President Donald Trump and his administration are aiming to crack down on illegal activity conducted by states since the 1990’s. In November 2022, Arizona became the 24th state in the U.S. to approve in-state tuition benefits for individuals residing in the country illegally, following the narrow passage of Proposition 308.
The measure only barely passed at the ballot box, just as it had previously in the state legislature, where its advancement was made possible by two Republican lawmakers who broke with their party. These legislators, who were later unseated in primary races, aligned with Democrats to bring the proposal to a vote.
Once on the ballot, Prop. 308 received strong financial support from a small yet influential coalition that included members of the political elite, business sector, and immigration advocacy groups with ties to George Soros.
Townhall reports that opponents argue that a crucial legal detail was obscured from the public: the policy runs afoul of existing federal law. A bipartisan immigration reform bill signed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s includes language that bars states from offering lower tuition rates to undocumented immigrants than those available to U.S. citizens, regardless of their state of residence. To comply, states must offer the same discounted rate to all U.S. citizens, not just residents, if they want to extend the benefit to undocumented individuals.
Despite this federal statute, many states have disregarded it over the years. Townhall references a report by Hans Von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation, which highlighted this trend more than a decade ago, when a dozen states were already out of compliance. That number has since doubled, with 24 states now offering in-state tuition—and in some cases additional financial aid—to undocumented students, subsidized by taxpayers.
Supporters of the proposition framed it as a benefit specifically for “Dreamers”—individuals protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program initiated during the Obama administration. However, the policy’s scope extended further. Any undocumented individual who had spent at least two years attending high school in Arizona could qualify for the in-state tuition rate. This provision, critics argue, sends a message that entering the U.S. illegally but in time to attend high school in Arizona could result in subsidized college tuition funded by taxpayers.
Von Spakovsky’s 2011 analysis noted that by 2005, California’s policy was estimated to cost its taxpayers between $222.6 million and $289.3 million annually, while Texas incurred expenses ranging from $80.2 million to $104.4 million. Critics argue that these policies burden taxpayers, undermine fairness, and act as incentives for illegal immigration.
Yet enforcement of the federal law remains elusive. Because individuals do not have a private right of action under the statute, lawsuits brought by U.S. citizens—who are charged higher tuition rates than undocumented students—are frequently dismissed due to lack of legal standing. Without federal intervention, states have continued these practices unchecked.
That changed earlier this year when President Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to begin investigating state policies that appear to violate the law—marking the first time the federal government has taken formal steps toward enforcement.
