AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - The Texas House’s opening effort to address the state’s sprawling foster care crisis erupted into a fierce debate over immigration on Wednesday, when a Republican lawmaker proposed ending financial assistance for adoptions of at-risk children by relatives in the country illegally.
The lower chamber eventually passed its first two major bills of a legislative session that began nearly two months ago - both aimed at mending a foster care system that a federal judge has ruled is unconstitutional - but not before a roughly hour-long, raucous argument over immigration that featured accusations of racism.
The unexpected diversion came weeks after the Texas Senate made a hotly contested bill prohibiting “sanctuary cities,” and potentially jailing police officials who don’t help enforce federal immigration policies, among the first bills it passed - underscoring just how high a priority imposing tough immigration policies has become for state lawmakers in the era of President Donald Trump.
The House flap started when Republican Rep. Mark Keough, of The Woodlands in suburban Houston, tried to amend a major, bipartisan bill to increase state spending on efforts to persuade relatives to adopt abused and neglected children as part of so-called “kinship care.”
The proposal, touted as one of the House’s main pieces of foster care legislation, would give more financial assistance to grandparents, aunts, uncles and other family members who adopt a relative by providing monthly lump sums that in some cases could reach almost $520. The program currently provides a one-time “integration payment” of $1,000 per child and an annual reimbursement of about $500 per child, regardless of the caregiver’s immigration status.
But Keough proposed a change to say that Texas would be barred from providing money to a relative or caregiver “who is not lawfully present in the United States.” He said payments to such people who adopt a relative are equivalent to an “entitlement.”
“I’m not asking anybody to leave,” Keough said. “All I’m saying is if they are not documented we wouldn’t fund them.”
The idea drew instant backlash from Democrats and some Republicans, who accused Keough of trying to hijack a top legislative priority intended to help the state’s most vulnerable children.
___
GAY MARRIAGE CASE HITS TEXAS SUPREME COURT
The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a Houston case that top Republicans hope will provide an opening to chip away at the landmark 2015 ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
A coalition of religious and social conservatives sued America’s fourth-largest city in 2013, challenging its decision to offer same-sex spousal benefits to municipal employees. Last year, Texas’ all-Republican court refused to hear the matter on appeal, effectively allowing the marriage benefits in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Constitution grants gay couples seeking to marry “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”
But the state Supreme Court reversed itself in January, amid pressure from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton, as well as dozens of other conservative elected officials, church leaders and grassroots activists. They filed a parade of briefs saying the case may help Texas limit the scope of the Supreme Court ruling - especially in how it’s applied to states.
Texas’ highest civil court reconsidering a previous decision is unusual, but not unprecedented. Justices listened to about 50 minutes of arguments and aren’t expected to rule for months. Jonathan Mitchell, an attorney representing the groups suing, said that though the U.S. Supreme court ruling legalized gay marriage, it doesn’t require governmental entities to offer taxpayer-funded, same-sex benefits to their employees.
“The meaning and scope of Obergefell remain open to debate,” Mitchell said.
He further argued that the nation’s highest court didn’t declare spousal benefits a fundamental right of marriage, meaning it should be up to the states to decide the legality of offering them. Lawyer Douglas Alexander, appearing on Houston’s behalf, agreed that such benefits weren’t a fundamental right but said that the nation’s high court’s ruling means that all marriages are equal, so anything offered to opposite-sex couples must be offered to same-sex ones as well.
“Obergefell answers every question in this case,” Alexander said.
___
UT DUMPS HOUSTON CAMPUS PLAN
University of Texas System Chancellor William McRaven is scrapping a controversial plan to develop a Houston campus, a project that had been sharply criticized by state lawmakers and other officials.
The system doesn’t have an academic footprint in Houston, and McRaven surprised many with a move to buy 300 acres to develop a data center.
State lawmakers scolded McRaven for keeping them in the dark about the project.
The retired admiral and former leader of U.S. military special operations said he couldn’t rally support for the Houston project.
On Wednesday, McRaven said the decision to abort was his and that land already bought will be sold.
McRaven said he believes he still has the backing of the Board of Regents to lead of the UT System.
___
ON DECK
The House reconvenes at 10 a.m. Thursday but its legislative calendar is empty except for giving ceremonial final passage to the two bills it passed Wednesday. The Senate is off until Monday.
___
QUOTE OF THE DAY
“This agency has been in a constant state of crisis despite years of reforms,” Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, speaking Wednesday about Texas’ foster care system.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.