Bi-partisan opposition fails to stop legislation that would let school districts charge undocumented students tuition

House hearing room (Photo by Sky Arnold)

Karla MacIntyre says her mother was a domestic violence survivor who immigrated to the United States to give her two daughters a “chance at survival.”

That included attending public school as an undocumented student. MacIntyre says she not only graduated, but later earned a college degree from Lipscomb University, and later became a United States citizen.

Karla MacIntyre addressing the House Education Committee (screengrab)

“If HB 793 had been in effect during my K-12 years, my mom would not have been able to afford tuition, and I would have not had the freedom to learn and I would have discontinued my studies.  Thankfully this was not the case,” said MacIntyre.

MacIntyre was among those who passionately spoke against House Bill 793 at Wednesday’s House Education Committee.

Representative William Lamberth’s, R-Portland, is sponsoring the legislation in hopes of giving public school districts the option of either charging undocumented students tuition or refusing to enroll them. The amended bill more closely aligns with its Senate counterpart and would additionally give schools the authority to check a student’s immigration status.

State Representative William Lamberth (Photo by the Tennessee General Assembly)

“There (has) been study after study that shows a child that is illegally present in the United States is more than likely very recent to the United States.  It does cost more to educate that child. It is not fair to the rest of the families of that community that all do pay for that entire educational structure and that system to bear the brunt of those additional expenses, however we are leaving that decision up to the local agency,” said Lamberth.

Under the legislation, participation school districts that lose students would not see their state funding decrease.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 Plyler vs. Doe decision prohibits public schools from refusing to admit undocumented students and Lamberth’s legislation is envisioned by supporters as an opportunity to challenge that decision.

Representative Gino Bulso, R-Brentwood, made the case for why he believes such a challenge is needed to the committee.

“We love children all children, regardless of immigration status, but we also want to have our constitution properly interpreted and the simple fact of the matter is that what the Supreme Court did in Plyer vs. Doe was an abomination,” said Bulso. “And from my perspective it’s time for the current U.S. Supreme Court, that understands how to read text, to pass on this issue and support the sponsor, leader Lamberth, in his effort to do this.”

Opponents argued that challenging an existing Supreme Court decision would bring expensive legal costs to taxpayers and questioned whether school districts have the ability to wade into immigration issues.

All four Democrats on the committee spoke against it and the debate turned heated when Representative Ronnie Glynn, D-Clarksville, suggested punishing undocumented students for their parents actions is similar to punishing descendants of slave owners.

“So if it’s the parents responsibility to ensure that their kids are legal but yet we’re going to punish the child for the parent not being even though they’ve done everything they’re supposed to do and the system is broke,” said Glynn. “When I look back in history and I think about the things that have happened, should we punish you for the things your family did.”

The bill also faced opposition from three Republicans including Committee Chair Mark White, R-Memphis and Representatives Tim Hicks, R-Gray and Charlie Baum, R-Murfreesboro. Baum was the only one to speak against the bill, arguing that the current system provides the “right mix” to discourage illegal immigration while avoiding harming children.

“Currently we do pay to educate undocumented children, but we don’t finance benefits in the form of Social Security retirement benefits for undocumented folks here, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment compensation, even our (Education) Freedom Accounts bill,” said Baum. “I guess what I’m wondering is whether maybe we currently have the right mix of policy in that we’re not serving as a magnet for illegal immigration because we don’t provide a lot of benefits that citizens get.”

The remaining Republicans on the committee disagreed and advanced the bill on an 11 to 7 vote.

“We have to get a handle on this moving forward and I don’t see another trigger here unless we challenge Plyler v Doe in the courts,” Scott Cepicky, R-Culleoka. “If it’s going to be a mandate from the federal government that we have to educate everyone who shows up because we’re not allowed to ask their immigration status, under that unfunded mandate by the federal government we have a right to say you have to fund these students then and take the burden off taxpayers in these local municipalities.”

The Senate version of the legislation narrowly advanced from the Senate Education Committee earlier this month on a 5-4 vote.  That version is scheduled for a vote in the Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee next week.