When Rick Noriega heard that Texas A&M University’s student senate voted to keep illegal immigrants from receiving in-state tuition rates, he was surprised –- but not angry.

“A&M has been a leader in the state as far as admissions for these students,” said the former Democratic state representative, who passed House Bill 1403, the 2001 law that gives in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. “They were always innovative and proactive. But, it is a healthy debate, and that’s what universities are for,” Noriega said.

A&M Student Body President Jacob Robinson has since vetoed the student senate’s bill, on the grounds that it relates to residency, not tuition, and is a state, not university, matter. But others with actual power are still trying to reverse Noriega’s law. The Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas (IRCOT) filed a suit against the state, based on a federal law that says states can’t use residency requirements to give illegal immigrants tuition benefits that are denied to U.S. citizens. The case is pending at a state district court in Houston.

“If the law is appropriately applied, we will win everything we have requested….The illegal Texas grant and tuition discount programs catering to illegal aliens will be struck down — if the judges follow the law,” said IRCOT attorney David Rogers.

Noriega, who made an unsuccessful challenge to U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in 2008, is known for making Texas the first state to pass such a progressive law. Many states followed, and the proposed DREAM Act aims for the same policies at the federal level. A Republican filibuster in the Senate thwarted passage of the bill in September.

Noriega’s achievement is perhaps more significant because Texas was the first state to prohibit illegal immigrants from attending public schools by charging tuition at the grade school level. A 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case, Plyler v. Doe , eventually ruled that such policies violated the Fourteenth Amendment. That case, which originally applied only to grades K-12, is often used by both sides of the current lawsuit. Those for HB 1403 say the Supreme Court decision extends to public higher education, while opponents argue the benefits stop after high school.

“When we were able to pass this law, it was through the efforts of a very large coalition of businesses, chambers of commerce and advocacy groups. The lone voice in opposition would always be the anti-immigrant community,” Noriega said of the numerous bills filed to reverse the law.

To receive in-state tuition under HB 1403 (which was signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry), students are required to have resided in Texas with a parent or guardian while attending high school in Texas, graduated from a public or private high school or received a GED in Texas, resided in Texas for the three years leading to graduation or receipt of a GED and provided their institutions a signed affidavit indicating an intent to apply for permanent resident status as soon as they are able to do so.

Noriega said about 20,000 students –- not just immigrants, but students from other states — have gained access to higher education because of this law.

“I don’t know any rational argument that could refute the fact that that’s a good thing as it applies to our values as Texans,” he said. “Education and higher education are core fundamental values of Texas.”

IRCOT’s petition claims at least 8,000 illegal immigrants are attending Texas colleges and universities and receiving in-state tuition. However, a 2006 report from the Texas Comptroller’s office says the number of undocumented immigrants who attend Texas colleges and pay in-state tuition is unknown, so estimating the cost associated with HB 1403 is difficult.

State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) is confident the court will reverse the law. IRCOT’s attorney, David Rogers, said the case is still in discovery mode. But if the state law is upheld, Berman plans to file legislation to reverse it on purely economic grounds.

“The $42 million we’re spending on these illegal aliens should be benefits going to Texas students in the form of loans or grants which they aren’t getting,” he said. “The law says we have to educate these students from K5 through 12th grade; we don’t have to educate them in college.”

David Hinojosa, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, is defending the state in the case.

“We think this is a frivolous case. People like [Rep.] Leo Berman don’t like undocumented immigrants,” Hinojosa said. “They want to make lives as miserable as possible for these people.”

Noriega cautions that the reversal of the law would have a tremendous economic impact on Texas. If these students can’t afford college, he argues, the state will ultimately miss out on their future earning ability, a more educated workforce and tax dollars. He said students with the potential to succeed in college who are left out could just end up draining social services or even enter the criminal justice system.

“Essentially, we’d be stamping out hope. Frankly, as a Texan, I just don’t think that’s who we are,” Noriega said.

(Photo: Flickr Creative Commons/StuSeeger)