| /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
|
|
Illegal Immigrants
in Community Colleges: Yes or No?
by Lisa C.
Neisler
Should illegal immigrants be allowed to attend community colleges?
This is a debated topic not only in our state of North Carolina, but across
the country. The arguments in favor of and against illegals participating
in post-secondary education are numerous and varied. Local community
colleges are looking to the state for direction and the state is looking
to the federal government. Unfortunately, the question is not specifically
answered by federal law and it leaves community college leaders having
to make very difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions.
Before focusing solely on the issue in North Carolina, it is important
to understand that there is no consensus on this topic nationwide.
The Plyler vs. Doe (1982) ruling stated that free schooling for children
in K-12 who were in the country illegally was guaranteed. Once these
students graduate from high school, the question of whether or not to continue
educating them is up for debate. There is no federal law that specifically
or clearly directs states how to handle admission of illegal immigrants
to their community college systems. States are individually interpreting
the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act which uses the terminology “benefits”.
The 1996 law limits states from giving “benefits” to older undocumented
students that they don’t offer to U.S. citizens. The law bars states
from “providing a post-secondary education benefit to an alien not lawfully
present unless any citizen or national is eligible for such benefit” (Vock,
2008). Lawyers argue that what the law means by “benefit” is not
clear.
Ten states offer in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. They include
California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma,
Texas, Utah, and Washington. This decision does not come without
controversy. Many who are opposed, point out that many of these states
have lawsuits against them. Some students and their families argue
that they are being discriminated against, as illegal immigrants are receiving
the “benefit” of in-state tuition which they are not.
Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City,
represents a group of students who are suing California based on the law.
California’s tuition rate for out-of-state students is about four times
the in-state tuition that undocumented students there receive. According
to Kobach’s estimations, it is costing California tax-payers 200 million
dollars every year to subsidize the in-state tuition of those estimated
25,000 undocumented students enrolled in the state’s public colleges (Ramirez,
2008).
Kansas is faced with similar lawsuits. In 2005, Brigette Brennan
(Day vs. Bond) unsuccessfully sued the state based on the fact she was
required to pay higher fees to attend the University of Kansas than in-state
illegal immigrants were. Even though she attended a Kansas high school,
her family resided across the state border in Kansas City, MO. Her
mother, Zan Brennen, called it an outrage that she was required, as a U.S.
citizen from a neighboring state, to pay more than illegal immigrants (Ramirez,
2008).
In 2001, Texas granted in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. By
2005, Texas reported a 900 percent increase in enrollment of illegal immigrants
in state universities/colleges and community colleges (Arrow,2008).
Some states have closed the doors of higher education to undocumented students.
This summer, South Carolina became the first state to ban such students
from all of its public colleges and universities. Arizona, Colorado,
Georgia, and Oklahoma now deny illegal immigrants in-state tuition benefits.
Many feel that with our economy in the state that it is, education dollars
should be spent on making college more affordable for U.S. citizens, not
for illegal immigrants (Ramirez, 2008). Lawmakers in Virginia and
Missouri unsuccessfully tried this year to prevent illegal immigrants from
signing up for classes at any state college.
The DREAM (Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors) Act is a
bill that was introduced in the United States Senate in November, 2005.
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) proposed this bill as a way of solving the
growing problem of what to do with illegal immigrants upon graduating from
high school. It is a carefully constructed document with strict requirements
and eligibility limitations. “Under the provisions of the bill, those
who entered the United States five years prior to the passage of the legislation
and were under age 16 at the time of entry are eligible for a six year
conditional residency status upon completion of an associates degree or
two years of military service. If the applicant demonstrates good
moral character, at the end of the six year conditional residency, the
applicant can apply for United States citizenship (DREAM Act Portal, 2008).”
If this bill had been passed, then states would not have been left in their
current state of limbo.
Unfortunately, in October, 2007 the US Senate tried to bring the bill to
cloture. Cloture would have ended discussion of the bill and senators
would have later voted on the bill. Since 60 “yes” votes were not
received, the bill did not pass. While the Bush administration clearly
did not want to participate in this debate, President-elect Obama has been
rather outspoken on the topic. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
both voted in favor of the bill.
In September 2008, on a campaign stop in North Carolina, Obama specifically
addressed North Carolina’s position (or lack thereof) on allowing illegal
immigrants to enroll in community colleges. He told the Greensboro’s
WUNC this:
"For us to deny [illegal aliens] access to community college, even though
they've never lived in Mexico, at least as far as they can tell ... is
to deny that this is how we've always built this country up"...
Obama said many immigrant children have spent nearly their entire lives
in the U.S., and "for all practical purposes, they are an American kid...
I think we don't want them in the underground economy... We want them contributing,
and it makes sense for us to provide them some pathway. If they've been
here a certain period of time, and they've been good citizens, let's try
to figure out how we can work them into the fabric of our society” (Obama,
2008).
For years, North Carolina has ping-ponged back and forth regarding the
issue of allowing illegal immigrants to attend state community colleges.
Beginning in 1958, North Carolina adopted an open-door policy regarding
illegal aliens. Between 2001-2004, illegals were not allowed to attend
classes, but in 2004, a ruling left the decision open to individual colleges
and there was no statewide consensus. In 2007, another ruling required
colleges to accept illegals, but only if the colleges charged out-of-state
tuition. In May 2008, the North Carolina Attorney General, Ray Cooper,
issued a statement that illegals were not allowed acceptance any longer.
This was based on his interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality
Act of 1996. In July, 2008 the Office of Homeland Security responded
that it was again, up to individual community colleges to make a very hard
decision. This timeline clearly illustrates the “state of flux” that
North Carolina is in regarding this topic.
There are many arguments in favor of and against our North Carolina community
colleges educating illegal immigrants. Immediate past-President of
the North Carolina College system, Martin Lancaster, issued a statement
in December 2007 which outlined important facts he felt had been overlooked
due to the focus on legal opinion. His statement was beautifully
written and expressed his sentiments in favor of North Carolina community
colleges maintaining an “open-door” policy. His points included:
1. The vast majority of students who might pursue an educational opportunity
at a community college came to this country as young children, having no
choice in the matter.
2. Each of these students had the opportunity to receive a free public
education K-12. Many will graduate as valedictorians or honor students.
Would it be fair or right to deny them further education?
3. As undocumented immigrants, these students will have to pay the total
cost of their education. The state cannot subsidize their cost with
federal or state educational benefits. The $10,000 plus expense will
be a deterrent to many who might wish to enroll.
4. We are a nation of immigrants and opponents of an open-door policy should
realize that fifty or one hundred years ago, their ancestors faced the
same opposition they are now voicing.
5. Unless the federal government addresses the whole immigration issue,
it is highly unlikely that these students will return to their native countries.
That being the case, if they are able to work someday, we want them to
be knowledgeable, not ignorant.
6. Many European countries are experiencing violence and terrorist activity
by immigrants who were denied basic rights and services. The United
States and North Carolina face the same eventuality if they do not educate
and encourage these students to become productive members of society.
7. For North Carolina to be competitive in a global economy, it must depend
on a knowledge-based workforce. If a significant portion of tomorrow’s
workforce is denied higher education opportunities, our economy could be
negatively impacted.
8. Our community colleges are not inundated by undocumented students.
The burden is not great and those choosing to enroll are “more than paying”
for their education (Lancaster, 2007).
President Lancaster’s statement was thoughtful and thorough. Clearly,
his views were not motivated by politics, but instead by his commitment
to educate all students.
On the other hand, there are those who believe firmly that illegal immigrants
should be barred from attending North Carolina community colleges.
The argument against providing a “benefit” to illegal aliens when United
States citizens cannot receive the same “benefit” is the biggest.
That is evident in the lawsuits mentioned earlier. In general, the
“cons” all revolve around money. The fact that illegals reside in
North Carolina without contributing to the tax obligations that the citizens
of North Carolina are required to remit, creates an inherent argument
that is hard to ignore. As Zeb Arrow asks, “Since illegal aliens
are unlawfully present here…, why should NC taxpayers subsidize their post-secondary
education?” (Arrow, 2008)
Taking the subsidy argument to the next level can also provide a compelling
argument against state subsidized secondary education. On CNN’s Lou
Dobbs Tonight, Kris Kobach states, “Federal law says that these students
cannot work legally in the state of North Carolina or in any state once
they graduate, so why in the world would the state want to spend the public
resources providing an education to someone who can’t work in the state?”(Lou
Dobbs Tonight, 2008)
Since the primary goal of community colleges is to provide a more educated
work force for the state, the illegal immigrant student is left with two
choices upon graduation. Either they continue to work in North Carolina
avoiding taxation due to their lack of citizenship, or they could work
in their home country. Either way, the North Carolina subsidized
education gets no return on its investment.
It is difficult to quote specific policies of most community colleges in
North Carolina at this time. College presidents are waiting for a
final word from the state (hopefully soon) and it is apparent that administrators
and teachers are not comfortable speaking out about a policy that is controversial.
Gaston College and Central Piedmont Community College both appear to operate
with an open door, “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Catawba Valley
Community College is one of the few that has publicly stated that “We are
going ahead with our current policies that we had prior to May” (Williamson,
2008) which meant they would continue admitting undocumented students.
In my opinion as an educator, all students desiring an education should
be afforded the chance to receive one regardless the level. Though
this may sound naïve, I am guessing that most educators agree.
It is the politics of money that cause most of the controversy. In
May, 2008 North Carolina Governor Mike Easley stated he was in favor of
admitting all illegals a day after the Attorney General’s office called
on colleges to drop the lenient admissions policy (Browder, 2008).
Unfortunately, it appears that his successor will probably not share his
opinion. While community colleges are anxiously awaiting a final
decision, what that determination will be and which political office has
the authority to make it a binding decision is still very unclear.
References
Arrow, Zeb (2008). Why admitting illegal immigrants to college is bad
public policy. http://www.stateline.org/live/printable/story?contentId=310999.
15 November 2008
Barack Obama supports community college for illegal aliens (North Carolina,
"good citizens") (2008) http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/008067.html, 30
September, 2008.
Browder, Cullen (2008). Easley: community colleges should admit illegal
immigrants. http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/2855131. 15
November 2008.
Dream Act Portal (2008) http://dreamact.info/ . 29 November
2009.
Kobach, Kris. Lou Dobbs Tonight (2008). Tuition for illegal aliens
video. http://www.cnn.com/video/bestoftv/2008/08/19/ldt.tucker.nc...
12 December 2008.
Lancaster, Martin (2007). President Lancaster’s statement on undocumented
Immigrants. http://ncccs.cc.nc/news_release/statement_Undocumented.htm.
15 November 2008.
Ramirez, Eddy (2008). Should Colleges Enroll Illegal Immigrants?
http://www.usnews .com/articles/education/2008/08/07/should-colleges-enroll-illegal-immigrants.
15 November 2008.
Vock, Daniel (2008). N.C. pushes ban on illegal immigrant students.
http://www.stateline.org/live/printable/story?contentId=310999. 15
November 2008.
Williamson, Sarah N. (2008) CVCC says it will admit illegal immigrants.
http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=cvcc+says
+it+will+admit.15 November 2008.
|
/ |
