Assignment 1: Movement Chronology

While largely co-opted by the larger issue of comprehensive immigration reform, the movement surrounding undocumented students represents a distinct movement toward allowing undocumented individuals brought into the country as minors and brought up in the educational system access to citizenship or temporary resident status. Its chronology encompasses the last 20-to-30 years and can be broken roughly into four major stages or events.

Origins: Nafta’s Failure

The movement’s incipient stage shares the same impetus as the larger immigration movement, beginning with the escalation of undocumented immigrants crossing into the United States in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994.

For decades the phenomenon of illegal immigration grew in the Southwest, becoming a prominent issue. U.S. lawmakers came to understand that the impetus behind this immigration came primarily from the dearth of competitive, well-paying jobs in Mexico, and suggested Nafta’s passage would help to remedy the situation by opening trade, investment, and thus economic growth, to the country.

However, Nafta failed in this respect — actually exacerbating the problem by eliminating Mexican protective tariffs and concentrating the country’s industry on cheap manufacturing for import to the United States. Wages plummeted, and even more immigrants sought entry to the United States.

(see: “Nafta Should Have Stopped Illegal Immigration, Right?” — New York Times)

Tightening the Border: Once You’re In, You’re In

Initial immigrants to the United States tended to be men, coming seasonally to the United States to earn money before returning to their families in Mexico. However, as lawmakers increased enforcement on the border, making it harder for immigrants to pass safely through, the men eventually lost the opportunity to return home.

As a result, women began immigrating in large numbers to reunite with their husbands, bringing their children with them. This phenomenon predicated the undocumented student movement by spawning the issue’s essential problem: minors brought illegally into the country absent volition or strict culpability before the law.

Now, more than 20 years later, those minors are reaching young adulthood, finally able to organize and populate a movement for their legitimacy.

The Right to Primary Education: Plyler v. Doe

Decided in 1982, the Supreme Court ruling of Plyler v. Doe is of primary importance to undocumented students. It forbids states from denying children “who were not ‘legally admitted’ into the United States” access to primary and secondary education, ultimately ruling that, by way of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons residing within the jurisdiction of the United States have a right to access primary and secondary education.

The case specifically addressed a Texas statute barring undocumented students equal access to primary and secondary public schools. Before 1975, Texas used fairly standard statutory language to provide children with access to a state education. However, in 1975, Texas amended the law to qualify the language “all students” as meaning only citizens or legally admitted aliens — removing the right to free access for undocumented children. Two years later, the Board of Trustees of Tyler Independent School District implemented a policy requiring undocumented students to pay tuition — approximately $1,000 annually.

A group of Mexican children unable to prove their citizenship filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to challenge the statute’s constitutionality. Their complaint hinged on Fourteenth Amendment protection — equal protection under the law — which the district court held applicable to all persons within United States jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship status.

Ultimately brought before the Supreme Court, Plyler ruled the Texas statute unconstitutional based on its significant cost to undocumented children. It found the state’s interest in resource protection and fiscal savings insufficient to justify denying children access to public education.

Plyler inhibits states from passing legislation that denies illegal immigrants access to free public education. However, the ruling applies only to education through the twelfth grade. The Court’s decision to use an intermediate level of scrutiny limits the ruling’s expansion to postsecondary education — an expansion some argue is warranted by the decreasing value of a high school-only education in a modern economy.

The DREAM Act’s History

Despite its small place in the larger immigration reform debate, the movement surrounding undocumented students has not gone unrecognized. Proposed legislation know as the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, would allow these students to earn and use their education as legal residents. If passed into law, the Act would grant temporary residency, allowing easier access to higher education and a pathway to permanent residency upon completion of an undergraduate degree or term of service in the military.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) first introduced the DREAM Act in 2001. He described the bill by saying: “While I do not advocate granting unchecked amnesty to illegal immigrants, I am, however in favor of providing … children who did not make the decision to enter the United States illegally the opportunity to earn the privilege of remaining here legally.” Hatch said the bill was part of his larger effort to create a “fair, compassionate and lawful way to deal with the illegal immigrants already this country.” The Act was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee and placed on the Senate legislative calendar for the 107th Congress, but never received a floor vote, meeting with “little initial support or attention.”

In 2003, Hatch reintroduced the Act to the 108th Congress but again made little progress. Some believe the bill’s second failure can be attributed to its introduction on the cusp of an election year. Facing a tight election year, President Bush and other lawmakers may have decided to postpone taking a decisive stance on such a controversial issue. Furthermore, despite bipartisan support, the bill’s reintroduction was criticized as an attempt by Republicans to pander to the Latino vote.

Concerns also emerged over the Act’s impact on “limited state resources,” with several lawmakers claiming “each slot an illegal immigrant takes at a state college or university … is one less spot for American students.” Again, disagreement of the Act stalled its progress and it never received a vote.

In 2005, the Act was introduced for a third time by both Senators Hatch and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), and by the next year, it had made its way as an amendment into the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA). As part of the larger bill, the Senate passed the DREAM Act with a 62-36 vote. However, perhaps as a result of the CIRA’s complexity or continuing political controversy, its progress halted soon after, stalling until the bill was terminated at the end of the 109th congressional session.

Faced with the failure of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, the DREAM Act’s sponsors took a more fragmented approach to reform. Senator Durbin authored a new version of the DREAM Act as a stand-alone bill, introducing it to the Senate on March 6, 2007. Several provisions of the Act also appeared in a defense bill in September 2007; however, the provisions were removed due to concerns that their inclusion in an unrelated defense bill was inappropriate.

On October 24, 2007, the DREAM Act failed to meet the required two-thirds majority to pass on a procedural vote. With 52 votes, the bill came just eight votes short of the required 60 to pass in the Senate.

The Act’s failure to pass can be attributed to a variety of political pressures. Immigration’s current status as a hotly debated issue makes lawmakers hesitant to enact legislation that may offend their electorate. In addition, differing opinions on how to implement reform and whether it should be passed as a stand-alone bill or included in more comprehensive reform have made reaching a consensus within Congress difficult.