WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 145

Immigration - As introduced, requires a financial institution to verify the immigration status of a person sending funds electronically outside of the United States and its territories; changes the definition of resident or citizen of this state to mean citizens of the United States and aliens lawfully present in this state; requires the parent, guardian, or legal custodian of a pupil who is not lawfully residing in this state, but who attends a public school in this state, to pay tuition. - Amends TCA Title 1; Title 4; Title 7; Title 45 and Title 49.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Gino Bulso

Tennessee bill requiring banks to verify immigration status for wire transfers and charging tuition for undocumented public school students; failed subcommittee review in March 2025.

Failed in s/c Banking and Consumer Affairs Subcommittee of Commerce Committee
#immigration
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 145

Legislative bill overview

HB 145 would require Tennessee financial institutions to verify immigration status before processing international wire transfers, redefine state residency to exclude undocumented immigrants, and mandate tuition payments from parents of undocumented students attending public schools. The bill amends multiple state codes covering banking, education, and residency definitions.

Why is this important

The bill directly affects immigration enforcement mechanisms, public education access, and banking operations in Tennessee. It would create new compliance burdens for financial institutions, potentially alter public school funding and enrollment, and change who qualifies as a state resident for various legal and administrative purposes.

Potential points of contention

  • Banking compliance costs: Financial institutions would bear implementation costs for immigration status verification systems, with unclear federal coordination mechanisms and potential violations of federal banking privacy standards
  • Education access and constitutional concerns: Charging tuition to undocumented students may conflict with the 1982 Supreme Court ruling (Plyler v. Doe) guaranteeing free K-12 education regardless of immigration status, creating litigation risk
  • Definitional scope and unintended consequences: Narrowing "resident" status could affect undocumented immigrants' access to state services, driver's licenses, and tax obligations, with inconsistent application across state agencies

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.