Missouri
Immigrant &
Refugee
Advocates

On July 7, 2009, Governor Nixon signed HB390 into law. If you take a look at the final bill-turned-law, you will find that it isn’t the same as the one introduced in January. As is often the case, a bill starts out as one thing, and by the end of the legislative session, it is something else entirely. HB390 is no exception. It started out as Rep. Nolte’s (R-33) same old bill to bar undocumented students from enrolling in public colleges and universities in Missouri. It was the same lemon-of-a-bill he has introduced time and time again, and the House and Senate have debated it each year with the same result. The Republican majority in the house inevitably supports it, while a more measured group in the Senate manages to conclude that maybe it isn’t the best idea. But this year, something a bit different happened.

As usual, HB390 passed by a large margin in the House and became the immigration bill to watch (I use the term “watch” lightly since immigration was, for once, a little way down the priority list with economic and healthcare crises, not to mention ideological conflict, in full swing). Due to poor wording in 2008’s omnibus immigration bill, HB1549, many groups were awaiting an opportunity to “fix” the state’s new immigration law and saw HB390 as the vehicle for doing so. Interest groups across the board lined up to get their language tacked on - contractors, utility companies, the University of Missouri System, and even immigrant advocates. Through all the hearings, testimony, and political maneuvering, one thing became clear: the bill would have an easier time on its way to passage if the bill’s original language barring undocumented students from public institutions of higher education was removed. Instead of that original language, the Senate conceived a substitute that does the opposite.

The policy of the University of Missouri System has been to deny enrollment to undocumented individuals. However, the final language of HB390 states, “No covered student unlawfully present in the United States shall receive a postsecondary education public benefit.” While immigrant advocates may not agree with the overall premise of the language, it does one important thing: This language affirms that a covered student in the UM System can be undocumented. Here comes the potential lemonade…Instead of barring undocumented students, the new law provides a chance for advocates to pursue a positive policy change for immigrants seeking to enroll.

In the end, the bill didn’t go as far as the “Missouri Dream Act,” introduced by Senator Jolie Justus (D-10), which would have extended in-state tuition to undocumented students who have been living and attending high school in Missouri. On the other hand, the legislature wisely chose not to enact extremely punitive measures that would have degraded the education climate in our state. We ended up with the middle ground - a law that mirrors federal statutes that allow undocumented students to enroll but not receive any public financial assistance (and I won’t argue the merits, or lack thereof, of passing state legislation that does exactly what the federal law did before).

It can be difficult or even impossible to explain the political twists, turns, and even pirouettes a bill may take on its journey to becoming a law, but in this instance, we have the rare opportunity to take the lemons and make lemonade. The catch is that we really have to make it. We have to take the initiative to pursue a policy change in the UM System. It sure is hot outside, anyone up for lemonade?