April 7, 2006

Dreams Deferred?

The heated rhetoric surrounding immigration reform legislation in Congress threatens to drown out an important, bipartisan effort to resolve a decades-old inconsistency in federal immigration law concerning postsecondary tuition costs for undocumented students who have graduated from high schools in the United States.

Looking for a job?

See all 217 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,477
Administrative: 1,652
Executive: 163
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The “DREAM Act,” which was incorporated into the Senate Judiciary Committee’s immigration reform bill last week, would allow states to provide in-state tuition for postsecondary education to undocumented students who have attended (for at least three years) and graduated from high school in their states.

Federal immigration law now prohibits them from doing so, though that has not stopped several states, including “red” states like Utah, Kansas, and Texas, from adopting such legislation in recognition of the fact that there are more than 50,000 of these students each year that graduate from high school as — in nearly every way — children of the American dream.

Of the DREAM Act, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) stated, “I find it inconceivable that we would provide greater benefits to persons who are here illegally than to American citizens. It makes a mockery of the rule of law.”

However, Congress must ensure the debate over the education of undocumented students is actually grounded in the law, rather than rhetoric. Federal law related to this issue was interpreted more than 20 years ago by the United States Supreme Court’s 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision.

Plyler v. Doe involved a Texas law that effectively banned undocumented minor children from participating in public elementary and secondary education. The Court heard arguments that sounded quite similar to those used to deny in-state college tuition for the same students: that providing K-12 education rewards illegal immigration, that we should not give public benefits to those in the country illegally. The significance of this case is not that it settled once and for all the ideological arguments surrounding immigration. Rather, the Court created protective legal precedent for minor undocumented students by carefully examining the intersection of immigration law, the distribution of public goods, and individual rights as protected by the Constitution of the United States.

The Supreme Court’s decision addressed the question: Did a child break the law because the parents brought the child into the country illegally as a minor? The Supreme Court said “no.”

The Court ruled that such children, in fact, were entitled to equal protection under the law, one of America’s most cherished legal principles. As cited in the Court’s opinion, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

As a population within the state’s jurisdiction, undocumented students were, therefore, entitled to equal treatment under the law. In the opinion of the Court, Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr., wrote, “To permit a state … to identify subclasses of persons whom it would define as beyond its jurisdiction, thereby relieving itself of the obligation to assure that its laws are designed and applied equally to those persons, would undermine the principal purpose for which the Equal Protection Clause was incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The Court further argued that federal immigration law, despite “sheer incapability or lax enforcement,” was not a justification for denying children equal protection and access to education.

In recognition of this principle, several state legislatures have passed laws to allow in-state postsecondary tuition for undocumented students who have attended public high schools in state for more than three years. They realize the legal “no-man’s land” these students occupy, and have sought to remedy it under the law.

The central relevance of the Supreme Court’s case to this debate over in-state tuition for undocumented students is that we cannot simply ignore what Justice Brennan called the “shadow population” of students who go about their daily lives and contribute to our society in the same way that we all strive to contribute. Moreover, we cannot deprive these students of the equal protection that our Constitution provides simply because they graduate from the high school setting where the Supreme Court has decided that it applies.

Though the issue is easy to weigh down with heated rhetoric, we hope that the law will, in fact, prevail, and that Congress will pass the DREAM Act. As Justice Brennan concluded, “[W]hatever savings might be achieved by denying these children an education, they are wholly insubstantial in light of the costs involved to these children, the State, and the Nation.”

— David Hawkins

David Hawkins is director of public policy for the National Association for College Admission Counseling.

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

No one’s above the law

No one is above the law. No one.

Why people think they are exempt from laws that bind absolutely everyone else is beyond me.

Bad English, at 6:50 am EDT on April 7, 2006

This is nuts

I know people who have married illegal aliens. I understand the issues involved. Basically, they never accepted the fact that laws were broken — only how to figure “some tricky way out.”

Millions of Americans follow the law everyday. What would happen if we decided to, say, cheat on our taxes, and higher ed collapsed as a result? Or started injecting heroin and give up working?

Thirteen years ago, I watched as the first of millions of illegal aliens cross into the U.S., driving up rents because they were living 10/room, demanding better health care than I could legally afford, and displacing friends who were carpenters, framers, and landscapers.

The children involved are in a gray zone. Well — in the case of Elian Gonzales, the decision was made to return him to his father in his parents’ country of origin. Why not that as a first, good step in this matter — let them legally return to their parents’ country of origin?

A.D., at 8:12 am EDT on April 7, 2006

They deserve a chance, and we all will benefit

As stated in the above op-ed, in 1982, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that K-12 public schools were prohibited from denying immigrant students access to a public education, and clearly stated that undocumented children should not be denied an education because of decisions made by their parents. As a result of this Supreme Court ruling, we have educated these students through to high-school graduation.

The students who would benefit from the DREAM Act have worked hard, passed their state graduation exams, if required, and met all other high-school graduation requirements. These are some of our highest-achieving students. (For example, last year a team of undocumented high-school students from Phoenix defeated a team from MIT in an underwater robot competition.) The U.S. needs more highly educated, highly skilled workers. If given a chance, these students will make a positive contribution to our country.

Brad MacGowan, at 10:55 am EDT on April 7, 2006

David Hawkins conveniently overlooks several facts. Students who go to college are young adults with adult rights and responsibilities. States owe illegal adult immigrants no subsidies and no special favors. The supreme court’s ruling that states must provide K-12 education responded to the presumption that minor children are still controlled by adult parents.

Hawkin’s proposal moves us closer to a level of toleration and acceptance of illegal immigration that will erode our national autonomy and further increase the cost of our trillion dollar a year education establishment. The social effect will be to incentivize would-be illegal immigrants to come here illegally and bring children with them. That is a perverse outcome that holds considerable threat to our future. And out future is one of fixed land mass, declining energy reserves, and ballooning deficits. We cannot afford continued illegal immigration and all the costs that come with it.

Marvin McConoughey, at 3:10 pm EDT on April 7, 2006

That’s why the parents do it

They get a free education for their children, plus they parlay the illegal presence of their children here into vastly more benefits than free education. The kids are anchors for the entire family. That’s why there is a push on to abolish automatic citizenship for anyone illegally born in this country.

The kids need to take the matter up with their parents, who gambled with the future of their own children to reap profit from them.

Bad English, at 4:00 pm EDT on April 7, 2006

Blinded by their hatred

Some of the above commentators appear to be blinded by their hatred or prejudice. The young people at issue have grown up in our communities and attended our schools. Many are high achievers against high odds. They aren’t at fault for our broken immigration system and they didn’t choose to grow up here. The DREAM Act doesn’t give them anything for free or anything that their luckier classmates don’t take for granted (less actually, because it includes a provision making DREAM Act students ineligible for Pell grants).

Far from taking from American taxpayers, the DREAM Act would be a windfall because it would dramatically increase the educational attainment of tens of thousands of young people who today are among those least likely to graduate high school or attend college.

The comment above that students who have lived in this country since they were 1, or 3 or 8 years old are now young adults, and so should just leave is idiotic. Who benefits from that? Under current law, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)actually wastes its precious resources chasing down and deporting young honors students who have grown up in this country. The DREAM Act would let DHS concentrate on its mission and give some great kids a chance to get out of the shadows and to shine.

Josh Bernstein, at 2:15 pm EDT on April 8, 2006

You could pay for it yourself

” .. Far from taking from American taxpayers, the DREAM Act would be ..”

What noble words. I’m going to write the DREAM sponsors and suggest the program be a private one. Let those who want to support it, support it themselves. Let them show everyone how grand their actions are. Meanwhile, I’m going to help my U.S. resident-friends find jobs.

A.D., at 1:20 pm EDT on April 9, 2006

Confused

Why do students from New Mexico have to pay out of state tuition in Texas while students from Mexico do not?

JD, at 11:30 am EDT on April 10, 2006

higher edcuation for immigrants

Oh, I am feeling like I’ve been “taken again” by playing by the rules (laws). My parents and sisters entered the USA in the 1950s as legal immigrants. We were-and still are—poor. No one in my family ever received a bachelor’s degree, except me and I am proud to say that I am on my way to a doctoral degree at Teachers College in NYC. But, I am paying a very hefty price. I never received any Pell Grants because or free rides becasue my parents’ income was always just a wee bit over the cut-off level. So, I took out loans from the federal government to pay all my educational expenses. I have now reached the loan limits permitted by law and am relying on private loans to get through the fall semester. I feel betrayed by my country when I hear about everyone else demanding rights when they aren’t even citizens of this country! I am not afraid to say it and have it published in writing. Like the movie, “I’m mad as H—- and I’m not going to take it anymore!” I haven’t done everything right in my life—who has? But, if we are going to pay for everyone else’s expenses and needs in the world—that is except for our own taxpaying citizens—well, that’s plain wrong. And, it is a mockery to the intelligence of our citizens. I was taught that to achieve anything in the USA, I needed to either marry a rich man or go to college. I chose to go to college. Now, how about diverting some of those funds going to care for illegals to pay for my sons’ hospital bills, or to pay off my educational loans so that I can speand more money in the marketplace and in kiind, contribute more tax dollars to help pay illegal immigrants wants and needs? Itused to be, “What is wrong with this country?” Now the question is, “What is RIGHT with this country"?Linda Kvamme

Linda Kvamme, Lehigh Carbon Community College, at 12:55 pm EDT on April 10, 2006

So, we’re supposed to be your punching bag?

” .. Some of the above commentators appear to be blinded by their hatred or prejudice .. “

Sir, you are the hater. Decent, hard-working, and law-abiding AMERICANS are just supposed stand by while their neighborhoods, hospitals, and schools are over-run by illegal aliens? Who, if they did that in their country of origin, would be arrested?

When did God die and appoint you, his replacement? How dare you put yourself above others? You’re really a piece of work, sir.

H.J., at 6:35 am EDT on April 11, 2006

Leave it to the states

Many commenters seem to think that this bill will cost them somehow money and this is unfair.

First, your money problems have nothing to do with illegal immigrants, unless you’ve been competing for work in the areas where there are many immigrants such as agricultural and building work. However, even if you’re not aware of it, you and your state had lower costs because of immigrant labor.

Second, these immigrants came to the US, as the ancestors of anyone here that’s not native american, to try to improve the future of their children, but without expectation of any service from the government, and generally they work hard and don’t get any benefits such as health insurance social security etc.

Third and most importantly, the whole issue is a matter of social policy: some states may decide they don’t want to subsidize education for immigrants’ children, and other states may decide that it’s in their best interest not to have a population that grew up there but is barred from progressing in life, and that the cost is not that high compared to the benefits. In any case, it should be the right of each state to pursue whatever policy it thinks its right.

Immigration has always been and will keep being a fact of life in this country, and a main reason why it has such a strong economy that draws people here in the first place. The immigrants are not going anywhere and the states are going to live with the results of whatever decision is made, so they should be allowed to make it.

B.B, at 12:00 pm EDT on April 11, 2006

Money

Uh, the bill costs money — that money comes from us (the legal taxpayers) and goes to the illegals. I don’t have a problem with illegal aliens except when they use social services or government programs and start leeching off the rest of us. We have enough of that from our own citizens. Everyone should be paying for their own business — and certainly not recieving money when not even legally in the country.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 1:30 pm EDT on April 11, 2006

Technical issue

“Leave it to the states”

Uh .. last time I checked, immigration is a federal issue, e.g., there is no Texas Dept. of Immigration.

” .. you and your state had lower costs because of immigrant labor ..”

So .. it’s OK for illegals to lower costs — but NOT Wal-Mart? That’s logical.

” .. don’t get any benefits such as health insurance social security etc. ..”

Oh .. so the 1000% increase in Latino births in certain states were paid for by the Tooth Fairy? OK ..

Well, you’ve convinced me. If illegals can break the law, so can I. I’m not going to pay taxes. I’m also going to use inside information to take unfair advantage of other investors. I’m also planning to run a lot of red-lights. Hope this meets with your high expectations for U.S. society.

H.J., at 10:00 pm EDT on April 11, 2006

MONEY

Kevin — the law does not cost a cent — it does not say to give any money for educating illegal aliens, but only allows the states to use their money if they want to. If we don’t live in the same state (I’m in NY) I don’t see why you have a right to tell the voters and tax payers in my state how we can spend our tax dollars.

The issue is not spending money on people breaking the law — states do that all the time — if H.K. makes up on his (her?) threat to break the law, some state will spend tens of thousands of dollars to provide care for him in prison.

The issue is that the federal government failed either to enforce the laws or to adapt the laws to the needs of the economy. Most likely it’s a mixture of both, but you also have to realize that the only countries with no illegal immigration are countries no one wants to go to.

Anyway, now you have kids that grew up since childhood in your state. I certainly don’t think states *have* to provide subsidized college education for them. All I know is that with cars burning in Paris, people in Europe are trying to understand why immigration has been a success story in the U.S., and one reason people come up with is “stupid and unfair” laws such as the citizenship for any person born on US soil regardless of status and Plyler v. Doe. If the majority of people in your state want to try a different approach to the immigration issue, be my guest. I just don’t see why people in my state have to follow you.

p.s. H.K.: i have no idea want you meant about the Wal-Mart comment. I think everyone should abide by the laws and low costs are great within this. But we should also realize that when entire industries depend on illegal immigration, we also indirectly profit from it, and while I do not condone it, this is a likely sign that there’s something wrong with the laws.

B.B., at 2:15 pm EDT on April 12, 2006

Logic for this debate

To all those who posted angry or dismissive objections to this article and the DREAM Act, I offer this: Next time you exceed the speed limit in your car, ask yourself if it would be fair for a police officer to issue your child a speeding ticket and expect him/her to pay for it.

Children of immigrants who are undocumented have committed no crime, and as the Supreme Court has said, are not to be punished.

Adonis Metriotitas, at 2:15 pm EDT on April 12, 2006

Confused?

1. the DREAM Act does not spend taxpayer dollars on anyone.

2. the students that will benefit from the Dream Act are breaking no law and have broken no law.

3. the DREAM Act does not give undocumented students anything that other students don’t get. If JD’s New Mexico student lived in Texas for the same amount of time as the undocumented Mexican student, then they both get to go to Texas schools at the in-state rate.

4. the DREAM Act makes sure that federal student aid dollars (paid for by our tax dollars) do not go to undocumented students.

5. news flash — States GAIN revenue when people pay tuition at state institutions. Making someone qualify for in-state tuition means they will go to college in state, as opposed to not at all.

6. Linda: the Dream Act will not give undocumented students any chance that you didn’t get, and frankly has nothing to do with your situation. Congrats on your doctoral, by the way.

7. Marvin: in the nine states that have passed legislation similar to the Dream Act, not one has seen a surge in illegal (or any kind) immigration.

8. HJ: the whole point of this is that these students ARE “decent, law-abiding Americans.” They grew up here and have broken no law. Current law doesn’t give them options to proceed legally. The Dream Act does that, and does it while securing an educated workforce and generating revenue for the states.

This proposal doesn’t give undocumented students anything that citizens don’t get, doesn’t cost any taxpayer dollars, and has real economic and social benefits to the schools, the community, the state, and society at large. What exactly is the problem?

RHL, at 3:30 pm EDT on April 12, 2006

You just don’t get it

The issue is some minimal level of RULE OF LAW. Slick Willie and Shrub lost control of U.S. borders and now more than 10 million ILLEGALS roam the U.S. Until those borders are enforced, many things could go wrong (public health, crime, sudden upsurges in demand for pubilc services, uncompensated state-federal charges, etc.)

If some minimal level of rule of law doesn’t mean anything to you — I’ve got two dozen illegals roaming my neighborhood, looking for handouts. I’ll send them to your house — how’s that sound?

H.J., at 9:30 pm EDT on April 13, 2006

Response

The act will cost something — and that cost will come out of the pockets of taxpayers. I don’t have a problem with illegal aliens in general being in the country or attending school with them. I do have a problem with paying for other people’s problems, especially when the only reason I would have to do so is that they broke the laws of the country in order to get the opportunity to reach into someone else’s pocketbook.

Pay for your own dreams and I’ll pay for mine.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 6:15 am EDT on April 18, 2006

Dream Act

Many people do not understand the real situation here. These children grow up thinking they are like all the other children only to find out one day that they are considered illegal. They grow up speaking English and lose most of their culture being brought up as Americans. It is true if they work hard enough they may be able to pay for college themselves. But what happens when they have a degree in their hand? Then what? They cannot legally work in the U.S. Some people as so why not go back to their country of origin? I’ll tell you why not, why would a person want to go back to a country where there aren’t jobs available? Why go to a country that despite it being your birthplace you cannot speak or write the language? How is it possible to function? How are these people supposed to leave their family behind and set out on their own with no clue of what things are like back in a homeland they’ve never been to? I personally believe that declaring a HUMAN BEING illegal is not right. I believe the Dream Act would offer the children of illegal immigrants the chance to make things right. They did not choose to come here illegaly. They were brought up here it’s hard for an 18 year old to believe that someone really expects them to pack up and leave their life behind.

Marlene, at 2:41 pm EST on January 11, 2007

Jobs Related to Dreams Deferred?

or search for jobs directly.

Assistant Professor of Business Law and Regulation
Central Michigan University

Central Michigan University, a Carnegie Foundation doctoral research university, is in the Lower Peninsula in a tourist ... see job

Admissions Representative
Corinthian Colleges

Everest College, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job

Adjunct Faculty — Business
Harrisburg Area Community College

HACC, a leader in education in Central PA, is a comprehensive, multi-campus community college, providing quality instruction ... see job

AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE — Associate Faculty Pool
West Valley/Mission Community College District

WEST VALLEY-MISSION COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACADEMIC PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE — Associate ... see job

Dean of the School of Nursing
Lebanese American University

School of Nursing Campus: Beirut see job

Faculty, School of Nursing/Adult Health, Full-Time, Tenure Track, Fall 2009
Salem State College, MA

Salem State College is an equal opportunity / affirmative action employer. Persons of color, women and persons with ... see job

Instructor
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver

Posting Description: Position Number: 602976 General Statement of Duties: The Division of Cardiothoracic ... see job

Open Rank
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The Department of Radiation Oncology in the School of Medicine at UNC-Chapel Hill invites applications for a tenure-track ... see job

Instructor/Assistant/Associate Professor of Physiology/Anatomy
Drake University

Drake University is a diverse learning community of more than 5,600 students, distinguished by collaborative learning among ... see job

Director of Financial Aid
Columbia University

Working under the leadership of the Associate Dean of Student Affairs/Executive Director of Financial Aid, The Director of ... see job