Not ‘A Mexican Thing’: Undocumented Asian students face stigma and lack of financial aid, job experience

Not ‘A Mexican Thing’: Undocumented Asian students face stigma and lack of financial aid, job experience

Asian Week
The Voice of Asian America
Beleza Chan, Oct 13, 2008

Picture an undocumented student, and the first image to pop up is unlikely to be an Asian one.

Yet a recent report by the University of California Office of the President revealed that 40 to 44 percent of undocumented students in the UC system are Asian. This is definitely not “a Mexican thing,” which is how one undocumented student characterized the Asian community’s dismissive views towards undocumented immigration.

“People will ask you: ‘Are you AB 540? Because obviously you are not Latina,’” explains Tam, a 24-year-old of Vietnamese descent who recently graduated from UCLA (the last names of the undocumented students in this article have been withheld to protect their identities).

The 2001 state law AB 540 lowers the cost of tuition at California public universities for students who attended a high school in the state for at least three years. According to the UC Office of the President, over 1,639 students have benefited from AB 540; out of those, 1,200 were legal residents or citizens.

Out-of-state students attending California colleges filed a suit in 2005 challenging the law, objecting to the state’s practice of allowing illegal immigrants to pay significantly lower tuition than they pay. The suit was dismissed by the Yolo County Superior Court in 2006.

But on September 15, the Court of Appeal in Sacramento issued a ruling that challenges AB 540 on the grounds that it contradicts federal law, which holds that states cannot grant educational benefits based on residency.

But life continues for those who have made it to college. Faced with financial burdens and legal concerns in addition to the normal college student worries about classes and career, today’s unexpected and overlooked Asian undocumented students are screaming for help.

Tam came to the U.S. when she was six years old, and like many Americans, she wanted to go to college. Although undocumented students come from low-income families, they are not eligible for any kind of state or federal financial aid. Tam needed her parents’ help to pay for school, but she refused to ask.

“My major was English and I did not want to deal with ‘We’re paying for your education, so you will have to study what we want,’” explained Tam, who paid for school with money from work and private scholarships.

Rest of article

DREAMers in California are FAR from Giving Up!

It is with tenacity and this same passion written by fellow DREAMer that things will continue to change for us and our families.

As a DREAMer, i believe that after experiencing a lot of rejection and discrimination in the system our current struggles are deeper that what they seem. I believe that the rejecting and attempting to kill in-state tuition bills for immigrant students, is not because of fiscal issues in the state, but rather an attempt to keep a group of individuals oppressed.

Students don’t give up on Dream Act
Lizbeth Mateo / Contributing Reporter
Published: Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Updated: Monday, October 13, 2008

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made history on Tuesday, Sept. 30, when he vetoed a record 35 percent of the nearly 1, 200 bills the California Legislature put on his desk this year.

Among those bills returned by the governor without his signature was Sen. Cedillo’s SB 1301, the California Dream Act, which has been vetoed by Schwarzenegger for the fourth time.

This bill would have allowed U.S. citizens and undocumented AB 540 students to apply for institutional financial aid – aid that is awarded based on academic achievement and financial need, and that is administered by the attending college or university in the forms of scholarships, loans and work-study programs.

It is estimated that AB 540 students compromise less than one percent of the student body in the University of California system. Approximately 1,200 of the 1,600 AB 540 students enrolled during the 2006 -2007 school year were U.S. citizens or legal residents, and in total AB 540 students contribute $64 millions each year in tuition to the UC system, of which 30 percent is used to create this institutional aid.

The CSU does not track the number of AB 540 students due to a confidentiality agreement and it is unclear how the UC system is able to do it.

One of Schwarzenegger’s spokesmen, Aaron McLear, said that the governor “reviewed each and every bill, but he wasn’t going to spend a lot of time and energy on bills that didn’t mean much to the state.”

Didn’t mean much to the state? Wouldn’t spend much time on them?

Tell that to the approximately 25,000 AB 540 students who could have benefited from the California Dream Act. Tell that to the hundreds of students, activists, educators, professionals, faith-based leaders, union members, community and business members of the Power and Unity Coalition and CHIRLA’s California Dream Network who spent months collecting over 20,00 signatures in support of this bill.

Members of CSUN’s Dreams to be Heard, an AB 540 support group, worked hard in collecting pens and signatures, and traveled to Sacramento on Sept. 17 to remind the governor of his promise of making California’s future a priority.

The governor, however, seems to care very little about California’s future, despite his claim that he would make this a year of education. So far, Schwarzenegger has only terminated the dreams of thousands of students.

I have to admit that I’ve never been a big fan of the governor, but I was hopeful he would sign it, as were over 100 students from Los Angeles and Orange County who traveled to the state’s capital to urge Schwarzenegger to sign the bill. That hope came in part from the governor’s own words, when in 2005 during my commencement ceremony at Santa Monica City College, he said:

“And make sure that you understand one thing; that you are the only obstacle. There is no other obstacle for you than you yourself, your own mind, because America and California is already the land of opportunity.”

I beg to disagree with Schwarzenegger. Our mind is not the biggest obstacle here. During the last hour of Sept. 30, while thousands of students were glued to the TV, searching the Internet, waiting for a call, a text message or an e-mail with news about the California Dream Act, the governor became the obstacle.

Once again, he has ignored legislators who have supported, have approved and have put this bill on his desk. He has ignored studies from institutions such as the Public Policy Institute of California, which predicts that 41 percent of jobs in California in 2025 will require a college education, but at the current rate the state will only produce 32 percent of the workers needed.

AB 540 students are a key component of the state’s future because these students can help fill the gap. They are an untapped resource that given the right opportunity and support will bring about great changes and benefits to California.

If the solution seems to be a signature away and everyone understands this, including our very own Associated Student Senate, which passed a resolution last spring expressing its support for SB 1301, what in the world is wrong with the governor?

Perhaps we’ll never know, but there is one thing we know for sure: AB 540 students are not giving up. If the “Governator” was able to hear the more than one hundred students chanting in front of the state capitol, myself among them, then he knows that “We’ll be Back!”

Schwarzenegger’s veto was only a small setback, since the students behind this movement for equal access to education will continue their efforts on bringing about legislation, at the state and national level, that will give undocumented students a chance for a better future and the honor of giving back to the country they know as home.

In-state tuition for Immigrant Students in California under attack!

AB540 is still the law in California, but our friends will be fighting a battle coming up to keep it that way. Recently, Texas went under a similar attack where we fought hard to keep in-state tuition two years ago.

In California, Uncertainty on Immigrant Student Tuition

In reinstating a lawsuit challenging tuition policy Monday, a California appeals court unanimously found that a state statute extending lower in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants conflicts with federal law and “thwarts the will of Congress.”

California is one of 10 states that makes undocumented students eligible for in-state tuition rates. In California’s case, students can be exempt from paying nonresident rates if they graduated from and attended a California high school for three or more years and, in the case of undocumented students, if they file an affidavit stating intent to legalize their status if they become eligible to do so.

On a federal level, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed a challenge to a similar law in Kansas in 2007 because the plaintiffs were found to lack standing.

n the appeal court’s ruling in Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, which had earlier been dismissed by a trial court, the panel of three judges defined the central question at hand as whether the state’s authorization of in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants violates federal law, which maintains: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

The defendants — spanning all three of California’s public university and college systems — held that the state statute does not conflict with federal law because (1) in-state tuition is not a “benefit,” as it’s defined under federal law, and because (2) rather than being extended “on the basis of residence within a state,” lower tuition rates for illegal immigrants are conditioned on California high school attendance and graduation.

The appellate court rejected the colleges’ arguments on both counts, finding, on the first point, that significantly cheaper in-state tuition is in fact a “benefit.” Furthermore, the judges write, “the three-year attendance requirement at a California high school is a surrogate residence requirement.”

The section of California’s education code at issue here “falls within the principle of implied preemption in that it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” the appeals court found. The judges returned the case for consideration at the lower trial court level.

“I think it’s going to be very difficult for the defendants to defend this policy, in that the higher court, the appellate court, has already decided that ...this one section of the education code is preempted by federal law,” said Ralph W. Kasarda, a staff attorney for the Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs.

Filed as a class action suit, the plaintiffs are a group of U.S. citizen students (or tuition-paying parents). The students are from other states but are enrolled at California public colleges at nonresident tuition rates. They argue that the high school attendance requirement “illegally discriminates” against them “by denying them a benefit provided to illegal aliens.”

“The State of California here tried to claim that they carefully chose their words in the statute in such a way to evade Congress’ intent and find a loophole in the statute. And what the court said was, ‘No, no such loophole exists,’ ” said Kris W. Kobach, a professor of law at University of Missouri at Kansas City who is one of two lead lawyers for the plaintiffs.

While the California appeals court decision is not binding in other states, it will likely have an impact beyond the state’s borders, Kobach said. “Frequently you will hear of states considering nearly identical statutes as the California law, and one of the arguments that is made is, ‘California’s law has never been struck down. None of these other laws have been struck down or held to be in violation of federal law, why don’t we go ahead and do it?’ Now every state legislature in the country will be put on notice.”

“It should serve as a shot across the bow to the other nine states that they are potentially exposed to liability because of their statutes,” Kobach continued.

Christopher M. Patti, university counsel for the UC System, said that while lawyers are still analyzing the opinion, “We are considering the possibility of a petition for review in the California Supreme Court.”

“I think that in any appeal the major focus would likely be on this issue of whether this is a residency-based requirement,” said Patti. “The legislature thought about that issue and tried to fashion a bill that complied with federal law, and we think they did that successfully. So that’s something that if there’s an appeal, the Supreme Court is going to have to grapple with.”

As of now, however, “the law is still in full effect, and [the decision] should not have any immediate impact on the colleges,” said Steven Bruckman, executive vice chancellor and general counsel for the California Community College System. He estimated that about 20,000 community college students, most of whom are undocumented immigrants, would lose their eligibility for cheaper resident tuition if the law were ultimately declared invalid.

“Our mission is to provide broad access to education. A court ruling that would limit access to students is disappointing to us,” he said.

“We will fight it as long as it is necessary to clarify this,” said Michael A. Olivas, a professor and expert on higher education and immigration law at the University of Houston. He faulted the California appeals court for misreading laws relative to residency. “What federal law requires is that people who have access to this status of being a resident may not be given any more advantage if they’re undocumented than if they’re a citizen. I say that’s fine. California still requires that you have been there 12 months [to declare residency]. The undocumented don’t get it by 11 months.”

Olivas disagreed with the assertion that the decision is relevant in other states, although he acknowledges it is being watched widely. “No other state is bound by what one state does, and they’re particularly not bound by it when the state got it wrong. They weren’t bound by it when the trial court in effect got it right.”

Effects of AB540 (in-state tuition) in California

I received this long-term study done by a graduate student in UCLA regarding DREAMers in California. The author focuses on the effects that in-state tuition in California brought to DREAMers; more specifically, it focuses on the search for identity that AB540 (HB1403 in Texas) gave students. That is, a sort of stigma was removed once we were relatively accepted into the system.

Although it comes from a sociology perpective and it is an academic paper, i believe that policy can begin to change if work like this continues to flourish.

Abrego Effects of AB540 LSI - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: Abrego Effects of AB540 LSI

California in-state tuition for DREAMER's at risk?

Twist in tuition credit battle Legislator wants to end benefit for illegal immigrants, shift aid to National Guard vets

By Aurelio Rojas - arojas@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, February 10, 2008

A Republican lawmaker has introduced legislation that would provide members of the California National Guard with free tuition at state colleges and universities and save money at the time.

How? By repealing a law that allows illegal immigrants who meet certain conditions to pay subsidized in-state tuition, said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine.

Critics call DeVore's bill a cynical ploy. They say that by allowing students who attended a California high school for three years and received a diploma or equivalent to qualify for in-state tuition, the state is investing in its future.

But DeVore said California, which has 20,000 Guard members, is the only state in the nation that does not offer its members free college tuition.

DeVore estimates it would cost California, which is facing a $14.5 billion budget deficit, only about $3 million annually to do so.

That's far less, he noted, than the $117 million the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates in-state waivers, granted largely to illegal immigrants, cost California in 2005-06.

DeVore's bill – Assembly Bill 1758 – is scheduled to be heard March 4 in the Assembly Higher Education Committee. Although the legislation faces long odds in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, it will likely reignite a perennial debate in the Capitol.

"The argument we always hear is, 'Let's not punish these kids because their parents broke the law,' " DeVore said. "But the fact of the matter is that some people do come here to take advantage of benefits."

In recent years, the California Guard has been faced with retention and recruitment declines that DeVore blames on the state's lack of benefits.

His bill would provide a much-needed inducement for a group that's called on more than any Guard in the nation, he said.

DeVore said not only are members of the California Guard asked to provide assistance during floods, fires and earthquakes – they also put their lives on the line to quell riots and fight wars.

Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, agrees with DeVore's intent, but not his method.

"People who offer themselves for military service should be supported by the state of California," Cedillo said. "But we shouldn't hurt the state's future with divisive, political games."

Cedillo is once again carrying legislation that would allow illegal immigrants who are eligible for in-state tuition to apply for financial aid.

His legislation – which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has previously vetoed – builds on Assembly Bill 540, the 2001 measure by the late Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh that DeVore wants to repeal.

That law requires students to sign an affidavit stating they have applied to become legal residents or will do so if they become eligible.

But DeVore, who spent 24 years in the California National Guard and retired as a lieutenant colonel, said many of these students are still "subject to deportation at a moment's notice."

In the California State University system, out-of-state fees run about $10,000 more than in-state fees per year.

At the University of California, there is a $15,000 surcharge. At California's community colleges, in-state fees run about $78 per course, while out-of-state students pay $500.

"Is that really a good use of taxpayer money?" he asked.

Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, has previously sponsored unsuccessful legislation to grant tuition benefits to Guard members and plans to do so again this year.

"This is not as much a budget issue as a political issue," Correa said.

Democratic opponents of Correa last year argued the costs should be borne by the federal government, which largely funds the National Guard.

But Correa does not support DeVore's effort to repeal AB 540.

"Absolutely not," Correa said. "You know why? Jose Angel Garibay."

The U.S. Marine Corps lance corporal from Orange County was killed in 2003 while fighting in Iraq. Garibay, whose parents entered the country illegally, was granted citizenship posthumously.

Correa said other members of the military whose parents entered the country illegally have also "made the ultimate sacrifice."

The Legislature, he said, does not need to repeal AB 540 to provide tuition benefits for members of the California National Guard.

"The solution is to come up with a (financing) vehicle and move it through the legislative process as soon as possible," Correa said.

For full link, click on title of this post