Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tuition Equity Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supporters ask committee to allow in‑state tuition for asylum seekers in HB 2586; witnesses cite backlog and economic benefits
Summary
Supporters told the House Higher Education Committee on Feb. 4 that House Bill 2586 should be amended to allow asylum seekers awaiting federal adjudication to qualify for in‑state tuition at Oregon public universities.
The House Committee on Higher Education and Workforce Development held a public hearing Feb. 4 on House Bill 2586, a proposal to add asylum seekers to the classes of noncitizen residents eligible for in‑state tuition at Oregon public universities.
John Herrera, director of Immigration Legal Services at Catholic Charities of Oregon, testified in support and described the bill as an equity measure for people who have fled violent or corrupt circumstances and are awaiting federal immigration adjudication. Herrera said asylum seekers who are legally present and have pending asylum applications are often excluded from in‑state tuition and state student aid, placing higher education out of reach.
A community witness who identified himself as a person with lived experience described completing an MBA at an Oregon university but being unable to obtain his diploma because he could not pay remaining tuition; he urged the committee to consider that pending asylum seekers often cannot afford international or out‑of‑state rates. Witnesses cited national data about U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services backlogs and referenced a 2024 estimate that roughly 1.6 million asylum applications were pending at year‑end.
Brídal Conroy (testifying for Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon) said in‑state tuition typically runs around $15,000 at the public university example she cited, while the international/out‑of‑state rate those asylum seekers currently face was roughly $45,000—making college effectively inaccessible for many. Conroy urged passage and also encouraged support for companion bills to strengthen legal representation for asylum seekers.
Committee members asked whether universities track asylum‑seeker status and about likely numbers of beneficiaries; witnesses said universities do not reliably track this status and that there was no solid headcount available. Members asked about program costs and overlap with existing programs such as the Opportunity Grant; witnesses urged that the population of potential beneficiaries was relatively small but could yield outsized benefits for those individuals and local economies.
No committee action or vote was taken at the hearing; the bill will return to committee for additional analysis.
