DACA students bill: resident tuition

Summary#

SB-1176 would have amended Wisconsin law on University of Wisconsin System tuition. It proposed an additional exemption letting certain nonresident students pay the resident tuition rate. Its stated goal was to create that exemption; the bill failed, so it did not change the law.

  • A student would qualify only if they had lived in Wisconsin for the 12 months immediately before the semester or session began and were in approved status under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
  • The exemption would apply to registration at a University of Wisconsin System institution.
  • Wisconsin law already allows resident and nonresident tuition rates and has some nonresident tuition exemptions. This bill proposed adding another one.

What it means for you#

  • Eligible students: If the bill had become law, qualifying students would have been entitled to the exemption and paid the resident tuition rate. It would first have applied to students enrolling for a semester or session after the act’s effective date.
  • Other students: The proposal did not change the general authority to charge different resident and nonresident rates or set out changes to other exemptions.
  • Students and families: The bill did not change DACA status, create admission rights, or address financial aid.
  • Everyone: Because the bill failed, it created no tuition exemption.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s fiscal effect is included in the supplied materials.

  • The materials say a state fiscal estimate would be printed with the bill, but do not include that estimate.
  • The bill did not state how much tuition revenue might be affected or whether additional administrative costs would arise.

What is unclear#

  • The bill did not set out how a student would prove Wisconsin residence or approved DACA status.
  • It did not specify an application or review process, deadlines, or an appeal process.
  • The materials do not explain how the proposal would interact with other tuition exemptions.
  • The bill’s text makes the first applicable enrollment the semester or session after the act’s effective date, but the supplied material does not give a specific effective date.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that students who had lived in Wisconsin for at least a year and had approved DACA status could pay the resident rate, rather than the nonresident rate.
  • The proposal used two stated eligibility conditions—length of residence and DACA status—rather than changing tuition rates for all nonresident students.
  • Adding an exemption to the existing tuition system could address this group without removing the University of Wisconsin System’s general authority to set different rates.

Case against#

  • The bill did not explain how institutions would verify residence or DACA status, leaving practical questions about how to apply the eligibility rules.
  • The fiscal effect is unknown from the supplied materials, including any change in tuition revenue or administrative costs.
  • The bill did not explain how this new exemption would fit with existing exemptions or how disputes about eligibility would be handled.