Wonder How it'll take for Texas to try this...again.

Lawmakers alter immigration plans
Comments (1) Recommend (0)
Associated Press

TOPEKA - Legislators who want to crack down on illegal immigration are changing their strategy for getting something passed.

Lawmakers spent weeks last spring debating an immigration bill that eventually failed. Supporters have decided thatsmaller might be better after lawmakers reconvene Jan. 12, especially with a looming budget crisis likely to dominate the session.

Rep. Lance Kinzer, R- Olathe, who pushed this year's big bill, said he'll focus on specific issues, including repealing a state law providing lower, in-state tuition at state universities and colleges to children of some illegal immigrants.

"Starting out with goals that are achievable is a good way to start and may give us a chance to go with some bigger things," he said. "Going down the road on passing another comprehensive bill, we end up closer to where we were last session, with gridlock."

Hispanic groups contend the federal government should address illegal immigration. But many states have grown weary of waiting on Congress.

"The worst type of immigration enforcement is one that varies from state to state," said David Ferreira of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington. "It diminishes commerce and makes families fear for their livelihoods."

A 2004 Kansas law allows qualified illegal immigrants to attend a state university, community college or technical college and pay the same tuition as legal Kansas residents. To qualify, the immigrant must graduate from a Kansas high school and either be seeking legal status or planning to do so when eligible.

About 170 students are taking advantage of the policy.

"It's bad public policy and it needs to be repealed," Kinzer said. "We have a new Legislature, so there is always an opportunity with new members for the votes to change."

Kinzer also noted that in September, the California Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit against a similar law in that state, with the opinion containing language seen as favorable to a challenge.

Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who specializes in constitutional and immigration issues, has been helping Kinzer draft legislation. Kobach was the lead attorney in the California case.

"This is important to Kansas because it was virtually identical to the California law almost word for word," said Kobach, who's also state GOP chairman. "Now we have an authoritative ruling and this will answer questions by some legislators about whether this is legal."

Kobach said Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma have passed laws cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Luis Figueroa of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in San Antonio said Oklahoma's economy was hurt by its new laws.

"The fear the legislation generated among the Latino community caused Latinos to leave Oklahoma, legal or otherwise," he said. "Many were U.S. citizens who didn't want to be targeted, so they just left."

Other goals for Kinzer are requiring law enforcement officers to be trained by federal officials to assist in enforcing immigration laws and mandating citizenship checks for anybody arrested.

Kinzer also wants to create a legal presumption that an illegal immigrant is a flight risk. He said that would mean in most cases, the court wouldn't set bail.

"They bond out and you never see them again," he said.

The major problem with this year's bill was disagreement over requiring employers to use the federal E-Verify database to see whether new hires are legally in the country.

Business and agriculture groups balked, saying it turned employers into immigration police and that E-Verify was unreliable.

"We're not trying to create a loophole, but we want to make sure businesses aren't unfairly penalized when they follow the law and try to do the right thing," said Amy Blankenbiller, president of the Kansas Chamber, which was part of the coalition.

Probably not soon.

Perry doesn't support this as far as I know.

Also the democrats increased their numbers in the Texas house and senate which makes it more unlikely to try again.

The last time they tried it, 2007, the bill was killed. There was a pretty big push back against it by the Hispanic community.

Also note, in Texas it wasn't a large bill like what Kansas tried to do in 2004. It only targeted the instate tuition component, so there isn't much they can do to make it smaller like Kansas is trying.

so how would this affect those currently taking advantage of in state tuition would they be grandfathered or expected to pay back fees from out of state tuition???

Not at all. A student won't have to pay back fees for previous semesters. But the student would no longer be able to obtain the benefit of instate tuition and would be subsequently charged the out of state rate.

If the law contains a provision that students pay back fees at the out of state rate for study during previous semesters (before the law is passed) then it opens the door for several lawsuits on the basis of ex post facto. Ex post facto is prohibited under the Constitution but over the years, the Supreme Court has eased the restrictions in certain limited circumstances, such as laws dealing with sex offenders and firearms regulation.