Immigrant tuition bill dies on House floor

Yawu Miller

Last week, immigration activists were confident that they had enough votes to pass a bill that would allow the children of undocumented immigrants to attend state colleges paying an in-state tuition rate.

The question was whether the coalition of activists backing the bill could muster a two-thirds majority in the House to over-ride the veto Governor Mitt Romney promised the bill would receive.

In a reversal that stunned the bill’s supporters, the measure went down last Wednesday 96-57 amid contentious debate on the House floor. Immigrant advocates, including scores of high school students looked on as lawmakers argued against the bill.

“This was devastating for the kids who were engaged in this struggle,” said Elena Letona, executive director of Centro Presente, an organization that advocates for the rights of immigrants.

Letona said the students were shocked by the vitriolic rhetoric they heard from the lawmakers.

“If I were in a foreign country illegally, I think I’d be hiding,” said Rep. Marie Parente, a Millford Democrat, arguing from the House floor. “I wouldn’t be in the capitol demanding more money.”

Parente’s arguments helped set the stage for the debate, during which many representatives questioned the legality of the measure. While acknowledging the sincerity of the students who lobbied for the legislation, Rep. Jeffrey Perry, a Republican who represents Sandwich, argued that the measure would violate immigration laws.

“This isn’t a body that contemplates feelings,” he said. “This is a body that enacts laws.”

Second Assistant Majority Leader Byron Rushing said that the students who would benefit from the measure cannot be considered illegal, since the legislation would mandate that any students applying for an in-state rate also apply for citizenship.

“We have the opportunity right now to do the proper thing for our Massachusetts residents,” Rushing argued.

Despite support from House Speaker Sal DiMasi, who argued in favor of the measure, the anti-immigrant sentiment ruled the day. Two members of the Boston delegation — South Boston Democrat Brian Wallace and West Roxbury Democrat Mike Rush voted against it.

Immigration activists said many legislators were cowed by anti-immigration fervor and the threat that the issue would be a wedge issue in next year’s election.

“Legislators got calls from some constituents telling them people would run against them if they voted for this,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. “That’s the level of political power the opposition has.”

The measure, which would likely have benefited no more than 400 students a year, according to advocates, was largely a symbolic issue for immigrants. Other states — including Texas, Utah and California — have passed similar measures.

“This was a very benign, pro-immigrant initiative,” Letona said. “The benefits to the community would have been small. To me it’s emblematic of how irrational the rhetoric is on the immigration issue.”

In the run up to the vote, opponents of the legislation argued that giving immigrants an in-state tuition rate would drain tax revenue from the university system. Letona said those arguments are part of a broader pattern of disinformation in the debate on immigration. She pointed to similar arguments about immigrants taking jobs from native-born U.S. citizens, using public assistance and not paying taxes.

“It’s an outright lie,” she said. “There are laws that make it impossible for undocumented people and even for green card holders to collect benefits.”

Noorani said the MIRA Coalition will continue the fight for an in-state tuition rate.

“At the end of the day the issue isn’t going to go away and the immigrant community isn’t going to go away,” he said. “As a commonwealth, we have to come up with a realistic solution. Just saying ‘no’ is not a realistic solution.”