status as legal residents of the US as an additional condition of accepting their qualification for "in-state" tuition. Is it ironic to see a Republican legislator want to add more government regulations?
Perhaps the bill is really about what it takes away--the current provision that, if a student graduates from a Texas high school and that student's parents have been resident in Texas for the previous three years, then the student will be eligible for "in-state" tuition. Those students will likely have been brought to the US by their parents while they were still minors. Those students would likely not have made their own decision to become undocumented residents of the US. They would have crossed the border under their parents' supervision--or overstayed their parents' visas in the same circumstances--too young to understand the law or to control their own movements.
Bills like HB 160 have been introduced in previous sessions, so this legislative proposal is not new. The language to be removed became law following the 79th legislative session, when Senator Judith Zaffirini's SB 1528 was passed. Since then, at least two attempts have been made to delete the section allowing undocumented children who graduate from a Texas high school to qualify for in-state tuition and substitute the federal documentation requirement: 84R HB 2912 and 87R HB 1486. I have no idea how much of an effort Leo-Wilson will make in order to pass this bill. It may simply be an intimidation tactic by her party--or performance for the conservative voting base.
However, the effect of this bill, while ostensibly affecting all Texas residents--federally documented or otherwise--making them subject to the same requirements (one year of residence, federally approved presence in the US), does not comply with the UDHR requirement that "higher education shall be equally accessible on the basis of merit." This bill would require higher tuition from students who may have lived most of their lives in Texas, who came to the state as minor children without the power to decide where they lived, whose parents paid taxes with every purchase made in Texas. As a nation, we seem to have accepted that there can be different costs associated with different levels of commitment or participation--we are very much a no-free-lunch society in our attitudes--but creating an additional barrier to education for children--even college-age children--goes against the notion of "equal access on the basis of merit." For me, this bill is unethical. It seeks to financially penalize and diminish the dignity of young humans on the basis of circumstances beyond their control.
For more information about the policy affected by this bill, see Higher Ed Immigration Portal's page on Texas.
