Public_Funding_of_Post-Secondary_Education_for_Illegal_Immigrants

Public Funding of Post-Secondary Education for Illegal Immigrants Jeremy N. Rangel University of Phoenix Elements of University Composition and Communication II COM/172 Christopher R. Jackson Ph.D. October 19, 2011 Public Funding of Post-Secondary Education for Illegal Immigrants Illegal immigration has long been a controversial issue, yet in recent times this issue has become a hot topic of debate among candidates for elective office. The issue is multifaceted and the debate extends from health care, to jobs, to social services and education. Most recently the public funding for post-secondary education of illegal immigrants has been pushed to the forefront of the debate. The federal version of the DREAM act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) was passed by the House of Representatives in December of 2010 (Preston, 2010), but was ultimately blocked by the U.S. Senate in a 55-41 vote just 10 days later (Herszenhorn, 2010). Even though the bill did not win passage by the Congress, some states have taken it upon themselves to settle the issue by passing state versions of the DREAM act. The state of Texas was one of the first states to pass their own version of the DREAM act in 2001 and just last week Governor Jerry Brown signed California’s DREAM act into law (McGreevy & York, 2011). Proponents of the law were ecstatic, though ,of course, opponents of the law were up in arms, with both sides airing their respective opinions all over the newspapers and television news programs. Frankly, it was a long overdue victory for illegal immigrants, more specifically those of Latino descent, who have been vilified and taken advantage of with low wages, subpar health care, and poor housing conditions. The fact is that illegal immigrants are a part of the community and, for illegal Latino immigrants as long as the need for cheap labor exists they will continue to thrive. Therefore, it is incumbent upon our country to offer the opportunity to qualify for state and federal grants, financial aid, and even student loans to illegal immigrants who will ultimately reinvest in the economy and contribute to the greater good of our society. As of April 1, 2010 there were 50.5 million Latinos living in the United States, which represents 16% of the total U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). According to the 2010 census data the Latino population increased by 15.2 million between 2000-2010 that is more than half of the 27.3 million total increase in the entire United States population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Pew Research Center estimates that 11.2 million Latinos are unauthorized immigrants, which represents a small decline from 12 million reported in 2007, and eight million are in the workforce representing 5.2% of the total U.S. population (Pew Research Center, 2010). Mexicans are the largest number of unauthorized immigrants comprising 58% of the total Latino population and 3.7% of the total U.S. population (Pew Research Center, 2010). Births to unauthorized Latino immigrants accounted for 8% of all of newborns in the U.S. between March 2009, and March 2010, and not surprisingly, California has the largest number of unauthorized Latino immigrants (Pew Research Center, 2010). The L.A. Almanac reports that 2.6 million unauthorized Latino immigrants call California home, which is a mind boggling 25% of the national average (L.A. Almanac, 2010). This means that of the 11.2 million unauthorized Latino immigrants living in the United States, 25% of them call California home. Even more telling is that 6.8% of the total population in the state of California are unauthorized Latino immigrants of which the majority are Mexicans (L.A. Almanac, 2010). The numbers are staggering and as time goes on they will most certainly increase, as evidenced by the 350,000 children born alone in the U.S. during calendar year 2010 to unauthorized Latino immigrants (Pew Research Center, 2010). Latinos will soon become the largest minority group in the United States, and with an influx of unauthorized Latino immigrants they represent a tremendous demographic of the country that can no longer be ignored. As the population increases so does the need for post secondary education to ensure that the Latino population positively contributes to the economy and wellbeing of the country. One of the key argumentative points of opponents to the DREAM act is the economic effect of illegal immigration. Various studies point to the drain on the economy stemming from illegal immigration. Billions of dollars each year are spent on social programs, health care, financial assistance, and even childhood education. This ignores the many financial contributions unauthorized Latino immigrants make to the economy. Although, it is true that many unauthorized immigrants do benefit from this federal, and state assistance, they also contribute to the economy by paying taxes, buying goods and services, and aiding in the production of said goods and services. FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) ,which is an independent organization that lobbies for immigration reform published a financial report that documents the cost of illegal immigration to the United States economy. Suffice it to say that FAIR does not paint a very positive picture asserting that all of the services offered to unauthorized immigrants result in a federal net fiscal burden of about $19.8 billion, while at the state and local level the figure is four times larger at $80 billion (Martin & Ruark, 2011, p. 77). Though, even FAIR concedes, “In the absence of specific data on the income and spending habits of the illegal alien population, we must make assumptions in order to be able to estimate tax collections” (Martin & Ruark, 2011, p. 73). According to the FAIR report, “Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the largest cost to taxpayers at an annual price tag of $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by the state and local governments” (Martin & Ruark, 2011, p. 1). The cost mentioned in the article are primarily for K-12 students whose education is funded through local taxes as every child on American land is permitted to receive an education according to the Plyler v Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1982 (Albo Carabelli, 2009, p. 117). As for post-secondary education only 11 states, California included, have laws on the books that allow unauthorized immigrants to attend college or university at in-state rates as long as they meet certain provisions (Abrego & Gonzales, 2010, p. 149-150). Federal Pell Grants are as of yet still unavailable to unauthorized immigrants, therefore the federal government makes no contribution to post-secondary education of unauthorized immigrants. However, at the state level with the groundbreaking legislation signed by Governor Brown (D) of California, Cal Grant funds and other institutional grants will be made available to unauthorized immigrants while attending the University of California and California State University Systems in 2013 (McGreevy & York, 2011). Another key point to the argument against the DREAM act is the path to citizenship, which the legislation accomplishes in three phases. According to the Harvard Journal on Legislation, the Senate version of the 2010 dream act states, “The first phase is the grant of conditional nonimmigrant status for a period of ten years…this initial grant does not require completion of post-secondary education or military service” ("DREAM act," 2011, p. 626). Individuals who apply for conditional non-immigrant status will pay a fee of $525 per application, be of “good moral character,” and must have been admitted to a college or university after acquiring a high school diploma or GED ("DREAM act," 2011, p. 627). This conditional non-immigrant status is offered exclusively to those who at the time they entered the country were under sixteen and have lived within the U.S continuously for a period of at least five years ("DREAM act," 2011, p. 627). What is most significant about this phase is that conditional non-immigrant status allows the individual to work, and travel in or outside the United States without a travel visa ("DREAM act," 2011, p. 627). Conditional non-immigrant status remains for a period of nine years after which the individual can file for permanent residency provided that the applicant has completed two years in a bachelor’s degree program or higher, or two years of military service with an honorable discharge ("DREAM act," 2011, p. 629). Once the alien status is changed to permanent resident the individual has the opportunity to be naturalized after a period of three years as opposed to the normal five-year waiting period, which results in a path to citizenship lasting a total of 13 years ("DREAM act," 2011, p. 630). Many opponents of the DREAM act argue that these provisions are simply too vague and ambiguous. The DREAM act legislation itself does not even define what “good moral character” is to be ("DREAM act," 2011, p. 628). The contention is that many of these unauthorized immigrants arrived here illegally therefore by breaking the law in the first place they have demonstrated the complete opposite of “good moral character” and as such should not be rewarded with citizenship. Opponents argue that this “amnesty” program will result in a flood of unauthorized immigrants applying for conditional resident status and enrolling in colleges or universities only to remain in the U.S. thereby constituting fraud. They argue that rewarding these individuals not only with citizenship, but also the opportunity of obtaining a college education places them on the same level as many of our natural born American citizens, which is simply unfair. Proponents of the DREAM act concede that these arguments have merit, but what do we say to those illegal immigrant children who have outperformed other students' What do we say to those unauthorized immigrants whose parents brought them over to this country as children and had no choice in the matter' Do we say that they will have to pay for the sins of their fathers and regardless of their hard work and dedication, or their “play by the rules” attitude that America is NOT the land of opportunity that they learned about in American history books' Educating these young people and providing them a path to citizenship is in the best interest of our country, as they have the potential to become productive members of society. Enormous population growth, proven economic advantages, and the path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants are different factors that influence the debate about the DREAM act. Each of these factors raise a plethora of underlying concerns that continue to add controversy and widen the gap between the fundamental beliefs regarding immigration between republicans and democrats. Very much so that though, President Barak Obama raised the issue as a centerpiece of his 2011 state of the union address to Congress, the White House concedes that it is doubtful that the DREAM act will return to the Senate for consideration before the 2012 general election ("DREAM act," 2011, p. 637). In any case this issue is certainly not forgotten, nor will the issues that it raises simply go away. The fact remains that we have more than 11 million unauthorized Latino immigrants alone in the U.S., not to mention many others from different ethnic backgrounds that call America home. These unauthorized immigrants and their children see America as their golden opportunity to create better lives for themselves and for their families. This is, after all, the principal reason they have come to our shores. The truth remains that America is still the Promised Land for many who have suffered tyranny, oppression, depression, and poverty in their native countries and have made the long arduous journey in hopes of establishing a greater existence. It is immoral to forbid them in their quest to reach what is for many of them the impossible dream. It is an aberration to say that commitment, persistence, and “good moral character”, is not enough to secure a place at liberty’s table. America is a nation of immigrants from across the globe and to deny its promise to gifted and talented young people on the basis of their parent’s ill-advised decisions to enter the country illegally while they were young children, is a travesty to the founding fathers assertion of equality for all men. One needs only to look back to see that one’s ancestors were just as these young people entering America for the first time with a sense of excitement and anticipation that future generations would build upon their struggles. As benefactors of their heritage it is easy to forget that most Americans are immigrants and to deny America’s opportunity to those born on foreign soil is not only unjust, it is hypocritical. References Abrego, L. J., & Gonzales, R. G. (2010, January). Blocked paths, Uncertain Futures: The Postsecondary Education and Labor Market Prospects of Undocumented Latino Youth. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15(1-2), 144-157. Albo Carabelli, M. J. (2009). Whose Children Are These' A Rational Approach to Educating Illegal-Alien School Children. International Social Science Review, 84, issue 3/4, 115-134. Bermudez, J. M., Kirkpatrick, D., Hecker, L., & Torres-Robles, C. (2010, January 23). Describing Latinos Families and their Help-Seeking Attitudes: Challenging the Family Therapy Literature. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 32 Issue 2, 155-172. Herszenhorn, D. M. (2010, December 18). Senate Blocks Bill for Young Illegal Immigrants []. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19immig.html L.A. Almanac. (2010). . Retrieved from L.A. Almanac: www.laalmanac.com Martin, J., & Ruark, E. A. (2011). The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers. Retrieved from www.fairus.org: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf'docID=4921 McGreevy, P., & York, A. (2011, October 9). Brown signs California Dream Act []. L.A. Times. Retrieved from latimes.com/news/local/la-me-brown-dream-act-20111009,0,2023563.story Pew Research Center. (2010). . Retrieved from Pew Research Center: www.pewresearchcenter.org Preston, J. (2010, December 8). House Backs Legal Status for Many Young Immigrants []. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/us/politics/09immig.html The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act [Article]. (2011, Summer). Harvard Journal on Legislation, 48(2), 623-655. United States Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 U.S Census Report (). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.