No Visa, No School, Many New York Districts Say

[alp227]

Three decades after the Supreme Court ruled that immigration violations cannot be used as a basis to deny children equal access to a public school education, one in five school districts in New York State is routinely requiring a child’s immigration papers as a prerequisite to enrollment, or asking parents for information that only lawful immigrants can provide.

The New York Civil Liberties Union, which culled a list of 139 such districts from hundreds of registration forms and instructions posted online, has not found any children turned away for lack of immigration paperwork. But it warned in a letter to the state’s education commissioner on Wednesday that the requirements listed by many registrars, however free of discriminatory intent, “will inevitably discourage families from enrolling in school for fear that they would be reported to federal immigration authorities.”

For months, the group has been pushing the State Education Department to stop the practices, which range from what the advocates consider unintentional barriers, like requiring a Social Security number, to those the letter called “blatantly discriminatory,” like one demanding that noncitizen children show a “resident alien card,” with the warning that “if the card is expired, it will not be accepted.”

But the Education Department has resisted doing anything to address the issue directly, in contrast with several other states — including Maryland, Nebraska and New Jersey — where education officials have taken strong steps in recent years to halt similar practices.

--snip--

The state’s education law, which mandates a free public education for all residents ages 5 to 21 who have no high school diploma, allows districts to require documents that prove age and residency, like birth certificates, rental agreements and utility bills. But it is silent on any additional requirements that would violate the 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler v. Doe.

That ruling, considered by legal scholars to be a high-water mark of immigrant rights, held that under the Constitution, all children who live in a district must be given equal access to a public education from kindergarten through 12th grade, regardless of whether they entered or stayed in the country in violation of federal immigration rules.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/nyregion/23immig.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Similarly, other states have tried similar measures to block public education from illegal immigrants:
- California: Proposition 187 was passed by 59% of voters in 1994 and sought to ban illegal immigrants from using all taxpayer-funded social services and allowed police to investigate suspicion of immigration law violation of criminal suspects (the latter similar to what Arizona passed this year.) A federal judge ordered an injunction of 187 three days after Election Day and ruled it to be unconstitutional in 1997. In 2009, NPR reported that a Los Angeles politician was proposing another similar ballot initiative for the 2010 election.
- Arizona: Proposition 200 was passed by 56% of voters in 2004 and required proof of citizenship for people to register to vote or apply for public services.

[LWolf]

1. I was teaching in CA in 1994; I remember prop 187,

and was glad to see the injunction and the later ruling.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I was in Anaheim summer of 94

at the AFT convention. One of our speakers was an immigrants rights activist. She talked about Prop 187 and made a great point I have borrowed many times. When we kick these kids out of school, do you think their families are going to leave the state or the country? No, because they don't come here so their kids can get an education. They are going to stay here and work. And while Mom and Dad are at work, do you think the kids are going to stay home and read books? Now do you really want groups of kids roaming the streets all day - or in school where we know what they are doing?

[LWolf]

3. Exactly. nt

[Recursion]

4. I made a point of finding a post in Education we have common ground on

And this is definitely a big one.