H.R.2490 - No In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.2490, the "No In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants Act," aims to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The bill seeks to prohibit states from receiving federal financial assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 if they offer in-state tuition rates to aliens not lawfully present in the United States.
The bill effectively creates a financial disincentive for states to provide in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants. It does this by threatening the loss of federal funding for higher education.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committees on the Judiciary and Education and Workforce.
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R.2490 would likely lead to increased tuition costs for undocumented immigrants attending public colleges and universities in states that currently offer them in-state rates. This could reduce access to higher education for this population.
States may choose to discontinue in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants to retain federal funding. Alternatively, states might forgo federal aid to maintain their current tuition policies.
The bill could also face legal challenges based on equal protection arguments.
Potential Benefits
- Potential cost savings for taxpayers in states that choose to comply with the law and restrict in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants.
- Reinforcement of the principle that federal financial assistance should be prioritized for citizens and legal residents.
- Discouragement of illegal immigration by reducing potential benefits available to those not lawfully present in the United States.
- Could incentivize states to focus resources on citizens and legal residents.
- May reduce strain on state resources.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced access to higher education for undocumented immigrants, potentially limiting their economic opportunities and contributions to society.
- Potential loss of revenue for colleges and universities if enrollment of undocumented students declines.
- Increased financial burden on undocumented students who may be forced to pay out-of-state tuition rates or forgo higher education altogether.
- Possible negative impact on state economies if a significant portion of the workforce lacks higher education.
- Could be seen as discriminatory and contrary to the goal of equal opportunity.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. Congress has broad power to set conditions on federal funding under the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). However, the Supreme Court has placed limits on this power, requiring that conditions be unambiguous, related to the purpose of the federal program, and not unduly coercive.
Arguments against constitutionality could be raised under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, if the law is seen as discriminating against a particular group without a sufficient justification. However, the Supreme Court has generally held that undocumented immigrants are not a suspect class for equal protection purposes.
The Tenth Amendment could also be invoked, arguing that education is traditionally a state matter, and the federal government is overstepping its bounds.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).