Senate Republicans Challenge Misinformation on Immigration Policy
TOPEKA — In a recent debate, two Senate Republicans confronted misleading claims made by their colleagues regarding immigration while discussing Kansas’ policy of offering in-state college tuition to high school graduates, irrespective of their citizenship status.
A slim majority of Senate Republicans endorsed Senate Bill 254, aimed at eliminating this longstanding policy. However, on Monday, Governor Laura Kelly vetoed the bill, maintaining support for the existing policy.
This bill, according to Governor Kelly, specifically targets Kansas children who were brought to the United States as minors. “Punishing these children for decisions their parents made years ago is not only cruel but also not in Kansas’ best interest. We must educate and train these young people to prepare them for our workforce and ensure they can contribute to the state’s economy,” she stated.
Lawmakers are set to reconvene in Topeka on Thursday to attempt an override of the governor’s vetoes on various bills. While the measure garnered a 22-18 vote in the Senate and 78-46 in the House, it fell short of the required 27 votes in the Senate and 84 in the House necessary to override the veto.
Governor Kelly’s veto letter marks the end of over a year’s turmoil that began when Senator Mike Thompson (R-Shawnee) prohibited numerous opponents from addressing concerns about the bill. Prominent support came from Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach.
Opposition included Lenexa City Councilwoman Melanie Arroyo, a naturalized U.S. citizen since 2018. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation launched an inquiry into her citizenship, instigated by a complaint from a Lenexa resident who misinterpreted Arroyo’s written testimony.
This year, the bill re-emerged in Congress. After passing in the Senate, the House invoked procedural rules to bring the bill directly to the floor, circumventing public hearings and scrutiny. Legislators amended the bill in a final push during the concluding week of the regular session.
The state policy, established in 2004, permits any individual who has attended or graduated from a Kansas high school for three years to qualify for in-state tuition at state universities. This benefits over 5,000 students who do not possess U.S. citizenship, many of whom were brought to the U.S. as children and lack a feasible path to citizenship. It is important to note that remaining in the country without legal status is classified as a civil offense, not a crime.
During the debate, Senate Republicans Thompson and Virgil Peck misrepresented facts, alleging that immigrants are lawbreakers and that state policies violate federal law, while also claiming the policy costs taxpayers $600 million annually. This assertion faced rebuttal from Senate Vice President Tim Shallenberger and Senator TJ Rhodes.
Shallenberger shared the story of a young man who has resided in the U.S. since he was just 15 months old. “He has no path to citizenship, so is that simply bad luck?” he questioned, emphasizing the personal impact of such legal voids.
Thompson countered, asserting that legal pathways to citizenship exist. However, Shallenberger highlighted the bleak reality: the young man might have to return to a country of origin he doesn’t even remember in order to initiate the citizenship application process. “What are the practical options for him?” Shallenberger inquired.
Shallenberger also contested Thompson’s claims regarding the supposed savings from abolishing in-state tuition, asserting that such an action would not yield any financial benefits for the state. State agencies, including the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Environment, inspected the bill and noted it would have minimal fiscal impact.
“To believe this will save us $600 million is simply foolish,” Shallenberger stated. “These graduates do not merely vanish; they contribute to our communities and markets. Removing in-state tuition serves no constructive purpose.”
As the debate intensified, Senator Peck rushed to defend Thompson. “We are discussing individuals who are violating U.S. laws by being here,” Peck remarked, suggesting that the policy amounts to unfair treatment.
Throughout the discussion, Thompson bore the brunt of criticism. Senator Rose confronted him with pointed questions about the circumstances surrounding children brought to the U.S. by their parents. Thompson did not shy away from his stance, asserting that America is a deeply generous nation but questioning the fairness of providing public benefits to undocumented individuals.
Ultimately, the tension culminated in a dialogue about moral responsibility and policy implications. Senator Rose advocated for compassion in the treatment of DACA students, emphasizing their pursuit of the American Dream, while Thompson maintained his belief in strict adherence to laws.
