Undocumented Kansas high school graduates find themselves increasingly targeted 32%

By Mary Sanchez0%

6/11/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 38 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.8% saturation with 287 hits. Analysis detected 2,621 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,377 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41% and a BS Rank of 32% (14,967 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.40% of the article peer group.

For 22 years, Kansas leaders protected a law allowing some undocumented students to pay in-state tuition to attend the state’s public colleges, universities and technical schools. 
Those days are over. 
During the recently ended session, the GOP-dominated state legislature passed a bill overturning the policy that has allowed thousands of young Kansans to pay for and earn a college education. 
Only the veto of Gov. 
Laura Kelly, a Democrat, saved the law from repeal. 
National challenges are also looming. 
The Trump administration has begun systematically suing the more than 20 states that have such laws. 
The Department of Justice argues in-state tuition laws incentivize unauthorized immigration and favor immigrants over U.S. citizens. 
On June 3, a federal judge struck down Nebraska’s law, which is similar to the one in Kansas. 
Nebraska’s Republican governor had agreed to a consent decree to end the law after being sued. 
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach warns that Kansas could be next. 
“If Kansas were to be sued by the federal government over this statute, Kansas would likely lose the lawsuit,” Kobach said in a legal opinion given to state legislators. 
Other GOP legislators are pressing the same message. 
Sen. 
Mike Thompson, a Johnson County Republican, led efforts in the last legislative session to reframe in-state tuition as a public benefit, arguing the Kansas law is out of sync with federal law, a view that Kobach also holds. 
“The DOJ is watching Kansas closely and if we allow this to continue, we will be sued, and we will lose,” Thompson said in a social media post. 
Since 2004, thousands of immigrant Kansas high school graduates, often called Dreamers, have used the law to earn degrees by paying in-state fees instead of far higher international student rates. 
Republican legislators have targeted the law each session, trying to overturn it. 
Supporters have long pushed back, including the Kansas Board of Regents, the Kansas Association of School Boards and immigrant rights advocates. 
Rep. 
Louis Ruiz, a Kansas City, Kansas, Democrat who is retiring at the end of this term, fears what the future holds for the state’s undocumented K-12 students. 
Ruiz has long supported the students, knowing that many were brought to the U.S. as young children by their parents. 
They view Kansas as home. 
“Some people, especially some Republicans, try to claim that these students are getting a free tuition,” Ruiz said. 
“No, that’s not accurate. 
They are paying a rate as residents of the state.” 
Qualifications include graduating from an accredited Kansas high school after attending for at least three years. 
An Obama-era program has also aided undocumented immigrant students. 
But it also is under heightened scrutiny from the Trump administration. 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, offers temporary protection against deportation for those who qualify and undergo vetting, including biometrics. 
DACA recipients can get a work permit and often begin putting their degrees to work in chosen professions. 
New applications to the program are on hold while federal court challenges play out. 
DACA approval must be renewed every two years. 
Processing delays by the administration are causing people to lose their status. 
And some have been deported. 
The Trump administration says extra vetting is behind the lengthened wait times. 
“I was terrified that it wouldn’t be a quick renewal,” said one Kansas City area DACA recipient of her renewal, which was granted in August 2025. 
Still, her concerns linger. 
She requested to remain anonymous. 
Similar to several people interviewed for this story, she is protective of extended family and other immigrants in her social circles. 
“Even if you’re a permanent resident, you’re not safe,” she said. 
“They’re looking for anything to detain you and deport you without giving you your day in court.” 
There were 505,940 active DACA recipients in the nation as of Sept. 30, 2025, according to U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services. 
Kansas had 4,230 DACA recipients at that time. 
Missouri, which does not allow in-state tuition rates for undocumented students, had 2,490 DACA recipients. 
Also, a Board of Immigration Appeals decision in late April found that holding an active DACA status is not sufficient alone to protect against deportation. 
The decision conflicts with rulings in federal courts that have upheld the program’s constitutionality. 
The National Immigration Law Center is trying to calm DACA recipients’ fears, releasing detailed information about the ruling. 
The center emphasizes that DACA still offers protections from deportation. 
But the situation can become more complicated if a person is detained by immigration officials. 
“I feel like every day I wake up and it’s something else, something new,” said Maria, a former DACA recipient and a graduate of Olathe East High School. 
Last year, Maria completed the process to become a legal permanent resident through marriage to her U.S.-born husband. 
Maria grew up in Olathe, with no memories of her native Puebla, Mexico. 
She immigrated at 2 years old with her mother, reuniting with her father who had migrated earlier. 
Maria fully understood her legal situation as a 16-year-old. 
She wanted to study abroad, along with some of her classmates. 
Her mother explained that it would be impossible for Maria to leave the country and safely return, because of her lack of legal status then. 
The Kansas in-state law made college financially feasible. 
She earned an associate degree at Johnson County Community College, then a bachelor’s degree in business administration and a minor in psychology from the University of Kansas. 
Undocumented Kansas students, even with the in-state tuition law, cannot receive public federal or state grants and scholarships or subsidized student loans. 
“Had it not been out-of-state tuition, even for Johnson County Community College, I would not have been able to graduate at all,” Maria said. 
Valtierra’s DACA status lapsed for eight tense weeks this spring. 
A native of Durango, Mexico, she’s lived in the U.S. since the age of 11 and applied for her DACA renewal early. 
But it didn’t arrive by her February expiration date. 
As a result, she couldn’t legally drive, or work, and had to step away from her job teaching young children at a school in Wichita. 
She gave an aunt power of attorney. 
She arranged for house payments to be covered for the family home. 
She spoke to her oldest child, a 17-year-old, about assuming the role as head of the household. 
The youngest, at 13, struggled to understand. 
“Just having to have that conversation with them was awful,” Valtierra said. 
“And trying to explain, ‘I’m protecting you guys, making sure you’ll be OK if anything happens.’” 
Valtierra’s renewal was approved in late March. 
She’s resumed teaching, putting the early childhood/leadership degree she earned from Fort Hays State University into practice. 
DACA was never intended to be a permanent fix. 
It was a stopgap for a generation of immigrants who had been brought to the U.S. without documentation as children. 
Obama instituted it by executive order in 2012. 
Congress, despite periods of strong bipartisan support, never passed the DREAM Act, which would offer a route to permanent legal status for some undocumented students. 
DREAM stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. 
The act was first introduced in 2001. 
Most of the original DACA recipients, and many former students known as Dreamers, are now in their 30s or older. 
“We consider this our country, even though we don’t have a piece of paper that says this is our country,” Valtierra said. 
“Now we have kids, and we’ve built a life in here.” 
“The environment has definitely changed around the issue,” said Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, campaign manager for New Frontiers, Loud Light’s project in southwest Kansas. 
“But I do believe we still have a really good law in place.” 
Rangel-Lopez, of Dodge City, helped organize some of the pushback during debates on SB254, the bill that sought to end in-state tuition. 
Planning continues, including gaining insights from states that have already been sued. 
And national organizations such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, also known as MALDEF, have also been contacted. 
“We know the fight isn’t over yet because of the national environment and that we’re probably in their crosshairs,” Rangel-Lopez said. 
This story was originally published by The Beacon, a fellow member of the KC Media Collective. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.8%Mary Sanchez: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 4.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Mary Sanchez: 2.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic8.9%This article: 1.5%Mary Sanchez: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic1.5%This article: 1.2%Mary Sanchez: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias1.2%This article: 3.7%Mary Sanchez: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias3.7%This article: 7.0%Mary Sanchez: 10.9%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect7.0%This article: 0.4%Mary Sanchez: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.4%This article: 3.6%Mary Sanchez: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 1.8%Mary Sanchez: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect1.8%This article: 6.2%Mary Sanchez: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias6.2%This article: 9.2%Mary Sanchez: 3.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias9.2%This article: 20.8%Mary Sanchez: 9.7%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias20.8%This article: 2.7%Mary Sanchez: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 2.6%Mary Sanchez: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error2.6%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Mary Sanchez: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias8.6%This article: 4.1%Mary Sanchez: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.1%This article: 0.7%Mary Sanchez: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.7%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Mary Sanchez: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 3.4%Mary Sanchez: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 1.3%Mary Sanchez: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man1.3%This article: 8.3%Mary Sanchez: 7.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority8.3%This article: 1.1%Mary Sanchez: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma1.1%This article: 1.5%Mary Sanchez: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope1.5%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.6%Mary Sanchez: 3.8%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization3.6%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.1%Mary Sanchez: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon2.1%This article: 18.8%Mary Sanchez: 12.4%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion18.8%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.5%Mary Sanchez: 3.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.5%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.0%Mary Sanchez: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.0%This article: 0.7%Mary Sanchez: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.7%This article: 1.5%Mary Sanchez: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division1.5%This article: 10.6%Mary Sanchez: 3.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal10.6%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.8%Mary Sanchez: 6.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.8%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.2%Mary Sanchez: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote3.2%This article: 4.1%Mary Sanchez: 4.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection4.1%This article: 6.3%Mary Sanchez: 2.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice6.3%This article: 3.6%Mary Sanchez: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination3.6%This article: 4.7%Mary Sanchez: 2.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.7%This article: 3.3%Mary Sanchez: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Mary Sanchez: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1377 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers24%attributed speech1,053writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKris Kobach • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKris Kobach • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageMike Thompson • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageLouis Ruiz • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageLouis Ruiz • 18 words • 100.0% coverageLouis Ruiz • 4 words • 0.0% coverageLouis Ruiz • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageNational Immigration Law Center • 18 words • 0.0% coverageNational Immigration Law Center • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMaria • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMaria • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageValtierra • 12 words • 0.0% coverageValtierra • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageValtierra • 22 words • 0.0% coverageValtierra • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAlejandro Rangel-Lopez • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAlejandro Rangel-Lopez • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAlejandro Rangel-Lopez • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike Thompson

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words8.6% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+99.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%Mike Thompson: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.3 ptsWriter: 8.3%Mike Thompson: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%Mike Thompson: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%Mike Thompson: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Mike Thompson: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Mike Thompson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.