Recent editorials from Tennessee newspapers:
____
April 2
The Commercial Appeal on immigrants paying in-state tuition:
It’s impossible to tell, especially in the heat of a presidential election, when the national debate over immigration policy will be resolved. In the meantime, there is no reason to interfere with efforts by students who have been caught up in the controversy to make a better life for themselves.
Legislation offered in the Tennessee General Assembly would address the problem by allowing students who have been granted provisional immigration status under the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to pay in-state tuition at state colleges and universities.
Current rules require such students to pay out-of-state tuition - more than twice as much as classmates who have graduated from the same schools, no matter how many academic honors they have earned.
The Commercial Appeal reporter Daniel Connolly illustrated the dilemma this week in an article outlining the case of 16-year-old Miguel Garcia, who was granted a two-year renewable work permit and a Social Security card under the Deferred Action program and is pursuing scholarships that would help with tuition when he’s ready for college next year.
If that doesn’t pan out, Garcia would have to pay out-of-state tuition of $20,600 at the University of Memphis, for example, while many of his classmates at Ridgeway High School would be eligible for in-state tuition of $8,900.
Garcia, who hopes to become a lawyer or judge, has lobbied in Nashville - alongside such groups as Latino Memphis, the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, Greater Memphis Chamber, Tennessee Farm Bureau and Tennessee Board of Regents - for legislation that would put him on a level playing field with peers.
House sponsor Rep. Mark White, R-Memphis, told Connolly he is working toward passage of the bill as an education initiative and an economic plus - separate from the more controversial question of illegal immigration - that would benefit the state and its citizens in the form of better job opportunities and additional tax revenue.
Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris, R-Collierville, outlined opposing arguments, pointing out that the state is hard-pressed to expand educational opportunities for citizens and opposes executive orders signed by President Obama that would expand Deferred Action status to more young people and grant similar protections to some unauthorized immigrant parents of children who already have citizenship or legal permanent resident status.
Meanwhile, students like Miguel Garcia - 7,700 young Tennessee residents have been granted Deferred Action status since 2012 - are anxiously waiting to find out if what amounts to their second-class status will continue.
HB675/SB612 has been approved by a vote of 21-12 in the Senate, but fell one vote short of passage in the House and is pending with the House Calendar and Rules Committee.
Fairness would dictate its speedy passage. There is no reason to punish deserving students for an immigration status over which they have no control.
Online: https://www.commercialappeal.com/
____
April 4
The Knoxville News Sentinel on the “Religious Freedom Act:”
The mis-titled “Religious Freedom Act” apparently has been put to rest for the current session of the Tennessee Legislature. Given the recent controversy over similar legislation in neighboring states, killing the bill without a lot of fanfare was a wise move.
The vote to halt the measure came late last month in the House Civil Justice subcommittee. The bill was proposed by Rep. Andy Holt, R-Dresden, who said the measure would provide people with strong religious convictions the opportunity “to embrace their religion or their view on marriage without legal repercussions.”
That purpose alone leaves a wide-open field for all sorts of unintended consequences that could tie the state up in pointless legal fights for years to come.
Specifically, the bill would have allowed a minister, priest or other clergy person to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony or provide services for anyone if doing so would “violate a sincerely held religious belief.”
Opponents insist that Tennessee law already covers that issue. Holt said the state law has some ambiguity as to whether clergy could be sued and called his bill “a preventative measure.”
The bill was a not-so-thinly disguised attempt to make yet another statement opposing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last summer striking down a state constitutional amendment specifying that marriage was between one man and one woman. However, instead of basing this and similar bills in other states on any concrete evidence of coercion of the clergy, supporters are merely playing to unwarranted fears of those who disagree with the ruling.
Opponents also believe the act would be a first step toward expanding the “deeply held religious values” aspect to businesses to permit them to refuse service to members of the gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual community. Holt, in fact, had been working on an amendment about the business part of the bill, but he did not offer the amendment at the subcommittee meeting.
Similar bills have sparked controversy recently in Georgia and North Carolina. In North Carolina, Gov. Pat McCrory signed a law that prohibits local anti-discrimination ordinances (Charlotte had passed one) and requires transgender people to use restrooms matching their birth certificates (Tennessee has shelved that measure also). Meanwhile, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal has vetoed a “religious freedom” bill.
In both states, businesses and industries, including professional sports organizations, brought pressure on the two governors. The National Football League, for example, said Atlanta’s bid for the 2019 or 2020 Super Bowl could have been in jeopardy. There is no doubt that pressure had some impact.
Yet, Deal’s words in his veto message transcend the economic influence and put the issue in a context with the wisdom of the nation’s Founding Fathers. “If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not man-made government, we should heed the ’hands-off’ admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution,” Deal said, adding that when legislatures try to do otherwise, “the inclusions and omissions in their statutes can lead to discrimination, even though it may be unintentional. That is too great a risk to take.”
Tennessee lawmakers decided wisely on this issue. We should all strive to cherish the religious freedom that everyone in this great nation possesses.
Online: https://www.knoxnews.com/
____
April 4
The Johnson City Press on the “pass the bottle” loophole:
Many supporters had hoped this would be the year Tennessee lawmakers finally approved legislation to ban open containers of alcohol in the passenger areas of motor vehicles. Over the last 20 years, the so-called “Pass the Bottle” bill has hit one roadblock after another in the General Assembly.
Rep. Jon Lundberg, R-Bristol, is the latest lawmaker to sponsor a bill to ban open containers. While no driver may drink alcohol or possess an open container of an alcoholic beverage while operating a motor vehicle, passengers are allowed under state law to consume booze in that very same vehicle. This loophole allows a driver to simply pass the bottle to a passenger if he or she is stopped by a law enforcement officer.
Last month, Lundberg saw his bill to close that loophole once again fail in a state House subcommittee. Under current law, it is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by fine only, for the driver of a motor vehicle to consume any alcoholic beverage or beer, or possess an open container of alcoholic beverage or beer while operating the motor vehicle in Tennessee.
The NET News Service has reported fines outlined in the legislation would have created more than $18,000 in new state and local revenue.
Tennessee joins Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri, Rhode Island and Virginia as the only states that don’t specifically outlaw alcohol for passengers.
This loophole is estimated to cost Tennessee between $6 million and $12 million annually in federal highway funds.
The leading argument against the legislation has been it would infringe on the rights of University of Tennessee fans who wish to enjoy a cocktail (while being driven by a sober friend) to a football game in Knoxville. Proponents of the bill say it could help save the lives of the more than 1,100 Tennesseans killed annually in alcohol-related auto crashes.
Online: https://www.johnsoncitypress.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.