House GOP leader challenges USNH on immigrant admission policies
A leading House Republican wants to know if there are any children of illegal immigrants attending any of the schools in the state's four-year university system.
House Majority Leader Joseph Sweeney, R-Salem, said he's asking for the information after learning from a recent Right-to-Know Law request that 649 foreign students attend the University of New Hampshire, Plymouth State University and Keene State College in the current academic year.
During the same period, 742 New Hampshire residents were denied admission: 655 at UNH, 16 at Plymouth State and 71 at Keene State, respectively, Sweeney said.
Sweeney said he was alarmed to learn that UNH's admission website "encourages the application and enrollment of undocumented students and students granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)" — a policy he said was not disclosed in USNH's original response to his request for information.
'New Hampshire taxpayer funded colleges and universities are denying New Hampshire Residents admission while encouraging illegals to apply. This is just wrong!' Sweeney said in launching a second Right-to-KnNow Law request for records.
Catherine Provencher, chancellor for the University System of New Hampshire, said all New Hampshire residents who met basic admission requirements were admitted and she said the colleges have additional capacity to admit even more qualified applicants.
According to USNH's response, 85.5% of New Hampshire residents who applied to UNH were admitted, while the admission rates were much higher for both Keene State (96.3%) and Plymouth State (99.3%).
'Our public universities must prioritize New Hampshire students — not international applicants or undocumented illegal aliens,' Sweeney said. 'I will keep fighting to ensure accountability and fairness for our families and ensure that Granite Staters are put first."
House Republicans have defended their decision to pass a proposed budget that cuts state aid to USNH by $25 million a year above the 4% cut that Gov. Kelly Ayotte had initially called for last February.
USNH officials could not be reached for comment.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
28 minutes ago
- CNBC
Some lawmakers in both parties question the legality of Trump's Iran strikes
WASHINGTON — Several members of Congress in both parties Saturday questioned the legality of President Donald Trump's move to launch military strikes on Iran. While Republican leaders and many rank-and-file members stood by Trump's decision to bomb Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities, at least two GOP lawmakers joined Democrats across the party spectrum in suggesting it was unconstitutional for him to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who usually aligns with Trump, said on X. "I look forward to his remarks tonight." Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in response to Trump's social media post announcing the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran "unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran" passed by Congress. In brief remarks from the White House on Saturday night, Trump defended the strikes but did not mention the basis of his legal authority to launch them without Congress' having given him that power. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacted in real time during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, slamming Trump's actions as "grossly unconstitutional." "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders told the crowd, which broke out in "no more war!" chants. Some Democrats called it an impeachable offense for the president to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Trump's move is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she said on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., said on social media: "This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten called on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to "grow a spine" and protect the war powers reserved for Congress. Johnson said Trump respects the Constitution as he sought to lay the groundwork to defend his decision to act unilaterally. "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties," he said in a statement. Johnson's remarks, along with support for Trump's move offered by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., indicate that Trump may have sufficient political cover to avoid blowback from the Republican-controlled Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." But he stopped short of labeling the military action illegal or unconstitutional. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., was more direct on the legal question. "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional," said Clark, the No. 2 Democrat. "In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation." Appearing Saturday night on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-authored the resolution with Massie, wondered whether the anti-war voters who support Trump would back his move. "This is the first true crack in the MAGA base," he said, noting that Trump's rise in the 2016 primaries was aided by his move to slam President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate releases major changes to Trump's tax bill as negotiations heat up
WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee released the long-awaited tax portion of its reconciliation bill on Monday, setting the stage for drawn-out negotiations with their House colleagues after changing several key provisions in the 549-page bill. The text release starts the clock for senators to finalize the package, get it approved by the Senate parliamentarian, and vote on the measure before the end of next week to meet Republicans' self-imposed deadline of July 4. The parliamentary process could take several days as each provision must be reviewed by the Senate adviser to ensure they adhere to the strict rules of reconciliation. Once the package passes the Senate, it will then be returned to the House for consideration. From there, Republicans will likely need to convene what is known as a conference committee between House and Senate leaders to negotiate a compromise package in order to avoid a legislative tennis match. That could be easier said than done as there are several provisions in the Senate version that have already angered House Republicans who spent weeks negotiating with GOP leaders to include their priorities. Here are some of the changes that could be the biggest sticking points for House Republicans: As expected, the Senate text aims to eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars previously approved under former President Joe Biden and criticized by some conservatives as 'Green New Deal subsidies.' However, the Senate text appears to shift the timeline for when many of those clean energy tax credits could be phased out, giving business owners who benefit from the credits more time to adjust. 'The legislation also achieves significant savings by slashing Green New Deal spending and targeting waste, fraud and abuse in spending programs while preserving and protecting them for the most vulnerable,' Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said in a statement. Under the House resolution, the credits are each given specific expiration dates whereas in the Senate version they are given a certain number of days after enactment. For example, the elimination of tax credits for residential clean energy could be eased under the Senate bill, softening the blow for the repeal of renewable energy sources such as solar panels, solar water heaters, geothermal heat pumps, and more. While the House bill would eliminate those credits by the end of 2025, the Senate version would expire the credit six months after the bill is signed — giving the credits a moving deadline and a slower phaseout. The Senate text also appears to change the timeline for several tax credits incentivizing the usage of clean vehicles, including credits for purchasing used clean energy vehicles; new clean vehicles; commercial vehicles; and more. Many of those provisions were set to expire by the end of the year under the House proposal, but now would also expire between 90-180 days after the bill is signed. The bill would ease the expiration of tax credits on fueling equipment for alternative vehicles such as electric cars. Similar to other language, the Senate text would implement a more flexible phaseout to eliminate the tax credit one year after the bill is signed rather than at the end of this year, which is the date currently proposed in the House version. Those eased timelines, along with others tucked in the bill, were likely included to win over Republicans in the Senate such as Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, who pushed for relaxed phaseouts. If the tax credits were eliminated immediately, Curtis and others argued, it could cause a surge in utility prices. However, it's not clear how that will go over with fiscal conservatives in the House, who have called for the immediate elimination of clean energy credits. The Senate Finance Committee summary does tout provisions to boost nuclear energy and support 'consistent energy sources' to reduce market distortions. It also includes language that 'stops penalizing fossil fuels in favor of intermittent green energy.' The Senate tax portion made a number of significant changes to the House language on Medicaid, including one controversial proposal to help pay for Republicans' proposed tax cuts. In the newly released text, Republicans are proposing to lower the Medicaid provider tax to 3.5%, far below the current 6% tax. That could raise concerns among some lawmakers who have already voiced concerns about reduced funding for Medicaid in some states. Medicaid provider taxes are taxes placed by states on medical providers like hospitals and clinics that then boost reimbursement from the federal government. The bill would also implement stricter requirements for eligibility screening and verification as part of an effort to ensure undocumented immigrantss cannot be approved for benefits. For the most part, Senate Republicans left much of the language in the House surrounding Medicaid untouched. For example, the language maintains provisions establishing new work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, requiring at least 80 hours a month or some other activity, such as community service. The bill would also maintain restrictions introduced by the House to ban Medicaid funds going toward abortion procedures or gender transitions. One of the most politically potent issues tucked into the reconciliation bill is the proposed expansion of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT. The Senate version includes language to extend the current deduction cap, which sits at $10,000 per household. That proposal has already set off a firestorm among blue-state Republicans in the House who have demanded a much higher limit — even going so far as to threaten voting against the full package if a higher deduction is not included. House Republican leaders offered to increase the current deduction cap to $40,000 for individuals who make $500,000 or less a year. The cap would then increase by 1% every year over the next decade and remain permanent after that period. That proposal was met with skepticism in the Senate, prompting many fiscal conservatives to push for a lower number to reduce costs. The $10,000 proposal is meant to be a starting point for negotiations, Senate aides say, but it has already been met with anger from SALT proponents in the House. 'That is the deal, and I will not accept a penny less,' Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said of the House-negotiated deal. 'If the Senate reduces the SALT number, I will vote NO, and the bill will fail in the House.' Other New York Republicans called the deal 'insulting,' arguing it is a 'slap in the face' to the blue-state Republicans who handed the GOP a majority in the House. 'If we want to be the big tent party, we need to recognize that we have members representing blue states with high taxes that are subsidizing many red districts across the country with constituents who benefit from refundable tax credits despite paying zero in taxes,' Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said in a statement. House Republican leaders have warned for months not to make drastic changes to SALT policy, warning it could be tough to sell anything less than what was already negotiated — especially with only a three-vote margin in the House. 'I'm very concerned about what they might do on the SALT number and any number of other provisions in the bill,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told the Deseret News last week. 'I've been very consistent publicly and privately. They need to hopefully modify it as little as possible, but I also understand that, you know, it's a separate chamber, and they're going to do their thing.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's move against Iran may draw more criticism from MAGA's anti-interventionists
President Donald Trump's decision to strike three nuclear sites in Iran could deepen a divide among some of the Republican's supporters, including high-profile backers who had said any such move would run counter to the anti-interventionism he promised to deliver. Notably though, immediately following Trump's Saturday announcement of the strike, some of those who had publicly spoken out against U.S. involvement voiced their support. The lead-up to the move against Iranian nuclear sites had exposed fissures within Trump's 'Make American Great Again' base as some of that movement's most vocal leaders, with large followings of their own, expressed deep concern about the prospect of U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war. With the president barred from seeking a third term, what remains unknown is how long-lasting the schism could be for Trump and his current priorities, as well as the overall future of his 'America First' movement. Among the surrogates who spoke out against American involvement were former senior adviser Steve Bannon, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., commentator Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point. Part of their consternation was rooted in Trump's own vocalized antipathy for what he and others have termed the 'forever wars' fomented in previous administrations. As the possibility of military action neared, some of those voices tamped down their rhetoric. According to Trump, Carlson even called to 'apologize.' Steve Bannon On Wednesday, Bannon, one of top advisers in Trump's 2016 campaign, told an audience in Washington that bitter feelings over Iraq were a driving force for Trump's first presidential candidacy and the MAGA movement. "One of the core tenets is no forever wars,' Bannon said. But the longtime Trump ally, who served a four-month sentence for defying a subpoena in the congressional investigation into the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, went on to suggest that Trump will maintain loyalty from his base no matter what. On Wednesday, Bannon acknowledged that while he and others will argue against military intervention until the end, 'the MAGA movement will back Trump.' Ultimately, Bannon said that Trump would have to make the case to the American people if he wanted to get involved in Iran. 'We don't like it. Maybe we hate it,' Bannon said, predicting what the MAGA response would be. 'But, you know, we'll get on board.' Tucker Carlson The commentator's rhetoric toward Trump was increasingly critical. Carlson, who headlined large rallies with the Republican during the 2024 campaign, earlier this month suggested that the president's posture was breaking his pledge to keep the U.S. out of new foreign entanglements. Trump clapped back at Carlson on social media, calling him 'kooky.' During an event at the White House on Wednesday, Trump said that Carlson had 'called and apologized' for calling him out. Trump said Carlson 'is a nice guy.' Carlson's conversation with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that day laid bare the divides among many Republicans. The two sparred for two hours over a variety of issues, primarily about possible U.S. involvement in Iran. Carlson accused Cruz of placing too much emphasis on protecting Israel in his foreign policy worldview. 'You don't know anything about Iran,' Carlson said to Cruz, after the senator said he didn't know Iran's population or its ethnic composition. 'You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of a government, and you don't know anything about the country.' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene The Georgia Republican, who wore the signature red MAGA cap for Democratic President Joe Biden's State of the Union address in 2024, publicly sided with Carlson, criticizing Trump for deriding 'one of my favorite people.' Saying the former Fox News commentator 'unapologetically believes the same things I do,' Greene wrote on X this past week that those beliefs include that 'foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction.' 'That's not kooky,' Greene added, using the same word Trump used to describe Carlson. 'That's what millions of Americans voted for. It's what we believe is America First.' About an hour before Trump's announcement, Greene posted on X that, 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war.' 'This is not our fight,' she added. 'Peace is the answer.' In another post following Trump's announcement, Greene urged, 'Let us all join together and pray for peace." Alex Jones The far-right conspiracy theorist and Infowars host posted on social media earlier in the week a side-by-side of Trump's official presidential headshot and an artificial intelligence-generated composite of Trump and former Republican President George W. Bush. Trump and many of his allies have long disparaged Bush for involving the United States in the 'forever wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Writing 'What you voted for' above Trump's image and 'What you got' above the composite, Jones added: 'I hope this is not the case…' Charlie Kirk Kirk is among those who seemed to have made a quick about-face. About an hour after Trump's announcement, Kirk posted a series of messages on social media supportive of Trump, saying Iran had given the president 'no choice.' Kirk praised Trump for acting 'with prudence and decisiveness" and 'for the betterment of humanity.' Kirk also reposted a 2011 tweet in which Trump had written that 'Iran's quest for nuclear weapons is a major threat to our nation's national security interests. We can't allow Iran to go nuclear.' 'When Trump speaks, you should listen,' Kirk added. It was a different tone from the start of the week, when Kirk said in a Fox News interview that 'this is the moment that President Trump was elected for.' But he had warned of a potential MAGA divide over Iran. Days later, Kirk said that 'Trump voters, especially young people, supported President Trump because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war.' He also wrote that 'there is historically little support for America to be actively engaged in yet another offensive war in the Middle East. We must work for and pray for peace.'
