Here are the remarks I would have delivered today had I been granted the full 7 minutes. I condensed it to 2 minutes and mainly went after Kris Kobach's flawed arguments on the constitution and his losing court cases.
Raymond Rico
Federal
and State Affairs Committee
Hearing
on HB 2192
March
20, 2013
My name is Raymond Rico; I was born and raised in Kansas
City, KS to an immigrant father, and both of my grandparents immigrated to the
U.S. on my mother's side. I practice
immigration law at the Garcia Immigration Law Firm where I work with many undocumented students have overcome many barriers
you and I have never faced - yet have done everything right and wish to pursue
higher education in Kansas, the only place many have ever known. The legal process can take a long while. I meet and work with many students who are in currently
in that line for legal residency.
Most students have become fluent in English if they
weren't already, have assimilated into the American culture, and consider
themselves Kansans.
Sadly, we are debating repeal at a time when the federal
government seems primed to consider comprehensive immigration reform. The U.S. Senate and House have a bipartisan
effort underway for comprehensive immigration reform, and even this week, the Republican
National Committee recommended comprehensive immigration reform as consistent
with Republican economic policies that promote job growth and opportunity for
all.
Immigration reform will address the legal status for
those students not currently in a line for legal residency because all signs
seem to point to inclusion of the DREAM Act within any reform bill.
The DREAM Act is federal legislation that would allow a
path to legalization for youth who arrived as minors, have been in the US for over five years, and
complete two years of college or two years in
the military. Basically, the same
students we're talking about today. To be clear, a path to legalization is
something Kansas' instate tuition bill does not have the power to do. Only the DREAM Act can provide such a
path. Many leaders in Washington of both
political parties have specifically stated their support of the DREAM Act
recently.
Obviously we're talking about young
people here, who are present in Kansas, have grown up here, and will remain
here. Kansas has already invested much
in their K-12 education. As our
population ages, we should prepare all young talented students who want to
remain in Kansas to fill the positions that will be most in need. Our young immigrants have been and will
continue to sustain Kansas' rural communities, start businesses here, and
contribute their talents here. All of us
know that people with a college degree on average will earn more in income than
those without, and with more income means more contribution in taxes.
As undocumented students cannot receive financial aid,
many are already taking only a few classes per semester, but a repeal of
in-state tuition will cause students to drop out, decreasing school revenues,
and allowing our students to remain uneducated, in a permanent underclass,
while remaining in Kansas.
Kansas' in-state tuition law has been challenged in court
in large part by Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach and FAIR. Mr. Kobach also challenged California's
in-state tuition law, which is nearly identical to Kansas' law. On both occasions, the lawsuits failed. In-state tuition has been upheld as
constitutional. It complies with federal
law.
The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the California law did not improperly make in-state tuition available to undocumented students based on “residence.”
In a Kansas federal court, the case Day v. Sebelius was dismissed, in part, because the plaintiffs
lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Kansas law. The student plaintiffs were not injured by
the passage of the in-state tuition law, nor would they benefit from its
repeal.
In 1996, Congress enacted Section
1623 of Title 8, or what is commonly referred to as IIRAIRA. Congress could have worded this section to unequivocally
ban in-state tuition. However, section
1623 only requires that states extend benefits US citizens to the same extent
that they are available to undocumented immigrants. Kansas need not "give"
in-state tuition to all U.S. citizens from other states; it satisfies section
505 if the eligibility criteria are based on factors beyond state residency and
if Kansas offers U.S. citizens the same opportunity to qualify for in-state
tuition under the same criteria. The Kansas
law makes any individual – including US citizens who wish to return to Kansas -
eligible for in-state tuition if they meet the requirements of K.S.A. § 76-729: three years of high school and graduation from a high
school in Kansas. Thus Kansas' law complies
with federal law and the constitution, and that's why the courts have rejected
legal challenges to the law.
This is no “loophole,” it is a recognition from Congress that states may choose to enact tuition equity policies as Kansas and a growing number of states have done, including Colorado which passed in-state tuition this month.
Congress gave states the option to
create postsecondary education benefits for undocumented immigrants on par with
those of their citizen residents. Thus,
it is absolutely not true to say that in-state tuition is something states may
not do. Kansas acted in full compliance
with federal law when it enacted in-state tuition. To suggest otherwise misreads federal law and
ignores legal precedent. It is worth
noting that the fiscal note in Colorado's bill states that Colorado stands to
gain over 2 million dollars in new state revenue based on tuition paid by
students.
It is also important to note that
there is another provision of the Kansas' 2004 in-state tuition law that
students seek to legalize their immigration status and file an application to
begin the process for United States citizenship as soon as such person is
eligible to do so. I have helped many
students legalize their status and know students who paid in-state tuition in
Kansas, who are now legal residents and citizens, now work in Kansas, purchased
homes in Kansas, and have remained in Kansas.
Today you would never know the difference that at one time they were in a tough situation on their long journey to become American, but Kansas' in-state tuition law helped them achieve their American dream. Students want to legalize their status, want become citizens, take that oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. It is happening. I wish you could see as often as I do the joy when someone becomes a citizen!
With congress debating immigration reform, and the DREAM Act primed for passage, this is the wrong time to discuss repeal of in-state tuition. But now I'd like to turn to another reason that now is the wrong time to discuss repeal of in-state tuition. I have helped many students apply for DACA, which stands for "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals."
Today you would never know the difference that at one time they were in a tough situation on their long journey to become American, but Kansas' in-state tuition law helped them achieve their American dream. Students want to legalize their status, want become citizens, take that oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. It is happening. I wish you could see as often as I do the joy when someone becomes a citizen!
With congress debating immigration reform, and the DREAM Act primed for passage, this is the wrong time to discuss repeal of in-state tuition. But now I'd like to turn to another reason that now is the wrong time to discuss repeal of in-state tuition. I have helped many students apply for DACA, which stands for "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals."
Individuals
may now request protection from deportation through deferred action if they:
·
Came to the United States before their 16th
birthday;
·
Were between the ages of 15 and 30 and had no valid
immigration status on June 15, 2012;
·
Have continuously resided in the United States between June
15, 2007 and the present;
·
Are currently in school, graduated from high school, obtained
a GED, or were honorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
·
Have not been convicted of a felony, a “significant”
misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a
threat to national security or public safety.
With DACA, the federal government is using its discretion to determine that youth who fit the above criteria are not high priority individuals and that limited resources are best used elsewhere, not to deport valedictorians.
This federal program provides a system for young people who are fundamentally the same as other American students to now pursue their
dream of earning a college degree.
Because eligible DACA students may request a work permit the
federal program enables these students to pursue opportunities for work in
their fields of study and gives the states the choice of whether the state will
treat the students as equal to all other students. Kansas made the right decision when it
enacted a law to ensure tuition equity among all Kansas students. The law enables young people to start on the
path of pursuing a career and making a meaningful contribution to our
state.
I do not have data to show you what profession these students are most likely to enter into, but I have worked on around 300 cases supporting students seeking the opportunity to get an education and pursue a career. And one thing I always ask them is "what do you want to be?" Among males, the most common answer is a wish to be an engineer. Among females, the most common answer is a wish to be a nurse. A need we have across the country is the need for more bilingual nurses and science, technology, engineering, and math students.
With
needs in these areas, it does not make sense to stop the education short of any
of our talented students, especially when the federal system allows students to
use their degrees and work authorization to work in fields that we most need.
If given a chance, our undocumented youth wish to contribute their talents here, pursue higher education here, pay taxes and contribute to the Kansas economy. The choice is yours as to whether we have our youth educated, or not.
In the interests of Kansas taxpayers and future generations of Kansans, I urge your opposition to this bill and respectfully request the Committee allow current Kansas law to remain intact.
