Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Change Preferences
Sign In
X (Twitter)
How do state actors affect immigration legislation in states without direct democracy mechanisms like initiatives or referenda? In 2014, both Wisconsin and Minnesota immigrant groups worked to enact in-state tuition opportunities for students who attended in-state secondary schools. Minnesota and Wisconsin passed instate tuition legislation, but the law was changed in Wisconsin the following legislative session. I investigated how state actors, specifically immigrant rights, social justice, and youth groups in Minnesota and Wisconsin worked to legislate in-state tuition opportunities in public universities. How did these actors work to pursue their policy interests in legislatively contexts that are relatively constrained. I show how these permissive immigration groups used protests, moral pressure, and a sustained presence in the office of legislators to pass instate tuition policies using a cross-case and in case comparisons of Minnesota and Wisconsin state actors. In relatively contracted political opportunity structures, the agency of state actors influenced the passage or failure of in-state tuition bills. In states without direct democracy mechanisms, I find that interest groups follow more traditional social movement behaviors to pass state immigration legislation compared to groups in states with direct democracy mechanisms.