24.11.2014 Views

Download this file - Plan4Preschool

Download this file - Plan4Preschool

Download this file - Plan4Preschool

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Immigration Status of<br />

Students—Proposition 187 of 1994*<br />

and Welfare Reform Act of 1996<br />

The issue of illegal immigration in California has resulted in a variety of laws and legal<br />

challenges. Critics have suggested that school-age children residing illegally in<br />

California should be denied a free public education. Regardless of individual opinion,<br />

current law requires:<br />

• Free public K–12 education for all school-age children in California, regardless<br />

of alienage<br />

• Compulsory school attendance of each person in California between the ages of<br />

six and eighteen, regardless of alienage<br />

Although age and residency must be established, there is no requirement that<br />

citizenship be established. As discussed below, even inquiring about citizenship as a<br />

condition of enrollment is currently prohibited.<br />

Plyler v. Doe<br />

On September 27, 1981, the California State Board of Education (SBE) <strong>file</strong>d an amicus<br />

curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Plyler v. Doe, 457 US<br />

202 (1982). In arguing against Texas statutes that denied public school enrollment and<br />

withheld state funds from local school districts for children “illegally admitted” to the<br />

United States, the SBE stated:<br />

As educators concerned with the provision of quality education for all<br />

children and for the improvement of society through an educated<br />

population, the California State Board of Education believes strongly that<br />

there is no rational educational or fiscal purpose in excluding children of<br />

illegal aliens from receiving the educational opportunities available to all<br />

other children. (Amicus Curiae Brief at p. 27)<br />

Consistent with the SBE’s position, the United States Supreme Court held the Texas<br />

statute unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th<br />

Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects “any person,” not just “any<br />

citizen.” Because the Plyler decision applies to every state and is still valid, the same<br />

test of constitutionality applies to any state law that conditions California school<br />

attendance on citizenship.<br />

Welfare Reform Act of 1996<br />

Provision of public services to immigrants is addressed in the federal Personal<br />

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Certain public health<br />

31

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!