Committee on Federal and State Affairs debates bill to end in‑state tuition for undocumented residents
Loading...
Summary
Members discussed a bill (referred to in the transcript as Senate Bill 254) that would end subsidized in‑state tuition for people the speakers described as in the country illegally. Speakers cited a new attorney general opinion, federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1601), potential lawsuits and recent SNAP-related fiscal penalties as reasons to hold the measure.
Members of the Committee on Federal and State Affairs discussed a proposal — referenced in the transcript as Senate Bill 254 — to end subsidized in‑state tuition for people the speakers said are in the United States illegally.
Speaker 1 told the committee that House members had not held a hearing on the measure and that the state attorney general issued an opinion the previous day addressing much of the testimony heard in the Senate. "This isn't it's not a tenth amendment issue. This is federal law where supremacy clause prevails," Speaker 1 said, arguing the state statute attempts to "circumvent federal law" on public benefits and in‑state tuition.
The committee heard legal context from Speaker 1 citing the 1996 welfare reform law (referenced in the transcript as 8 U.S.C. 1601) and said that law treats public benefits — including in‑state tuition in the speaker's account — as a factor the federal government can regulate. Speaker 1 warned that the federal government has sued states over similar in‑state tuition policies and said, "we would lose," if Kansas were sued.
Fiscal consequences were raised as part of the argument. Speaker 1 said the state had already lost about "$20,800,000" because of noncompliance with SNAP reporting requirements and that another "$10.4 [million]" was at risk in March, using that example to illustrate the risk of ignoring federal law.
House members on the call (Speaker 2) acknowledged awareness of the attorney general opinion and federal activity but said the House had effectively recorded a near‑unanimous voice vote in favor of the measure. "We... don't get a whole lot of unanimous votes in the house on things and that was one of them," Speaker 2 said, and added the House would "hold strong on that piece."
Senator Faustino asked for clarification about linking the immigration‑tuition issue to the 1996 welfare reform act and its broader aims. Speaker 1 replied the welfare reform act also addressed denial of public benefits to people here illegally and reiterated that the bill would not bar attendance at colleges; it would instead require those individuals to pay out‑of‑state tuition rates rather than receive subsidized in‑state rates.
Speaker 1 compared Kansas to neighboring states, saying Nebraska, Missouri and Oklahoma had enacted similar laws and warning that an alternate approach — offering in‑state tuition to all arrivals — would be financially unworkable. Members agreed to set a follow‑up meeting to continue the discussion; no formal vote on the measure occurred during this session.
The committee recessed after scheduling talk about a future meeting time to allow members to review the attorney general opinion and reconcile House and Senate positions.
