WWW.DISSERTATION.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 || 3 | 4 |   ...   | 7 |

«IN-STATE TUITION FOR UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS: FUELING THE STATE-FEDERAL BATTLEGROUND Jennifer Joy Lee* ABSTRACT In the last decade, state legislatures ...»

-- [ Page 2 ] --

6 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law [Vol. 19:3 to check the immigration status of all arrestees and persons who they reasonably suspect to be unauthorized immigrants, prohibits unauthorized immigrants from working in Arizona, requires all aliens to carry their registration papers at all times, and authorizes peace officers to make warrantless arrests of persons who they have probable cause to believe have committed a deportable offense.27 Alabama’s law, H.B. 56, is modeled after Arizona’s S.B. 1070.28 In fact, both laws were written by Kris Kobach, Of Counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute and Secretary of State of Kansas.29 In addition to provisions that mirror those contained in S.B. 1070, H.B. 56 requires every public elementary and secondary school in Alabama to determine the immigration status of incoming students, makes it a felony for undocumented immigrants to enter into business transactions with the state, and prohibits undocumented immigrants from enrolling in or attending any public postsecondary educational institution in the state.30 The Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have upheld preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of certain provisions of the Arizona and Alabama laws, respectively, on the grounds that those provisions are likely to be preempted by federal law.31 Arizona appealed the Ninth Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and, on December 12, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the state’s petition for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case in spring 2012.32 Over the past decade, another preemption debate has emerged that implicates both the federal-state power struggle over public education and the clash over immigration: whether states can offer in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants attending public colleges and universities.

The Supreme Court has never spoken on the matter; in fact, it denied ARZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 11-1051(B), 13-1509, 13-2928(C), 13-3883(A)(5) (2010).

Uriel J. Garcia, Democrats go to Alabama to fight SB 1070-style immigration law, CRONKITE NEWS (Nov. 17, 2011), http://cronkitenewsonline.com/2011/11/ democrats-go-to-alabama-to-fight-sb-1070-style-immigration-law/.

Id.

H.B. 56 §§ 8, 28(a)(1), 30(b).

United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 366 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v.

Alabama, 443 F. App’x 411, 420 (11th Cir. 2011). In a companion case brought by private plaintiffs, the Alabama District Court enjoined H.B. § 8, which prohibits undocumented immigrants from enrolling at public postsecondary educational institutions in Alabama. Hispanic Interest Coal. of Ala. v. Bentley, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137846, at *78–79 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 28, 2011).

Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 845 (2011); see also Stephen Dinan, High court to consider Ariz. migrant law, THE WASH. TIMES, Dec. 12, 2011, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/12/supreme-court-will-hear-arizonaimmigration-law-ca/.

Summer 2012] In-State Tuition 7 certiorari on this very issue in June of 2011.33 Thirteen states currently offer in-state tuition eligibility to undocumented immigrants,34 but the question of whether the state statutes that provide this eligibility are preempted by federal law remains unanswered.

This Note will explore federal preemption challenges to state statutes granting in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants. It will then consider the significance of the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in the legal challenge arising from one of these statutes, California’s A.B.

540, and its grant of certiorari to consider Arizona’s S.B. 1070. This Note will then discuss the bearing these certiorari decisions have on the success of federal preemption challenges to state tuition laws benefiting students who are undocumented immigrants.

A. THE COURT OPENS THE DOOR TO K-12 EDUCATION: PLYLER V. DOE

The U.S. Supreme Court first dealt with the issue of undocumented immigrants and public education almost thirty years ago in Plyler v.

Doe,35 in which it held that the state of Texas could not deny to undocumented children the free primary and secondary public school education that it offered to other children residing within the state.36 Plyler involved a Texas statute that withheld from school districts any state funds that would be used to educate students who were not “legally admitted” into the United States.37 The statute in effect permitted public school districts to deny enrollment or charge tuition to undocumented children. The Supreme Court held that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects all “persons,” not just citizens.38 This holding was consistent with one hundred years of Supreme Court precedent recognizing aliens unlawfully present in the United States as “persons” within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.39 Although the Plyler Court found that these undocumented children were “persons” within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court also held that undocumented immigrants are not a suspect class and that education is not a fundamental right under the Constitution.40 The Texas statute was thus subject to intermediate scrutiny, rather than Martinez v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 131 S. Ct. 2961 (2011).

See infra note 90 and accompanying text.

457 U.S. 202 (1982).





Id. at 230.

Id. at 205.

Id. at 210.

Id. (citing Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)).

Id. at 219, 221.

8 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law [Vol. 19:3 strict scrutiny. Under the Court’s construction of the intermediate scrutiny test, the state of Texas had to demonstrate that its statute bore a “fair and substantial relation” to a substantial state interest.41 The Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Brennan, held that the Texas statute failed to further a substantial state interest.42 The state’s proposed interests failed to justify a statute that was wholly directed against children and that “impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control.”43 The Court provided three main reasons for striking down the Texas statute. First, while the state of Texas contended that the statute would protect the state from the economic effects of an influx of illegal immigrants, it offered no evidence that illegal entrants “impose any significant burden on the State’s economy.”44 Instead, the Court held that excluding or charging tuition to undocumented children was “‘a ludicrously ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration,’ at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens.”45 Second, although the state of Texas argued that undocumented children imposed special burdens on the state’s ability to provide highquality public education, the Court found nothing in the record to support the claim that the exclusion of undocumented children would be likely to improve the overall quality of education in the state.46 The Court instead agreed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that “in terms of educational cost and need... undocumented children are ‘basically indistinguishable’ from legally resident alien children.”47 Third, whereas the state of Texas claimed that children who were undocumented immigrants were less likely to remain in the state and “put their education to productive social or political use,” the Court found that “many of the undocumented children disabled by this classification will remain in this country indefinitely, and that some will become lawful residents or citizens of the United States.”48 The Court reasoned that the Texas statute would in fact increase unemployment,

–  –  –

welfare, and crime by “promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries.”49 Justice Brennan took the opportunity to emphasize the importance of education in this country, as a mechanism that “provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all” and that “has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society.”50 Accordingly, he cautioned that “[w]e cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests.”51 Borrowing the language of Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Brennan noted that “it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”52 Justice Brennan also suggested that providing K-12 education to undocumented children is in society’s interest and that “[b]y denying [undocumented] children a basic education, we... foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation.”53 Justice Powell, in a concurring opinion, placed great weight on the fact that the appellee children, unlike their parents, had not made the conscious choice to leave Mexico and enter the United States illegally.54 Therefore, under the Texas law, those undocumented children were “excluded only because of a status resulting from the violation by parents or guardians of our immigration laws and the fact that they remain in our country unlawfully. The appellee children are innocent in this respect. They can ‘affect neither their parents’ conduct nor their own status.’”55 For nearly thirty years, undocumented children have been attending elementary, middle and high schools in the United States as beneficiaries of the Plyler holding. The Plyler Court, however, limited its holding to K-12 education and has since declined to decide whether undocumented children’s right to attend public school extends to higher education.56 As Id.

Id. at 221.

Id.

Id. at 223 (quoting Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954)).

Id. at 223.

Id. at 238 (Powell, J., concurring).

Id. (quoting Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977)).

See Martinez v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 131 S. Ct. 2961, 2961 (2011) 10 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law [Vol. 19:3 a result, the states have been left to themselves to decide whether to grant or deny undocumented immigrants enrollment in their public universities. Although undocumented students are able to pursue higher education in most states, two states have taken action to deny undocumented immigrants admission to their public colleges and universities.

In 2002, Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore circulated a memorandum to colleges and universities in Virginia advising them to deny admission to students who are undocumented immigrants.57 In this memorandum, Attorney General Kilgore acknowledged that, “unlike in the area of employment law, there is no statute that requires proof of United States citizenship or proof of immigration status in order to apply to a college or university.”58 Thus, he concluded that postsecondary educational institutions have broad discretion in deciding how they will treat applicants who are not lawfully present in the United States.59 In particular, Attorney General Kilgore pointed to the loopholes in the country’s student and exchange visitor programs that enabled the September 11 hijackers to launch their attack from inside the U.S. just one year prior.60 He observed that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) had proposed regulations to close some of these loopholes.61 His recommendation to the Commonwealth’s educational institutions was consistent with the spirit of the INS regulations in reaction to the September 11 attacks.

On June 4, 2008, South Carolina was the first state to enact a law expressly providing that undocumented immigrants are not eligible to attend a postsecondary institution in the state.62 In June 2011, Alabama enacted a similar ban as a provision of H.B. 56; however, that provision Memorandum from Commonwealth of Va. Attorney Gen. on Immigration Law Compliance Update to Virginia Public Universities and Colleges and to the Executive Director of the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia (Sept.

5, 2002), available at www.schev.edu/AdminFaculty/ImmigrationMemo9-5APL.pdf.

Id. at 5.

Id.

Id. at 3.

Id.

See S.C. CODE ANN. § 59-101-430 (2010); Titus Ledbetter III, S.C.

restrictions leave illegal immigrants’ futures uncertain, INDEPENDENTMAIL.COM (Aug. 1, 2009, 9:58 PM), http://www.independentmail.com/news/2009/aug/01/between-borders-sclawmakers-placing-new-restricti/.

Summer 2012] In-State Tuition 11 was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in September 2011.63 As a result, the undocumented children of the Plyler generation have been able to attend public colleges and universities in all but two states—Virginia and South Carolina. Paying to attend these colleges and universities, however, presents a separate issue. Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for federal financial aid, but the U.S.

Department of Education advises non-eligible non-citizens that they may nonetheless be eligible for state or college aid.64 In addition, a number of private organizations offer scholarships exclusively to students who are undocumented immigrants.65 With the skyrocketing cost of tuition in recent years,66 students across the country will likely choose to enroll in public colleges and universities in their home states, where they can take advantage of lower tuition rates. Two federal restrictions, however, may foreclose for undocumented immigrants the opportunity to take advantage of in-state tuition rates.

B. CONGRESS SPEAKS: SECTIONS 1621 AND 1623



Pages:     | 1 || 3 | 4 |   ...   | 7 |


Similar works:

«Planning Accessible Meetings and Events A TOOLKIT Overview Planning fully accessible meetings and events might at first glance seem overwhelming, but with proper planning can become second nature. An effective approach begins with raising planners’ awareness of disability diversity within the legal profession, as well as the barriers that limit or preclude participation by persons with disabilities. During a lifetime, most everyone is likely to experience a disability, whether due to aging, a...»

«WHOSE LAW & ORDER? Aspects of Crime and Social Control in Irish Society Edited by Mike Tomlinson Tony Varley Ciaran McCullagh Studies in Irish Society 1. Are They Always Right? Investigation and Proof in a Citizen Anti-Heroin Movement Don Bennett Introduction Up out of a sea-misted Dun Laoghaire side-street emerges a solitary figure muffled in a long olive great-coat. He has spent his night tracking the movements of a number of men and women. He has gathered reports from regular contacts who...»

«Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: Thailand September 2015 U.S. Department of Energy Independent Statistics & Analysis www.eia.gov Washington, DC 20585 September 2015 This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in...»

«State Office of Administrative Hearings Cathleen Parsley Chief Administrative Law Judge September 9, 2015 VIA REGULAR MAIL Sherry K-Cook Administrator Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 5806 Mesa Drive Austin, Texas 78731 RE: SOAH Docket No. 458-15-3463; Alvaro Lopez Rojas d/b/a Topaz Nigh t Club Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission vs.Dear Ms. Cook: Please find enclosed a Proposal for Decision in this case. It contains my recommendation and underlying rationale. Exceptions and replies may be...»

«[VOL. 4 NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-RIGHT TO COUNSEL-WAIVER*-The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution entitles one charged with a crime to the assistance of counsel as an essential jurisdictional prerequisite to the court's authority to deprive the accused of his life or liberty.' Lack of counsel will not bar conviction if the accused competently and intelligently 2 waives his right to be 3 represented. The United States Supreme Court has said that 'courts indulge...»

«EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT A NEW YORK DWI AND YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE By Attorneys Mike Cyr & Larry Newman CYR & ASSOCIATES 401 E. State. St., Ste. 400 Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: (607) 229-5184 www.ithacadwi.com EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. COPYRIGHT CYR & ASSOCIATES 2015. DISCLAIMER This book is not intended as legal advice. Nor does it create an attorneyclient relationship. It is simply written to educate people charged with a DWI or other DW offense in New York State. It is the goal of this...»

«“THE MOVEMENT OF COERCION” BY Justice David J. Brewer _ FOREWORD BY DOUGLAS A. HEDIN Editor, MLHP David Josiah Brewer served on the Supreme Court from December 18, 1889 to March 27, 1910. Off the court, he continued to express his views on a wide range of subjects, legal and otherwise, through articles in journals, books and numerous public addresses, including the following to the New York State Bar Association in January 1893.1 His topic was “The Movement of Coercion” which, he...»

«東北人類学論壇 Tohoku Anthropological Exchange11:1-25(2012) Re-representing Violence as Violence: Cultural Struggle against Wife Battering in Japan Today1 Ichiro Numazaki Introduction This paper examines how battered women movement has struggled to represent various forms of wife abuse as “violence” at multiple levels of discourse such as everyday conversation, media talks, academic (“scientific”) explanations, and legal texts in Japan today. As a concerned academic and activist,...»

«2016 / Terrorism 2.0: The Rise of the Civilitary Battlefield 199 ARTICLE Terrorism 2.0: The Rise of the Civilitary Battlefield Gil Avriel* * Legal Adviser to the Israeli National Security Council, Prime Minister’s Office and a Wexner Israel Fellow, Harvard Center for Public Leadership; MC-MPA, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 2015. I would like to thank Professor R. Nicholas Burns, Joseph S. Nye Jr., Brian S. Mandell and Kenneth Winston from Harvard Kennedy School of...»

«COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT BRIEFING AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCOTS LAW AND ENGLISH LAW REGARDING COMMERCIAL LEASING BALFOUR + MANSON LLP AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCOTS LAW AND ENGLISH LAW REGARDING COMMERCIAL LEASING 1. INTRODUCTION In England there is a well developed code which applies to commercial leasing based on the Landlord and Tenant Act and The Law of Property Act. However, in Scotland where there has been very little statutory intervention the position is...»

«The Royal Mile Sundial Trail by Dennis Cowan This sundial trail takes in the whole of Edinburgh’s famous Royal Mile from the Castle at the top, right down to the Palace of Holyroodhouse at the bottom, with a slight detour to the National Museum of Scotland. The Royal Mile is a collective name for the following six streets Castle Esplanade, Castlehill, Lawnmarket, High Street, Canongate and Abbey Strand. It is in the heart of Edinburgh’s Old Town, as distinct from the New Town at the other...»

«FACULTY OF LAW Lund University Viktor Wahlqvist Private Enforcement in EU competition lawThe victim becomes the victor? JURM02 Graduate Thesis Graduate Thesis, Master of Laws programme 30 higher education credits Supervisor: Björn Lundqvist Semester: VT2014 Contents SUMMARY 1 SAMMANFATTNING 2 PREFACE 3 ABBREVIATIONS 4 1 INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Background 5 1.2 Purpose and aim 6 1.3 Method and material 7 1.4 Limitation 8 1.5 Disposition 8 2 PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT IN THE US 9 2.1 Pre-trial discovery and...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.