In residency determinations, the Texas Higher Education ...



According to the fiscal note for SB 1528, “the only group of students on which the bill will have a significant impact are international students” (LBB, 2005). However, the notes from the August 2 meeting state that “Section 4 has been repealed and will not be in effect for residency classifications. As a result, persons who did not graduate [from] high school or gain their GED after 3 years in Texas will no longer be able to file an application for permanent residency and immediately be considered eligible to domicile.”

In addition, Chapter 21.22 (5) states that persons eligible for permanent resident status may document that their application has been approved by showing form I-797 or “other appropriate USCIS document”. This is a change from prior policies which allowed students who had filed an I-130 to be treated as if permanent resident status has been granted” (Paredes, 2004). The proposed changes are a great cause for concern and prompt the following questions:

1. Will the I-130 still suffice as proof that a person has started the process for permanent residency?

2. If so, language should still read that I-130 holders “can be treated as if permanent resident status has been granted” (Paredes, 2004).

Why should we maintain current statues?

1- It is important to maintain the current policy toward I-130 students in order to avoid penalizing current I-130 students who are not international students.

2- In residency determinations, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) “is flexible in tracking changes in BCIS policies” (LBB, 2005). They had demonstrated that for the past five years when they have made changes to their policies to extend the opportunity of an education to a larger group of students.

As an example, back in July of 2000, State Representative Rick Noriega presented to the Coordinating Board the need to change policies that excluded students who had not yet become permanent residents. By doing so it was his intention to allow all those students who have filed with the INS for a change of status, to receive in-state tuition. The logic of the argument is that students should not be penalized (by not been eligible for in-state tuition) for the BCIS backlog.

Current attempts to reverse HB 1403 classifications (Section 4) do not alleviate the situation of students affected by the backlog but only worsen it to their detriment.

3- For the fall of 2004, the THECB reported a total of 3,462 students benefiting under Section 4 of HB 1403. It seems contrary to the THECB stated goal to advance higher education for the people of Texas to seek to exclude students who are in the process of adjusting their immigration status and who eventually would become permanent residents of this country.

Analysis of Fiscal Note and SB 1528

The change from prior policy for I-130 holders (which had allowed students who had filed an I-130 to be treated as permanent residents) will now exclude both international students (F-1) and students who have not received the I-797 as required by new rules.

The fiscal note for SB 1528 estimates a fiscal saving since 1/3 of the international students under Section 4 will drop. However, proposed regulations under SB 1528 fails to make a distinction between international students (F-1) and I-130 students without an (F-1). International students must demonstrate that they have the financial means to pay for out-of-state tuition before being issued their I-20. Students in the process with INS (who have filed an I-130) do not have the same financial ability and thus proposed regulations rob them of the opportunity to start their college education while they are in the process of becoming permanent residents.

The proposed changes will cause a number of students to drop out of college, just as SB 1528 has predicted. However, it stands to reason that those students who will “drop out of college” will be low income immigrant students from Texas and not the international students with I-130’s who will be able to stay in college since they have already established an ability to have the financial means to afford out-of-state tuition.

Is it really the intent of the state legislature to write legislation that will “decrease” the number of minority students entering college? If one of the intents of SB 1528 is to limit the ability of international students (F-1) in-state tuition, then the rules in Section 21.22 must reflect specifically that intent.

The proposed language in Section 21.22 punishes students who have started the adjustment process with immigration and other low income immigrants in order to make sure that wealthier international students do not receive a tuition break. Every indication over the past three legislative cycles is that our state legislators expect us to increase the number of minority Texans who are enrolled in college. So again, it stands to reason that drafting language that limits college access to low income students who have resided for years in Texas runs counter to the current legislative philosophy of increasing college enrollment for low income minorities. It certainly runs contrary to demographic changes in a state where “minorities now make up about 50.2 percent of the state's population” (Solis, 2005). Further, as it pertains to education, in Texas about 30 percent of Anglos ages 25 and older are college graduates, compared with 15 percent for African-Americans and 8.9 percent for Hispanics (Solis, 2005).

The assumption that immigrants will go out and file an I-130’s just to receive a tuition break fails to take into consideration the penalties of filing an unsuccessful I-130 and the ability of immigrants to understand the rudiments of how immigration law can adversely affect them if used incorrectly.

Waivers

We are concerned that the Coordinating Board has changed Section 21.29 (4) in (Waiver Programs for Certain Nonresident Persons) to read that colleges “may and not shall” waive the non-resident tuition for academic scholarship recipients. The intent of this waiver has been to afford talented individuals classified as out-of-state the opportunity to study at a reasonable price in Texas. This waiver has helped countless students over the past two decades be able to afford college in Texas.

As our state becomes more and more diverse, it is incumbent upon us to seek ways to open up our colleges to more and more students, not to search out ways to pull tighter the door. Several recent studies show that as a state we are in danger of lagging behind other states in the percentage of young people who have graduated from college. If a young person or young adult from another country can secure a competitive scholarship, it stands to reason that we as a state should provide ways to make sure this individual has every opportunity to graduate from college.

Allowing colleges to pull back from the in-state tuition waiver for competitive scholarships moves our state in the wrong direction.

REFERENCES

Legislative Budget Board (2005). Fiscal Note, 79th Legislative Regular Session. May 26, 2005. Austin, Texas.

Paredes, R. (2004). 2004 Updated on visas for non-citizen students. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Solis, D (2005). Latinos edge whites out of majority. Analysts say demographic shift will reshape Texas. Dallas Morning News.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download