Cuban migrants landing on American soil without visas will no longer be afforded special treatment over migrants from other countries, President Barack Obama announced on Thursday. In eliminating the 22-year-old “wet foot, dry foot” policy, Obama made what will likely be his final move in his quest to normalize relations with the Cuban government, which has wanted the U.S. to do away with the policy for years.

The “wet foot, dry foot” policy, a 1995 revision to the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, essentially allowed Cuban migrants who reached U.S. soil to stay, with or without a visa; the migrants could also apply for permanent residency. The policy favored Cuban migrants over those who fled other countries. Throughout the past few decades, tens of thousands of Cubans have taken advantage of the favorable treatment.

“By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries,” Obama said in a statement. “With this change we will continue to welcome Cubans as we welcome immigrants from other nations, consistent with our laws.” Obama said the change is effective immediately, and that the Cuban government has agreed “to accept the return of Cuban nationals who have been ordered removed, just as it has been accepting the return of migrants interdicted at sea.”

At the moment, the Cuban government does not permit migrants who have been away from the country for four years or more to return. Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said Cuban officials have already agreed to repeal that law, and will allow nearly 3,000 Cubans who fled to the U.S. as part of the Mariel boat-lift of 1980 to re-enter Cuba.

Not everybody was thrilled with Obama’s decision. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) said dropping the “wet foot, dry foot” policy will “tighten the noose the Castro regime continues to have around the neck of its own people.” Menendez, who is a also a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added: “The fact is the recent ill-conceived changes in American policy towards Cuba have rewarded the regime with an economic lifeline while leaving every day Cubans less hopeful about their futures under a brutal totalitarian dictatorship.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Ends Special Asylum Rule for Cuban Migrants appeared first on Law Street.

The debate over illegal immigration often focuses on enforcement–how we are going to secure our border and protect Americans–but the consequences of stronger enforcement often generally get less attention from policymakers. According to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained 441,000 immigrants in 2013. A BuzzFeed News analysis of data from the Department of Justice found that Mexican immigrants are disproportionately detained pending deportation. This is true not only in terms of raw numbers, but also relative to detention rates from other countries–even when accounting for gender, legal representation, and those facing criminal charges.

According to BuzzFeed News,

Three-quarters of all Mexicans facing deportation on noncriminal grounds were placed in detention centers. For Guatemalans, the next most frequently detained group, the rate was 61%. For China and Cuba, longtime adversaries of the United States, the rates were 19% and 16%.

These findings are particularly striking because of how the website’s methodology looked only at people who were detained without facing criminal charges. BuzzFeed News’ article implicitly argues that the current focus on illegal immigration typically relates to immigrants coming from Mexico, and the detention disparity likely reflects an attempt to specifically deter Mexican immigration. The article also cites a Supreme Court decision, which ruled that civil detention cannot be used for deterrence or retribution–revealing a potential issue with ICE’s detention practices.

However, one thing that the analysis is unable to take into consideration is whether those who are detained have been previously deported or have criminal histories. To its credit, BuzzFeed News does acknowledge this and argues, that factors that are unaccounted for “…could explain at least part of the disparity — but probably not all of it, according to the experts consulted by BuzzFeed News.”

The article also highlights potential issues with detention when a detainee does not face criminal charges. A 2009 analysis by the Associated Press found that at one point in time more than half of those in ICE detention did not face criminal charges and had no criminal record.

In recent years, ICE has adjusted its detention policies to focus on high priority immigrants, who include criminals and repeat offenders. Jeh Jonson, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), issued new guidelines for the apprehension, detention, and removal of illegal immigrants to initiate a change from previous policies. DHS has also moved away from what have been called “bed quotas,” which was essentially an implicit requirement to fill every available bed in the department’s detention budget. The department’s budget required it to maintain “a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds,” which in practice became a requirement to fill nearly all of the budgeted beds in detention centers (see chart below). In an appropriations hearing this year, Secretary Johnson argued that this was no longer the department’s policy. Recent statistics also suggest that the actual number of detainees is around 78 percent of the required capacity for the first five months of the 2015 fiscal year.

Image courtesy of Congressional Research Service

Also important is the fact that convictions for immigration offenses caused a significant portion of the growth in the federal prison population. A Pew Research Center analysis of sentencing data found that between 1992 and 2012 the number of federal inmates (including citizens and non-citizens) more than doubled–going from 36,564 to 75,867. That growth is widely acknowledged and is a cornerstone of the criminal justice reform movement currently gaining momentum in the United States. But what is less known is the fact that 48 percent of the growth in federal prisoners is due to sentences for one specific offense: unlawful reentry, which in addition to other immigration offenses made up 30 percent of the federal convictions in 2012. As a result, non-citizen Hispanics make up the single largest portion of the federal prison population at 37 percent.

Tough on immigration policies are often discussed by politicians, but their effects–most notably the detention and imprisonment of immigrants–receive much less attention. Discussion of immigration should not be divorced from its costs and consequences, which despite recent progress in targeting higher priority immigrants remain significant. While supporting stronger border protections is a valid position, and may even be politically expedient, proponents should acknowledge how such a policy will affect prison populations.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Consequences of Stronger Immigration Enforcement Can Be Seen in Our Prisons appeared first on Law Street.

Since his first presidential campaign, President Obama has advocated for immigration reform, and his administration has experienced its share of successes and failures. Notably, it failed to accomplish its goal to see through the passage of the Dream Act, legislation that would allow unauthorized immigrant students without a criminal background to apply for temporary legal status and eventually earn U.S. citizenship if they attended college or enlisted in the U.S. military. Immigration reform seemed to truly pick up steam, however, during Obama’s second term. In 2013, he proposed earned citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. But what exactly is earned citizenship?

Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.

An undocumented immigrant is a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, often by crossing the border to avoid inspection, or someone who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics, 11.4 million undocumented immigrants lived in the United States as of 2012. The combined number of undocumented immigrants living in California, Texas, New York, and Florida accounted for 55 percent of that figure.

More than eight million, or 71 percent of all undocumented immigrants, were from Central American countries in 2008-12. Asia accounted for 13 percent; South America for seven percent; Europe, Canada, and Oceania for four percent; Africa for three percent; and the Caribbean for two percent. The top five countries of birth included: Mexico (58 percent), Guatemala (six percent), El Salvador (three percent), Honduras (two percent), and China (two percent).

In the U.S., 61 percent of unauthorized immigrants are between the ages 25-44 and 53 percent are male. Interestingly, 57 percent of unauthorized immigrants over the age of 45 are female.

What is Obama’s Earned Citizenship Proposal?

In 2013, Obama called for earned citizenship in an attempt to fix what he calls a broken system. It is an alternative to deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S illegally that allows a legal path for them to earn citizenship. In this proposal, unauthorized immigrants must submit to national security and criminal background checks, pay taxes and a penalty, wait a specific amount of time, and learn English in order to earn citizenship. If the eligibility requirements are met, citizenship is guaranteed. Lastly, young immigrants would be able to fast track citizenship through military service or higher education pursuit.

Provisional Legal Status

Unauthorized immigrants must first register, submit biometric data, pass both national security and background checks, and pay penalties/fees in order to be eligible for provisional legal status. Before applying for legal permanent status–a green card–and eventually U.S. citizenship, they must wait until current legal immigration backlogs are cleared. A provisional legal status will not allow federal benefits. Lawful permanent resident status eligibility will require stricter requirements than the provisional legal status, and applicants must pay their taxes, pass further background and national security tests, register for Selective Service if applicable, pay additional fees and penalties, and learn English and U.S. Civics. In accordance with today’s law, applicants must wait five years after receiving a green card to apply for U.S. citizenship.

DREAMers and AgJOBS

This proposal includes the voted-down Dream Act. Innocent unauthorized immigrant children brought to the U.S. by their parents can earn expedited citizenship through higher education or military service. Agricultural workers can fast track legal provisional status as well in a program called AgJOBS. This a measure to specifically fight against employers taking advantage of unauthorized farmers who will work for the bare minimum.

Combatting Fraud

The proposal allocates funding to DHS, the Department of State, and other relevant federal agencies to create fraud prevention programs that will “provide training for adjudicators, allow regular audits of applications to identify patterns of fraud and abuse, and incorporate other proven fraud prevention measures.” These programs will help ensure a fair and honest path to earned citizenship.

2013 Immigration Reform Bill

Much of Obama’s proposal for earned citizenship came to life in the Senate’s 2013 Immigration Reform Bill. “Nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me,” the President said, “but the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform.” The bill was a heavily bipartisan effort, written by a group of four Republicans and four Democrats called the Gang of Eight. The bill would have provided $46.3 million in funding for its implementation. Immigrants could start applying for a lawful permanent residence when specific goals and timelines of the bill are reached.

Border Security

The bill mandated a variety of border security measures, including the following: the training and addition of 19,200 full-time border agents amassing to 38,405 in total; activation of an electronic exit system at every Customs and Border Control outlet; constructions of 700 miles of fencing; increased surveillance 24 hours a day on the border region; and some specific technology measures including ground sensors, fiber-optic tank inspection scopes, portable contraband detectors, and radiation isotope identification devices. The bill also mandated more unauthorized immigration prosecution, including the hiring of additional prosecutors, judges, and relevant staff. Interior Enforcement would be required to increase its efforts against visa overstay, including a pilot program to notify people of an upcoming visa expiration. And finally, a bipartisan Southern Border Security Commission to make recommendations and allocating funds when appropriate.

Immigrant Visas

Registered Provisional Immigrants’ (RPI) status would be granted on a six-year basis. Unauthorized immigrants would be eligible for application if they have been in the U.S. since December 31, 2011, paid their appropriate taxes as well as a $1,000 penalty. Applicants would need a relatively clean criminal background, although the bill allowed judges more leniency in determining the severity of a person’s criminal background. After ten years of living in the U.S. with continuous employment (or proof of living above the poverty line), the payment of additional fees, and additional background checks, those with RPI status could apply for legal permanent residence. Naturalized citizenship could be applied for after three years of legal permanent residence.

Between 120,000 and 250,000 visas would be handed out each year based on a two-tier point system. Tier one visas would be designated for higher-skilled immigrants with advanced educational credentials and experience, and tier two visas would be reserved for less-skilled immigrants. The top 50 percent that accrued the most points in each tier would be granted visas, and points would be based on a combination of factors including: education, employment, occupation, civic involvement, English language proficiency, family ties, age, and nationality.

Interior Enforcement

Essentially, this provision mandated the use of E-verify, which is “an internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States by comparing information from an employee’s Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to data from U.S. government records.” E-verify, in use now on a limited basis, would be mandated for all employers in the time span of five years. Employers would be required to register newly hired employees with E-verify within three days, and regular assessments would take place to ensure that E-verify isn’t used for discriminatory purposes.

Watch the video below for more information on the Immigration Reform Bill.

Stopped in the House

The Senate passed the bill with overwhelming support in a 68-32 vote. Both sides were highly pleased with the bipartisan teamwork the bill produced. “The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country,” said Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-NY). “It’s going to send a message to the other end of the Capitol as well.” When the bill was finalized, the group broke into a “Yes, we can!” chant.

Devastatingly, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) refused to even allow the bill to come to a vote after previously claiming that something needed to be done about immigration reform. He said:

The idea that we’re going to take up a 1,300-page bill that no one had ever read, which is what the Senate did, is not going to happen in the House. And frankly, I’ll make clear that we have no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill.

No room was allowed for comprise or debate on potential house legislation.

Obama’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions

President Obama’s immigration reform executive actions, announced in November 2014, focus on three items: cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, deporting felons instead of families, and accountability. Basically, these encompass a minor segment of the immigration reform he was trying to pass all along. People attempting to cross the border illegally will have a greater chance of failure. Border security command-and-control will be centralized. Deportation will focus on those who threaten security and national safety. Temporary legal status will be issued in three-year increments for unauthorized immigrants who register, pass background checks, and pay appropriate taxes. It will protect up to five million unauthorized immigrants from deportation.

The executive actions established Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). While DACA protects immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, DAPA provides temporary relief from deportation for eligible parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

 Are the Executive Actions legal?

These executive actions saw immediate backlash. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) responded, “The president’s decision to recklessly forge ahead with a plan to unilaterally change our immigration laws ignores the will of the American people and flouts the Constitution.” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) moved for the House to sue the president.

On Feburary 16, 2015, conservative Texas district court judge Andrew Hanen ruled in favor of Texas and 25 other states to overturn Obama’s action as unconstitutional. Hanen  ruled that the executive actions would cause these states “irreparable harm.”

The matter will now be appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Obama’s actions are blocked indefinitely. Until then, a number of states including New York, California, and New Mexico, have asked for a lift of the ban for their states. They await a ruling.

 Conclusion

Immigration has been the center of heated debate for years. The closest our government came to finally passing a bill that would aid the problem of illegal immigration didn’t even come to a vote in the House. So President Obama decided to take the matter into his own hands. Whether forcing states to participate in his immigration reform is constitutional or not will be a decision left to the courts. Obama’s proposal for earned citizenship started a snowball effect of immigration policy that will likely end in a showdown at the Supreme Court.

Resources

Primary

White House: Earned Citizenship

White House: Immigration

Additional

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to S.744

Immigration Policy Center: The Dream Act

Politico: Immigration Reform Bill 2013: Senate Passes Legislation 68-32

U.S. News & World Report: Is Obama’s Immigration Executive Order Legal?

Washington Post: Boehner Closes Door on House-Senate Immigration Panel

Washington Post: A Dozen States Will CAll for Courts to Allow Obama’s Executive Actions to Proceed

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Immigration Reform: Earned Citizenship and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration reform is a consistent topic of discussion that plagues Congress and splits our country down the middle. Thousands of immigrants flock to the United States. The reasons range from escaping persecution to looking for a better life for one’s family or gaining access to higher education. In 2013, an immigration reform bill entitled The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigrant Modernization Act of 2013 was introduced. Authors of the bill intended to address illegal immigrants and border security but it never ended up going anywhere even though the bill will probably be remembered as one of the defining political topics of 2013. Read on to learn about the Immigration Reform Bill, what it entailed, and the arguments for and against it.

What was the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013?

The bill’s stated purpose was to address the issues of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living within the United States’ borders “by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here.”

Overall the bill was expansive and covered a number of issues, including paths to legality for illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and aiding those illegal immigrants who did not have autonomy in breaking the law–mostly children. The bill would have instituted what were called “triggers” that essentially make sure that in order to provide resources for undocumented immigrants, enforcement also needs to be stepped up. That was to ensure that the compromise that this bill created was held up on both sides of the aisle.

The bill was widely regarded as a compromise. It was created by the “Gang of Eight“–eight leading Senators spread out over both parties: Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). President Barack Obama also admitted it was very much a compromise; after it passed in the Senate he stated:

The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.

While the bill passed the Senate in June 2013, it didn’t pass the House of Representatives. The Republicans in the House of Representatives announced that they had no intention of voting on it. The inaction on the House’s part may be part of the reason that President Obama announced his executive actions on immigration in November 2014.

What were the arguments in favor of the bill?

It’s no secret that there are many undocumented immigrants in the United States. But many of them make substantive contributions to our nation–they pay taxes and participate in the economy just as citizens do. However, because of their undocumented status, they live in a constant state of fear. This is especially true for the children of undocumented immigrants–morally it seems wrong to punish those who were brought to this nation as children.

The pathway to becoming a legal citizen would be made easier, and the bill aimed to streamline the process out of recognition of the huge blacklog that exists when it comes to processing applications and documentation. In addition the bill would have improved our security measures, helping to further prevent influxes undocumented immigrants in the future.

Another argument in favor of the bill was that it was pretty much as good as both sides were going to get. It was a real, legitimate move toward compromise, created by leading voices from both parties. Unless something changes drastically, there are going to continue to be two parties warring for control of our government. Even though no one got everything they wanted in this bill, it was truly a compromise.

What were the arguments against the bill?

The arguments against the bill included that it rewarded people for breaking the law and entering the country illegally. They argue that providing them help now, even it it only applies to immigrants currently in the country, will encourage others to try to illegally enter American borders. In addition, there’s worry that encouraging undocumented immigrants to stay will lead to overpopulation and take jobs away from American citizens. In addition, arguments against the bill included that it didn’t go far enough, and/or made certain steps harder for undocumented immigrants.

Conclusion

Many believe that undocumented workers take away jobs from American citizens and therefore should not be allowed to acquire citizenship themselves. Others believe that illegal immigrants are a source of increased drug trafficking in our nation. However, we have always been a nation of immigrants. If we begin refusing citizenship to those people who have lived and worked in our country for years we step away from the traditions that make this country what it is and always will be, a nation where people come to build a better life.

Resources

Primary

US Senate: S. 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Additional

Mic: TRUST Act Gain Traction in California

Breitbart: Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) Gives Pro-Immigration Bill on Senate Floor in Spanish

Hill: Graham Predicts Breakthrough Passage of Immigration Reform Bill

Reuters: Senator Marco Rubio Still Backs Immigration Bill

ReimagineRPE: Black-Latino Coalitions Block Anti-Immigrant Laws in Mississippi

Mic: 5 Critical Amendments That Could Destroy the Immigration Reform Bill

NY Mag: The Gaffe That Could Threaten Immigration Reform

Huffington Post: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Attempts to Add Voter ID to Immigration Reform Bill

ABC News: Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Wants to Kill the Immigration Reform Bill

The New York Times: In Round 3, Immigration Bill Faces Sessions, Who Won Rounds 1 and 2

Fox News: Senators Rubio and Graham on Immigration Reform Bill

Washington Post: Three Amendments to Watch

CNN: Senate Votes to Begin Debate on Immigration Reform Bill

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Immigration Reform Bill of 2013: Progress That Went Nowhere appeared first on Law Street.

As of March 2012, there were roughly 11.7 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, many of whom had brought their children with them when they crossed the border. America has been left to figure out how to deal with this massive immigration influx and to determine the best course of action for possible immigration reform. Special attention is paid to undocumented youth who were brought to America illegally as children and have been residing in the country for some time. One big question that the country is struggling to answer is should these young people receive in-state college tuition? Read on to learn about the debate.

What action has been taken?

The Obama administration started the program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which permits undocumented youth who were brought to the US under the age of 16 and have been in the US for more than five years to work, get a driver’s license, get a loan, and go to college without the fear of being deported. These youths have also attended their local school systems through programs designed to provide undocumented youths with a K-12 education. Now, as these individuals prepare to graduate high school, they are met with an insurmountable financial wall that prevents them from attending college and pursuing high-paying careers. While DACA permits these students to attend college, they are required to pay out-of-state tuition costs based on their immigration status, which can be considerably more expensive than in-state tuition. Out-of-state tuition is often unaffordable for undocumented families. Paying in-state tuition would greatly reduce this financial burden and make college a real possibility for many undocumented students.

Several states have begun passing “tuition equity” legislation that allows undocumented youths who have graduated from state high schools to pay in-state tuition costs at state schools. Advocates see this as a model of immigration and education reform. Seventeen  states currently provide tuition equity. However, this legislation has been met with strong opposition by those who feel that offering undocumented citizens in-state tuition cheapens American citizenship and rewards illegal behavior.

What’s the argument for providing tuition equity?

Advocates argue that tuition equity could benefit undocumented students and US citizens alike by providing a clear and navigable path toward achieving the American dream. Advocates argue that these students should not be blamed for the actions of their parents, and while they are not US citizens they have grown up and received their education in this country, and cannot call any other place home.

US public school districts currently spend roughly $243,000 per student to educate undocumented youths in K-12. Many feel that this effort and taxpayer money is wasted if these students, who have worked hard throughout their K-12 education, are not given a chance at an affordable college education. While many middle-class families currently struggle to afford hefty out-of-state tuition costs for their children, those tuitions are nearly impossible for undocumented citizens to afford. Upon this realization, many undocumented youths are motivated to drop out of high school and fail to live up to their academic potential. Advocates argue that making tuition feasible would inspire more undocumented students to graduate high school, attend college, and pursue a high-paying career, which could potentially benefit US citizens and the American economy.

Having a college education would encourage more of these students to enter the job market as tax-paying American citizens. The influx of more college-trained individuals into the job market could encourage job growth through entrepreneurial enterprises and increase tax revenue from the higher salaries these individual could make by having a college degree. In the long run, advocates say, tuition equity benefits undocumented and documented citizens alike.

What’s the argument against providing in-state tuition?

Opponents of offering in-state tuition to undocumented students argue that tuition equity validates illegal immigration and is inequitable to tax-paying US citizens. The parents of undocumented students often do not pay taxes that contribute to the funding and maintenance of state colleges and universities, and opponents argue that therefore their children should be charged out-of-state tuition costs. The cost of running these educational institutions would instead be deferred to state citizens who are legal residents. Following California’s DREAM Act, a tuition equity bill signed into law in 2011, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s office estimated that it would require an additional $65 million per year by 2016/2017 in order to provide higher education benefits to undocumented citizens.

Opponents also feel that tuition equity is inherently inequitable toward out-of-state students who are legal residents of the United States. These students would be required to pay a higher tuition merely because they happen to live in a different state than the college they are interested in attending, albeit legally. Some argue that if in-state tuition costs are offered to undocumented residents, then these same lower tuition rates should be offered to out-of-state legal citizens as well, at which point the concept of in and out of state tuition becomes moot.

Because tuition equity is largely backed by Democrats, some opponents feel that it is used merely as a political tool to attract the Latino vote and to secure a growing population for the Democratic Party. Opponents argue that tuition equity and DACA do not actually provide any real immigration reform, but rather pander to Hispanic voters. Momentum for tuition equity has been gaining steadily, however, and this debate will continue to unfold as more states struggle with questions of immigration and education.

Conclusion

The status of children who are brought into the United States illegally by their parents is a tough topic from all angles. Whether or not they should receive in-state tuition for college education continues to be a divisive fight at all levels of government. Some states have moved forward to allow it, while others continue the argument.

 Resources

Primary

Oregon State Legislature: Tuition Equity Bill HB 2787

State of New Jersey: Tuition Equality Act

Additional

USA Today: Why Christie Should Endorse Tuition Equity

Voxxi: Oregon Is One Step Away From Allowing Dreamers to Pay In-State Tuition

American Immigration Council: Tuition Equity Could Be Coming Soon to a State Near You

Students for a Democratic Society: SDS Launches National Push For Tuition Equity

Gazette Times: Tuition Equity Has A Political Agenda

Oregon Catalyst: Tuition Equity Bill: Worst Example of Agency Advocacy

Daily Californian: Children of Illegal Immigrants Should Not Go to College and Gain Legal Status

NJ Policy Perspective: To Put the “Equity” In Tuition Equity, Access to State Aid is Essential

Oregon Public Broadcasting: Tuition Equity Bill Has Backers, Doubters

Washington Post: Seven Immigrants Brought to U.S. as Children Sue For In-State Virginia College Tuition Rates

The New York Times: The Uncertain Cost of Helping Illegal Immigrants Go to College

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just a DREAM? In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants appeared first on Law Street.