Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T16:42:19.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Educating Kids’ Versus ‘Coddling Criminals’: Framing the Debate over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students in Kansas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Gary Reich  and
Alvar Ayala Mendoza
Gary Reich
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Alvar Ayala Mendoza
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As more children of undocumented workers graduate from U.S. high schools, many states are considering laws to grant these students in-state tuition status. Kansas, which adopted such a law in 2004, was an unlikely venue for this kind of policy, considering the negative attitudes toward illegal immigrants among the state's residents as well as its relatively small share of Hispanic residents. We argue that the passage of Kansas's in-state tuition bill occurred in large measure due to the skill of its proponents in framing the issue as one of access to public education. We use a mix of qualitative and quantitative data to show how proponents of the in-state tuition bill were able to direct attention toward public education—an issue more electorally palatable to legislators and their constituents—and redirect attention away from immigration policy. The success of the bill in Kansas has some applicability for similar legislation under consideration in other states; however, as immigration policy has become more politically charged, proponents of in-state tuition for undocumented students will face renewed challenges in the legislative arena, as Kansas also demonstrates.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Summer 2008 , pp. 177 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, James E. 1997. Public Policy Making: An Introduction. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1991. “Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems.” The Journal of Politics 53:1044–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Frances Stokes, and Berry, William. 1992. “Tax Innovation in the States: Capitalizing on Political Opportunity.” American Journal of Political Science 36:715–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, Robert J., and Ohsfeldt, Robert L.. 1993. “The Attitudes of State Legislators and State Medicaid Policies Related to AIDS.” Policy Studies Journal 21:651–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, Aage R. 1973. How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E.. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis. 1996. “Creating Common Frames of Reference on Political Issues.” In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, eds. Mutz, Diana C., Sinderman, Paul M., and Brody, Richard A.. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Entman, Robert. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication, 43:51–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Register, Federal. 2000. Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Office of Management and Budget 65 (249).Google Scholar
Fischer, Frank, and Forester, John. 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A. 1992. Talking Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A., and Modigliani, Andre. 1989. “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach.” American Journal of Sociology 95:1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P. 1999. “Redistributing Values in Congress: Interest Group Influence under Sub-Optimal Conditions.” Political Research Quarterly 52:113–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Joslyn, Mark R.. 2001. “Gun Policy, Opinion, Tragedy, and Blame Attribution: The Conditional Influence of Issue Frames.” The Journal of Politics 63:521–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, John. 2004. “Senate Approves Bill Giving Immigrants Tuition Break.” Lawrence Journal-World. 26 February. www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/feb/26/senate_approves_bill/ (January 14, 2008).Google Scholar
Hanna, John. 2006. “Close vote in Kansas preserves immigrant tuition law for now.” Lawrence-Journal World. 7 March. www.alipac.us/article1089.html (January 14, 2008)Google Scholar
Hellebust, Lynn. 2004. Kansas Legislative Handbook: A Guide to the Kansas Legislature and its Members. Topeka, KS: Government Research Service.Google Scholar
Hoppe, Layne. 1970. “Agenda Setting Strategies: The Case of Pollution Problems.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 2000. “Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 44:750–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kansas House Committee on Higher Education. 2003a. “On HB 2008, Concerning Certain Persons Deemed to be Residents for Purposes of Tuition and Other Fees at Postsecondary Educational Institutions.” Session 2003, February 12.Google Scholar
Kansas House Committee on Higher Education. 2003b. “On HB 2008, Concerning Certain Persons Deemed to be Residents for Purposes of Tuition and other Fees at Postsecondary Educational Institutions.” 2003 Session, March 19.Google Scholar
Kansas Senate Committee on Higher Education. 2003c. “On HB 2008, Concerning Certain Persons Deemed to be Residents for Purposes of Tuition and other Fees at Postsecondary Educational Institutions.” 2003 Session, March 11.Google Scholar
Kansas Senate Committee on Higher Education. 2003d. “On HB 2008, Concerning Certain Persons Deemed to be Residents for Purposes of Tuition and other Fees at Postsecondary Educational Institutions.” 2003 Session, March 20.Google Scholar
Kansas State Legislature. 2004a. House Journal. May 4.Google Scholar
Kansas State Legislature. 2004b. Senate Journal. May 3.Google Scholar
Kansas State Legislature. 2004c. House Journal. February 26.Google Scholar
Kansas State Legislature. 2004d. Senate Journal. February 26.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John. 1989. Congressmen's Voting Decisions. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Harper & Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn M.. 1990. “Mimicking Political Debate with Survey Questions: The Case of White Opinion on Affirmative Action for Blacks.” Social Cognition 8:73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., Smith, Richard A., and Fiske, Susan T., 1991. “Political Beliefs, Policy Interpretations, and Political Persuasion.” The Journal of Politics 53:644–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 1999. “Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 61:1040–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1996. “Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 58:1055–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91:567–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul, and Jenkins-Smith, Hank C.. 1999. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment.” In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, Paul. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne Larasson, and Ingram, Helen. 1997. Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Seigfried, Arlen (Kansas State Representative). 2005. Interview with Alvar Ayala Mendoza, on March 2 in Topeka, Kansas.Google Scholar
Smith, Richard. 1984. “Advocacy, Interpretation, and Influence in the U.S. Congress.” The American Political Science Review 78:44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Tom. 1987. “That Which We Call Welfare Would by Any Other Name Smell Sweeter: An Analysis of the Impact of Question Wording on Response Patterns.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51:75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storm, Sue (Kansas State Representative). 2005. Interview with Alvar Ayala Mendoza, on March 3 in Topeka Kansas.Google Scholar
Talbert, Jeffrey C., Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 1995. “Nonlegislative Hearings and Policy Change in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 39:383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umbarger, Dwayne (Kansas State Senator). 2005. Interview with Alvar Ayala Mendoza, on March 8 in Topeka, Kansas.Google Scholar
University of Kansas Policy Research Institute. 2006. Statistical Abstract, Enhance Online Edition. www.ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/ksah/population (August 4, 2006).Google Scholar
University of Kansas Policy Research Institute. 2002. Kansas Policy Survey: Fall 2001 Survey Results. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Wilson, Thomas C. 2001. “Americans' Views on Immigration Policy: Testing the Role of Threatened Group Interests.” Sociological Perspectives, 44:485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. Dan, and Doan, Alesha. 2003. “The Politics of Problem Definition: Applying and Testing Threshold Models.” American Journal of Political Science 41:640–53.Google Scholar
Zaller, John, and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36:579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar