September was a bad month for foreign-born students who don't possess a piece of paper with their picture and a date of entry into the United States. They are undocumented - a status they inherited from their parents.
On Sept. 15, a California Court of Appeal ruled that a California law that grants in-state college tuition subsidies for undocumented students is in conflict with federal law.
Under current state law (AB 540), students regardless of citizenship status are eligible for subsidized tuition fees at California community colleges, state universities and University of California campuses.
To qualify for in-state tuition, students must complete three years of high school in California and graduate from a California high school. If they are not a U.S citizen or permanent legal resident, they must complete an AB 540 affidavit at the college or university they plan to attend. The affidavit states that once they are eligible, they will apply for legal status.
The lawsuit was filed by a group of out-of-state students. Their argument was that regardless of California residency, under federal law, undocumented students cannot receive special benefits unless those same benefits are extended to all U.S. citizens.
The University of California has announced that it will be appealing the court ruling to the State Supreme Court, a process that is expected to take a year or longer. In the meantime, for students that qualify under AB 540, the in-state tuition program will remain in effect.
There are an estimated 25,000 of these students that graduate from California high schools every year. For those who wish to continue their education beyond high school and meet admission requirements into colleges and universities, it is becoming increasingly difficult.
The other setback for undocumented students came on Sept. 30, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed for the second year in a row a California version of the federal "DREAM Act" (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act). The bill (SB 1301) would have allowed undocumented students the ability to apply and compete for institutional aid at California colleges and universities in the form of grants, scholarships, work study and loan programs.
The federal DREAM act was first introduced to Congress in July 2003. The act would have allowed qualified undocumented students permanent legal residency if they planned to go to college or join military service. Congress voted it down in 2007.
As one of the authors of an earlier version of the bill, Republican U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah stated, "Many of these youngsters find themselves caught in a catch-22 situation. As (undocumented) immigrants, they cannot work legally. They are also effectively barred from developing academically beyond high school because of the high cost of pursuing higher education. In short, although these children have built their lives here, they have no possibility of achieving and living the American dream. What a tremendous loss for them, and what a tremendous loss to our society."
To understand how we got to this point, all we have to do is look at our current economic crisis. When it comes to our immigration policies, there has to be a balance between jobs and workers. Just as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said before Congress, "There has to be a balance between regulation and market discipline." If you have too much regulation, you choke the free market; not enough discipline, you get runaway greed. If you have a demand for workers, and then seal the borders and hamper legal migration, you obstruct economic growth.
Opponents of the Dream Act at the federal and state level argue that taxpayers should not pay for the education of undocumented students they consider criminals for violating our immigration laws. However, this is a price we have always paid, because as Americans we consider education not a liability but a long-term investment.
Adults violate immigration laws; their children, as minors, do not choose where to live. The children of immigrants spend years in the public education system, and those who work hard deserve to continue their studies.
In the long run, we all benefit. It is our investment on assets that have been working hard for us.
The good news is that both presidential candidates recognize this and both understand the need for constructive immigration legislation. The Dream Act will be introduced again in 2009. Let's hope this time we get it right.
Mario Ba'uelos has lived in Morgan Hill for 19 years. He has served on the South Valley Dayworker Committee and is a member of the Morgan Hill Community Foundation. He is married and has four children. Reach him at mbanuelos@charter.net.
Mario Bañuelos
Mario Bañuelos Mario Bañuelos has lived in Morgan Hill for 19 years. He has served on the South Valley Dayworker Committee and is a member of the Morgan Hill Community Foundation. He is married and has four children. Reach him at mbanuelos@charter.net.
POST A COMMENT
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.
Gilroy Garlic Festival: City vs. City Challenge
