Supreme Court Ruiling - Plyler vs. Doe
The current policy of not determining citizenship status for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools and all school districts across the country stems from the 1982 Supreme Court Ruling in the case Plyler v. Doe. The Plyler v. Doe case arose because of 1975 legislation by the Texas Legislature that revised state education laws to withhold state funds from local school districts that allowed the enrollment of illegal immigrants. The 1975 revision also authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in their public schools to children not "legally admitted" to the country.
A class-action lawsuit was filed in September 1977 on behalf of certain school-aged Mexican children in the Tyler Independent School District in Smith County, Texas. The District Court and Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit both ruled that the State legislative action violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It is the 14th Amendment (Section One) that is the basis of the United States citizenship policy which outlines that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 - 4 decision, upheld that lower courts' decisions in June 1982 with the following opinion:
The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of the term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments …….. the undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents. It is true that when faced with an equal protection challenge respecting a State's differential treatment of aliens, the courts must be attentive to Congressional policy concerning aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the legislative record, no national policy is perceived that might justify the State in denying these children an elementary education."
The U.S. Congress has not expressed interest in passing additional legislation to clarify the Equal Protection Clause to address the Court's ruling and the decision stands as federal policy.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools follows the Court ruling as policy with Michelle Morris, Associate Counsel for CMS stating:
"CMS is bound by the requirements outlined by the US Supreme Court in their opinion in the 1982 Plyler v. Doe case. In this case the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing in pertinent part that the State cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," (at 202), applies to illegal aliens living within the boundaries of the state. In sum, the Court held that the undocumented status of children does not allow the state to deny them benefits afforded to other residents.
Guidance developed in response to this case generally provides that making inquiries of students, or their parents, as to their immigration status would unreasonably limit access to school. Asking such questions would impose a fear of exposing undocumented status and would thus reduce the number of children presented for enrollment. Therefore, CMS does not track the immigration status of students enrolling in the district."
Limited English Proficiency Programs
The student body at Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools consists of students from 130 countries, speaking 94 native languages. In 2005 - 06, CMS enrolled nearly 13,307 in the Limited English Proficiency program (9,000 are Spanish speaking), addressing those who have limited to no English speaking skills. During the 1995 - 96 school year, CMS had 1,732 Limited English Proficiency students. The school system has identified that 19,307 students are from families where English is not the native language.
CMS estimates that the cost per pupil to educate a student in CMS is $8,198. Multiplying the cost per student ($8,198) by the number of students in the Limited English Proficiency program (13,000) totals $106 million and can provide a guesstimate of one facet of the impact of illegal immigration on CMS. The federal No Child Left Behind Act does provide federal funding based on a School District's Limited English Proficiency (LEP) enrollment and the State of North Carolina also provides an allotment for LEP enrollment. In 2006, CMS received six million dollars in state funding based on LEP enrollment, however not all States provide funding based on LEP enrollment.
In addition to providing LEP classes, CMS has expanded the school curriculum to offer international focused programs to include numerous International Baccalaureate classes, six Centers for Leadership and Global Economics, two international studies schools, and five foreign language immersion schools, including Japanese, French, Spanish, German, and added in 2006, Chinese.
Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC), located in Charlotte, offers a Limited English Proficiency program and during the 2005 school year, they enrolled 11,800 students in the program. CPCC's average cost for literacy students is $260 based on a program budget of $3.1 million.
Education Paradox/Dilemma
Every year across the United States, roughly 65,000 illegal immigrant students under the age of 21, who have lived in this country for at least five years or longer, will graduate from high school. This number represents less than two percent of all graduating seniors in the United States. Of the 65,000, only 5 to 10 percent will go onto college, compared with 75% of their legal classmates who will go on to pursue higher education goals.
This situation highlights the reality that students who may have been brought to this country by their parents as young children face the consequences of the illegal immigrant status. Although these students attend U.S. schools K-12, as provided by the Plyler v. Doe ruling, (and usually share American cultures and values, plus the English language) they are barred from an affordable college education with in-state tuition rates, state and federal education grants or loans, most private scholarships, and the ability to work legally to earn their way through college.
Because of this, many illegal immigrant children drop out of high school, seeing no reason to graduate knowing they will likely not be able to attend college due to affordability concerns. Further, the job opportunities for these youth are limited and their lifetime earning potential is substantially handicapped. The limbo status of these children who essentially know no other cultures and have no opportunities to be highly productive citizens, and are not being deported, presents an economic and social conundrum that the federal government has not addressed.
Children or students are not considered illegal immigrants or undocumented until they turn 18 years of age, presenting the paradox that the U.S. taxpayers are spending money to educate these students, yet these students have limited opportunities and limited futures to become highly productive, tax-paying residents. Despite this situation, some States, and even the federal government are considering ideas on how to address this paradox, yet no consensus has been reached to address this dilemma.
In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants
To date, the State of North Carolina has not provided any enrollment guidance to Community Colleges for undocumented students and has left the policy discretion to each College's governing body. Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) will enroll students without documentation or residency verification, but will charge out of state tuition for those in that category. Every student who can produce proof of North Carolina residency is charged in-state tuition rates. Similarly, the University of North Carolina system also allows students to enroll without documentation or residency verification, but will charge out-of-state tuition for those in this category.
In Fall 2005, CPCC enrolled 17 students with "no visa status" and "no state of residency" status. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte reported no one being enrolled with no visa status and no state of residency. A local area, private college, Davidson College, enrolled two undocumented students in Fall 2006, making them the first two undocumented students to ever enroll at Davidson College. Because Davidson is a private institution, there is no distinguishing line between students who pay in-state or out-of-state tuition, as tuition is one fee for all students.
In 2006, the North Carolina General Assembly, like 18 other states, considered and debated the concept of offering in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrant students who cannot provide proof of state residency, but the North Carolina proposed legislation failed. North Carolina also considered similar measures in 2003 and 2005, but those measures were never enacted.
To date, nine states allow illegal immigrant students to obtain in-state tuition. Those states (with enactment years) include:
California (2001) Oklahoma (2003)
Texas (2001) Illinois (2004)
New York (2002) Kansas (2004)
Utah (2002) New Mexico ( 2005)
Washington (2003)
In 2004, a lawsuit was filed in Kansas challenging the legality of the law providing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, but the federal district court upheld the Kansas law. Further, in 2006, a proposal was made in the Kansas legislature to repeal the in-state tuition provision for illegal immigrants, but that motion failed.
The nine current states that provide in-state tuition for illegal immigrants do so despite a provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Section 505) that requires any state that provides in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants to provide the same tuition rate to out-of-state residents. Thus, effectively eliminating the distinction of in-state and out-of-state tuition for those states.
The DREAM ACT Proposal
The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) has been proposed in each house of Congress since 2002, but never passed. The DREAM Act is intended to help illegal immigrants pursue higher education goals and adjust their immigration status to that of being legal. The Act would allow certain illegal immigrant students to adjust their status to that of a legal permanent resident on a conditional basis for six years based on the following requirements:
-
1) Illegal immigrant student must have entered the U.S. before age 16
-
2) Students must have been accepted for admission into a two- or four-year institution of higher education or have earned a high school diploma or a general education development (GED) certificate at the time of application
-
3) Students must reside in the U.S. when the law is enacted. In addition, those eligible must have lived in the U.S. for at least five years preceding the date of enactment of the Act.
-
4) Illegal immigrant students must demonstrate good moral character, a defined term in immigration law. In general, students must have no criminal record.
The conditional basis component, upon which legal permanent status would be granted, would be removed to allow the student to obtain legal status if they fulfill at least one of the following within six years:
-
1) Earned a degree from an institution of higher education (two or four year degree) or maintained good standing, for at least two years at an institution of higher education while working towards a bachelor's degree or higher or
-
2) Served in the U.S. Armed Forces for at least two years and, if discharged, received an honorable discharge.
The DREAM Act would also repeal the Section 505 of the 1996 Immigration Law requiring states that adopt in-state tuition for illegal immigrants to also provide the same tuition rate for out-of-state residents. The Act would also make students with adjusted legal immigration status to be eligible for federal education loans and work-study programs.
The United States continues to be a higher education destination for students around the globe. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has tightened the number of student visas permitted in the United States and has better tracked foreign student visa holders through the SEVIS system. During the 2005 - 06 Academic Year, 564,766 foreign students studied in the United States, comprising 3.9 percent of total enrollment in U.S. colleges and universities. This was the third consecutive year of decline for foreign student enrollment, which peaked at a high of 586,323 students in the 2002 - 03 school year.
The top 10 countries of origin of foreign students in the U.S. (in order) for 2005 - 06 were India, China, Korea, Japan, Canada, Taiwan, Mexico, Turkey, Germany, and Thailand. California and New York led the nation in the number of foreign students with 75,385 and 64,283 respectively. The State of North Carolina ranked 18th with 9,507 in 05 - 06. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte had the fourth highest number of foreign students in the state of any state or private school with 737. Business and Management, and engineering were the top two fields of study for foreign students in the U.S.
International Students by Academic Level
Academic Level 2005-06 % of Total
Associate's Degree 63,598 11.3%
Bachelor's Degree 172,744 30.6%
Graduate Degree 259,717 46%
Master's 115,434
Doctoral 107,993
Other 68,707 12.2
Comparatively, the United States had 205,983 students studying abroad in 2004-05, a 7.7% increase from the previous year. The top five countries of destination were the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, France, and Australia. The top three fields of study were Social Sciences, Business and Management, and Humanities. In 2004-05, the State of North Carolina had 7,501 students studying abroad.
In the 2005 - 06 school year, UNCC enrolled 596 F-1 students and 38 J-1 students and had 27 J-1 faculty/researchers and 53 H-1 faculty/researchers. Last year, 113 of CMS teachers were on J1 (teaching visas) and 10 were employed under H1B visas.
The economic impact of foreign students and their families on the U.S. economy in 2005 - 06 is a net contribution of $13.49 billion (tuition and fees, plus living expenses and dependents, minus U.S. loan and grant support). North Carolina ranked 34th, with a total net contribution of $198.4 million to the state economy. Foreign students at UNCC contributed $21.8 million to the state's economy in 2003-04.
Family Visa Impact
All visa categories, including foreign students and faculty visas, allow the spouse and children of the visa holder to come to the US where they are also issued temporary visa status. In 2005, there were 33,756 spouses and children of foreign students in the U.S. and 130,000 spouses and children of the faculty and other work-related visa category. Under current Immigration law, these family members are not allowed to work.
Many families that come over to the U.S. on a teaching or faculty visa are accustomed to a two-income family structure and oftentimes the spouse is highly educated or possesses a professional degree, such as a medical doctor. As the U.S. struggles to fill many vacancies in the healthcare profession and even is undertaking an effort to recruit nurses in the Philippines, there may be a missed opportunity by not allowing the spouses and family members to work. If qualified people are in the country and can help fill a need in the labor market, the U.S has an opportunity to better utilize the legal visa holders that are in the country.
