Who Are Transborder Students?

Transborder students are students who live in Mexico near the Mexican-U.S. border and commute to the United States daily in pursuit of education. The majority of these students gain access to the U.S. through dual-citizenship, U.S. passports or naturalization certificates, with many starting as early as kindergarten and continuing to commute throughout their college experience. 

Transborder commutes for students present challenges, including navigating changing immigration policies. Wait times at some ports of entry can stretch to several hours, and many transborder students report ongoing uncertainty over their residency status and eligibility for financial aid. In response, some border-region colleges have adopted specific support measures for this student population.

Background on California Assembly Bill 91

Passed into law in October 2023, California Assembly Bill 91 (A.B. 91) allows eligible transborder students to receive in-state tuition rates from schools within the San Diego and Imperial Counties Community Colleges Association (SDICCCA). This program is a five-year pilot set to end on July 1, 2028, at which point the state legislature could choose to renew it , modify it, or let it expire. Eligible students must have resided within 45 miles of the U.S. Mexico border for at least a year upon application, be classified as low-income in accordance with income and household standards provided by the California Community Colleges Chancellors Office, and be enrolled at any SDICCCA institution. 

Nine colleges are currently included in the scope of A.B. 91, including but not limited to Grossmont College, Imperial Valley College, Miramar College, and San Diego City College. To receive tuition benefits, transborder students must apply directly to the college of their choice through CCC Apply and fill out the A.B. 91 affidavit to receive exemption from non-resident tuition rates. A.B. 91 caps the number of students who can receive in-state tuition rates to 150 full-time equivalent students (FTES) per participating community college each academic year. FTES is an enrollment measure, so it does not necessarily mean 150 individual full-time students, but rather any number of students whose combined credit hours are equal to that of 150 full-time students (e.g., 300 part-time students).

Why Do Proponents Support A.B. 91?

Proponents of the bill argue that it improves student access to higher education. Transborder students face many systemic barriers to accessing higher education in the United States. Academic advisors sometimes discourage them from pursuing higher education in California, presenting them with “easier and more limiting option[s].” When transborder students are accepted into California colleges, the high cost of higher education in the United States may force them to stop working towards a degree. A.B. 91 lets transborder students benefit from the significant difference in cost for in-state versus out-of-state tuition. 

Given California’s proximity to the border, student supporters of A.B. 91 believe that the legislation allows for an increase in the number of available cross-border workers. Although no studies have specifically examined the long-term outcomes of A.B. 91 on graduates, broader research on higher education partnerships between the United States and Mexico suggests that educational access plays a significant role in strengthening economic growth across the border. A binational education study suggests that students seek higher education and drive economic growth when there is increased access to academic opportunities. Additionally, research on educational exchange between the U.S. and Mexico indicates that Mexican students contributed $661 million to the U.S. economy in 2023, suggesting that educational investments in Mexican students produce significant returns. It is however important to note that this figure reflects the broader international student population, not transborder commuter students specifically, and it is not yet known whether A.B. 91 will generate comparable economic effects.

Concerns Raised by Opponents

Opponents of the bill argue that reducing tuition costs for transborder students will negatively impact California’s budget deficit. During legislative debate, critics emphasized that California was facing a $22 billion budget deficit while its community colleges were struggling with low-enrollment rates. They also argued that the state might not be able to handle the costs associated with making community colleges more accessible to transborder students and that colleges would experience a reduction in revenue due to the loss of higher non-resident tuition fees. 

This question is particularly crucial given that domestic in-state tuition agreements, like the California-Nevada Interstate Attendance Agreement (CNIAA) which allows a capped number of Nevada residents to attend California’s Lake Tahoe Community College at a reduced (though still above resident-level) tuition rate, have raised questions about return on investment. Critics argue that if students don’t remain in-state to contribute to its workforce and economy, the loss of tuition money from offering in-state tuition is not beneficial for the college or its home state in the long-run. 

The lack of available data on transborder students also places a limitation on A.B. 91’s effectiveness. Because this population is not consistently identified or tracked, it is difficult to assess how many students benefit from the policy or what their educational and workforce outcomes are after graduation. This will make it difficult to assess whether A.B. 91 achieves its intended goals, including increasing workforce participation, contributing to California’s economy, or generating a measurable return on the state’s investment. For this reason, the Trump administration and other critics have raised concerns about the benefits of granting undocumented and immigrant students access to in-state tuition rates and state scholarships. 

Conclusion

Transborder students and their advocates recognize A.B. 91 as a step towards expanding access to higher education. However, the policy also presents several limitations in exposing them to structural and administrative challenges during their commutes to the United States. Worries about economic losses incurred to schools have also raised questions about the feasibility of expanding the bill beyond community colleges, prompting debates about the allocation of public resources and the prioritization of resident populations in California’s higher education system. 

Said debates are underscored by a lack of reliable data on how many students would actually be served by A.B. 91, making assessments of the policy’s impact and effectiveness a tricky enterprise. These limitations raise broader questions about how best to support transborder students while balancing economic constraints and addressing the needs of a largely untracked population.

Frequently Asked Questions