Since my 2004 Journal of College and University Law article, a number of developments at the state and national levels have kept the DREAM Act and the issue of undocumented college students in the news and on legislative agendas. The summary that follows updates the developments since that time, and is current through Fall, 2008 (approximately October, 2008).
Litigation, Legal Developments
In 2005, the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security to challenge the Texas and New York statutes, although it is not entirely clear why this agency would have jurisdiction over these sections of IRRAIRA. As of Fall, 2007, no action had been taken on this matter by DHS, and discussions with attorneys and officials involved indicated that there would be no action forthcoming. Michelle Mittelstadt, In-state Rates for Illegal Immigrants Challenged, Group Targets Break that Texas Colleges Give Illegal Residents, Dallas News, August 15, 2005, http://www.uh.edu/ednews/2005/dmn/200508/20050815instaterates.html ; WLF documents [ http://www.wlf.org/Litigating/casedetail.asp?detail=366 ]. See also, Karin Fischer, “Washington Legal Foundation Challenges Immigrant-Tuition Laws,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 23 September 2005, at A34.
In Day v. Sibelius [376 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Kan. 2005)], lawyers challenged the Kansas statute that allowed undocumented college students to establish residency status for tuition. The judge ruled for the state, finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring suit; the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has filed an appeal to the Tenth Circuit. The arguments were heard the week of September 25, 2006. To see the briefs in the case, go to the FAIR website: http://www.fairus.org. In Fall, 2005, state data showed 221 students used this provision to enroll in KS public colleges. In January, 2006, a KS state representative filed a bill to eliminate the provision, but as of 2008, hearings had not been scheduled. On August 30, 2007, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision, in the case, now-styled Day v. Bond, which had the result of upholding the statute: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/05/05-3309.pdf .
In December, 2005, the same groups that filed the Kansas matter filed in state court California state court. The pleadings are attached: AB540Litigation.doc ; AR-M350_20051214_153518.pdf . In October, 2006, FAIR’s attempt to bring the Kansas federal case to the California state court lost, when the judge ruled against them: http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/10/2006101102n.htm. In Fall, 2008, an appeal court order the matter back to trial, and found against the state. Martinez et al v Regents of the University of California, CV-05-2064, (Cal Super Ct, Yolo Cty) [Order on Demurrers, Motion to Strike, and Motions by Proposed Intervenors] (Oct 6, 2006) (dismissing challenge to state residency statute). This action, originally dismissed on October 6, 2006, was the state equivalent of the Day v Sibelius/ Day v. Bond federal case in Kansas.
The University of California has announced that it will be appealing the AB 540 appellate court ruling (Martinez v. Regents) to the State Supreme Court and, just as important for students in the short-term, will be continuing to award AB 540 tuition exemptions during the appeal process, which could take over a year or more. In other words, the appellate ruling has not changed the University's tuition exemption program. The announcement can be viewed at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/18617 . A letter issued by General Counsel for the California Community College Chancellor's Office essentially says the same thing. The decision can be read at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C054124.PDF
In another higher education immigration/residency case, a number of immigrant organizations filed a case bringing a challenge to Cal. Educ. Code § 68040; 5 CCR § 41904 and the State Constitution (postsecondary residency and financial aid provisions) in California Superior Court, County of San Francisco, in Nov, 2006-- Student Advocates for Higher Education et al v Trustees, California State University et al. Citizen students with undocumented parents were being prevented from receiving the tuition and financial aid benefits due them, at least in part because the California statute is not precisely drawn (or imperfectly administered). In addition, there is interaction among several overlapping features of the system: immigration, financial aid independence/dependence upon parents, age of majority/domicile. The State agreed to discontinue the practice, and entered into a consent decree, so the matter is resolved in favor of the plaintiffs. It has been entered into the official SF California Superior Court site, which is hard to find and harder to use: http://www.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=
IJS&PRGNAME= ROA&ARGUMENTS=-ACPF06506755 (Cal Sup Ct site) [Note the buttons at the top and toggle the pages after you click ENTER.] The order overturned CSU’s odd take on undocumented college student residency—that if a documented, majority age college student had undocumented parents, he or she was not able to take advantage of the CA statute according the undocumented in state residence, even if the student were otherwise eligible.
State Legislative Developments (New state legislation introduced, passed, defeated):
In 2005, the State of Texas enacted several modifications to its postsecondary residency statutes (S.B. 1528) and the implementing Texas Coordinating Board regulations, some of which have affected undocumented students. They make it slightly easier for these students to avail themselves of in-state tuition, and ended the anomalous situation where international students (required to maintain foreign domiciles in F-1 visa status) were taking advantage of the original statute and regulations. Even so, the numbers of students invoking these provisions and enrolled in public college, two year institutions, and medical schools declined from Fall, 2006 to Spring, 2006, according to Texas Coordinating Board data. Texas Gov. Richard Perry said he would not accept or sign any changes to the state law. Attempts to pass such legislation failed. Juan Castillo, After Delay, Bill Challenging In-state Tuition Law All But Dead; House Legislation Sought to Overturn Policy Allowing Undocumented Students to Get Cheaper Tuition at Universities, Austin American-Statesman, May 10, 2007, at B1. In 2001, Perry had signed the original legislation that established HB 1403: http://www.uh.edu/ednews/2007/hc/200701/2007012tuition.html .
In a related development in 2005, the Texas Attorney General issued an opinion saying the state Hazlewood Act (a military scholarship program) phrase "citizen of Texas" should be interpreted as a person who lives in the state and is a U.S. citizen. Prior to this AGO (GA-0445, 2006), Texas public colleges and universities gave the Hazlewood benefit to all qualifying military veterans regardless of whether they were U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents when they entered the military. In 2007, two Mexican American permanent resident veterans were rendered ineligible under this revised criterion, and they brought suit, which was resolved in 2008, when the State’s Attorney General reversed his position. Rosanna Ruiz, Veterans Fight for Tuition Money; Suit Challenges Abbott Ruling that Only Those Who Are Citizens Get Funds, Houston Chronicle, June 30, 2007, at B7. Hernan Rozemberg, Texas Vets Get Tuition Back, San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 15, 2008, 1B; Lisa Falkenberg, This Just In: AG Finds the Constitution, Houston Chronicle, January 16, 2008, B1 Showing how important the issue of immigration is in the state, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts issued a useful and authoritative study in December, 2006, revealing the extent to which undocumented workers contributed to the state’s economy. [ http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/undocumented.pdf ]
New York State also enacted changes to its residency statute. For information on recent changes to New York State residency tuition law, see [http://www.suny.edu/Student/paying_residence.cfm ].
In January, 2005, New Mexico extended resident tuition to the undocumented, and altered its residency statutes for some American Indians and for Texans from border counties. In doing so, it became the 9th state to enact such legislation, and it is among the most generous, extending financial aid and lottery scholarship eligibility as well as resident tuition.
The year 2006 was busy with developments at the state level. In January, 2006, the Utah Attorney General issued an Opinion, determining that the Utah statute granting tuition status to the State’s undocumented college students is constitutional. Deborah Bulkeley, “A Law Granting In-State Tuition to Undocumented Students is Legally Sound,” Deseret Morning News, 2 February 2006, A1. As noted below in 2008 developments, the move to repeal this provision failed.
Also in January, 2006, the Massachusetts legislature voted down a measure that would have accorded in state tuition to the undocumented. In 2007, the Governor proposed to abolish tuition at the state’s community colleges. Early in 2007, Minnesota legislation was introduced, both to give residency and to restrict it. Jean Hopfensperger, Immigration Proposals Clash; The Governor and DFL Lawmakers Offered Differing Views on Issues Involving the State's Immigrants, [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, February 15, 2007, at 5B (concerning DREAM Act legislative proposals in Minnesota). At the end of a complicated session, on May 30, 2007, Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minnesota) signed into law an interesting partial victory for in-state/ residency tuition advocates. Under the MN bill, a number of the state college system institutions will eliminate nonresident rates altogether, allowing anyone, apparently regardless of state of residence or immigration status, to qualify for the flat (formerly in-district) rate: H.F. 1083 (85th Leg. Sess. 2007) [Bill analysis: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/sessiondaily.asp?
The press coverage on this has not yet fully sussed the entire legislation, which was complex and which originally had a specific DREAM Act provision that was stripped. For a good story, but one that does not specifically mention this issue, see: Megan Boldt, Reluctant Governor OKs School Spending; Bill Adds $794M Over 2 Years, Restores Aid for Special Education, Pioneer Press, May 30, 2007, available online at: http://www.twincities.com/searchresults/ci_6024474 . This legislation somewhat finesses the larger issue (and has a 2009 sunset), but this approach has a cat’s feet aspect to it, removing the immigration dimension. Many DREAM Act students are likely to attend two year colleges. In Texas, even before HB 1403 passed, some community college districts had moved to this practice, led by the Houston and Community College Systems, which were the real precursor of this practice in Texas. Many of these students enroll in transfer curricula, but partly due to the costs and their inability to work for pay in the country, they never end up transferring to senior colleges.
On January 23, 2006, the Colorado AG issued an AGO (06-01/HE-HE-AGBBT) on whether the state coordinating board had the authority to grant such in-state residency status; he held that the CCHE did not have such authority: AGOpinion1-23-2006CCHEtuitionclassification.pdf . In 2007, he determined that state residency law did allow citizen students of undocumented parents to establish residency, if they otherwise met the durational requirements. In another decision (AGO 07-03) [http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2007/
0814/20070814_084925_Tuition.pdf ] , he opined: "Because it is the student, rather than the parents, who is the legal beneficiary of in-state tuition status, the fact that the parents may be in the country illegally is not a bar to the student's receipt of that benefit”. Colorado newspapers had reported on undocumented Colorado students who, through a reciprocal arrangement with New Mexico colleges, had even been allowed to attend New Mexico colleges as resident students: J.P. Eichmiller, Undocumented Students Get Help Into College, PSD Program Facilitates Admission, Funding at UNM, [Ft. Collins] Coloradoan, July 15, 2007: http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
On April 14, 2006, Nebraska became the 10th state to provide in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants students who have attended and graduated from its high schools. It did so in dramatic fashion, overriding Governor Dave Heineman's veto. The bill had passed by a 26-19 margin, but needed 30 votes for an override; supporters managed to change exactly 4 votes to get the necessary 30. There is an interesting Washington Post story on the issue: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/
article/2006/04/03/AR2006040301618.html ]; the bill (LB 239) is at : http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/pdf/FINAL_LB239_1.pdf.
On September 30, 2006, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declined to sign S. B. 160, vetoing a bill would have allowed undocumented students in California, already eligible for in-state tuition, to participate in the state’s financial aid grant programs. [The enrolled version of the legislation is at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/
sb_0151-0200/sb_160_bill_20060907_enrolled.pdf ] His veto message is at:[ http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/sb_160_veto.pdf ].
Two other states enacted legislation that affects international students, although not implicating in-state tuition status for the undocumented, who remain ineligible. Virginia (SB 542, 4/6/06) extended tuition status to political refugees, while Wyoming (SB 85, 3/10/06) enacted state scholarship programs available only to residents who are non-LPR or citizens; a pdf copy is attached. [W.S. 21-16-1303 WYsf0085engrossed.pdf ].
The pace did not slow in 2007. The new Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (HB 1804) repealed the 2003 provision for according residency tuition and grants to eligible undocumented students, although the actual language of the bill, signed into law in May, 2007, grandfathered in those students already eligible and enrolled. [ See attached statute. ] In January, 2008, the state’s Board of Regents issued a memo outlining the new policies. [See attached memo.] It is interesting to see just how much attention this issue has drawn in some states, while in other states the issue is not highly polarizing or public. For example, an official report by the State on the session’s legislative developments, does not even mention this issue. Even so, restrictionists prevailed in the repeal action. Valerie Jobe, Immigration Reform Would Affect OCCC, Okla. City Comm. Coll. Pioneer, April 2, 2007, 1, 16: http://www.okc.cc.ok.us/pioneer/Archives/April_2_2007/news1.html
In Spring, 2007, Connecticut’s legislature passed and sent a bill (H.B. 5656) to Governor Jodi Rell for her signature, which would have granted alien students who graduated from the State’s high schools the opportunity to qualify for resident tuition. She vetoed the bill on June 26, 2007, saying: “I understand these students are not responsible for their undocumented status, having come to the United States with their parents. The fact remains, however, that these students and their parents are here illegally and neither sympathy nor good intentions can ameliorate that fact.”
In Fall, 2007, there are still uncertainties over what the larger restrictionist Georgia and Arizona state statutes mean for this issue, and things are in flux in these two states. Georgia held public hearings in April, 2007, to get public input on how they should proceed, but the behind-the-scenes waiver system that allows each public college to use waivers up to 2% of their headcount changed. The statute took effect on July 1, 2007: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2006/12/15/1216metregents.html . At the start of the Spring, 2007 semester, Arizona officials were confused about what they were to do with the statute’s new requirements: Yvonne Wingett, ARIZONA'S COLLEGES STRUGGLE TO ENFORCE NEW TUITION STATUTE, Arizona Republic, January 3, 2007, A-1. However, they decided that they would not enroll these students any longer, and by Summer, 2007, were reporting that nearly 5,000 students had been removed from the state’s institutions and adult basic education classes: Yvonne Wingett and Matthew Benson, MIGRANT LAW BLOCKS BENEFITS TO THOUSANDS; PROP. 300 DENYING COLLEGE AID, CHILD CARE, Arizona Republic August 2, 2007, A1.
In response, Arizona State University awarded students private money to help with financial aid needs.Yvonne Wingett and Richard Ruelas, ASU Helps Migrants Find Tuition, Arizona Republic, September 8, 2007, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0908studentmoney0908.html. The funds (contested by the same political opponents who had enacted the restrictionist legislation) ran out in Spring, 2008. John Faherty and Maxine Park, ASU Ends Scholarships for Illegal Immigrants, Arizona Republic, February 16, 2008, A1. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0215scholarship15-ON.html
Following the lead of Missouri, which in 2007 saw the introduction of a “death-penalty provision” that would have banned undocumented students from enrolling in any fashion in its public colleges, Virginia legislators introduced a similar bill in the Legislature in August, 2007. The Missouri Senate Committee on Pensions, Veterans' Affairs and General Laws heard testimony on March 14, 2007 on five proposed bills, including the "Missouri Omnibus Immigration Act" (SB 348) and a bill to ban undocumented students without from public institutions (HB 269). The Missouri legislation was not enacted in 2007. [Chronicle of Higher Education, August 31, 2007 (Almanac issue), Eugene McCormack, “Missouri,” at p. 68.] Tim Craig, Va. Republican Bill Would Bar Illegal Immigrants From College, Washington Post, August 30, 2007, A1 [online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/
In 2008, the Missouri Legislature considered two separate bills addressing the undocumented college student tuition issue, one in the state House and one in the state Senate: HB 1463 would have prohibited state institutions of higher education from admitting undocumented individuals. It was not enacted, as the legislature ran out of time in May, 2008: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills081/bills/hb1463.htm. SB 858 was an omnibus immigration bill with strict employment provisions, and would have prohibited public colleges from admitting undocumented individuals. It was not enacted into law with these provisions, although it had many restrictionist features: http://www.house.mo.gov/news.aspx?news=true&id=191 [Missouri House Concludes Successful Session With Focus on Property Tax Relief and Immigration Reform - 5/16/2008 (concerning HB 1549, 1771, 1395 & 2366)]. Here is a link to the actual bill that passed:
As noted, the year 2008 started out with a bang, including continuing electoral politics over tuition benefits. [Katherine Mangan, Immigration: A Campaign Primer, Chronicle of Higher Education, March 21, 2008, B10: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i28/28b01001.htm ]. In Virginia, citizen applicants of undocumented parents were the subject of an AG memo; the memo advised its client colleges to deal with these students on a case-by-case basis for residency tuition purposes. [Susan Kinzie, U-VA Accepts Residency Claim, Washington Post, March 24, 2008, B5]. In California, legislation has been introduced that would extend financial aid to undocumented students (A.B. 2083, February, 2008), and hearings have been scheduled. In Utah, although a comprehensive restrictionist law was enacted (SB 81), it exempted undocumented college students from its coverage, so they remain eligible for resident tuition. Deborah Bulkeley, Attempt to Repeal Tuition Law Hits Snag, Deseret News, February 7, 2008, A1. (53B-8-106. Resident tuition -- Requirements – Rules) In other words, residency tuition is not affected by SB 81: http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/sbillenr/sb0081.pdf (entire statute).
In North Carolina, an odd and twisted scenario occurred in 2008. Early in the year, the state’s community colleges indicated that they would enroll undocumented students and charge them in-district tuition. In May, the Attorney General’s Office issued a letter (less-binding than an AG Opinion), indicating that the state’s colleges were not allowed even to enroll the undocumented, much less accord them resident tuition, citing DHS policy. When the state officials sought guidance from DHE, the Department indicated that, to the contrary, states were able to determine this on their own, in accord with SS 1621 and 1623. Kristin Collins, Federal Officials Say N.C. Schools Aren't Required to Consider Students' Status, News & Observer, May 10, 2008. Even with this guidance, state college officials indicated that they would not enroll the students at in-state tuition rates. The DHS letter is at: http://www.nacua.org/documents/AdmissionUndocAlien072008.pdf (July 28, 2008)
A similar confusing misreading of federal law occurred in Arkansas, where schools had silently been enrolling students, until it became publicly-known, and the state higher education agency and governor ended the practice. Jon Gambrell, Beebe: Law Bans In-state Tuition for Illegal Immigrants, [Conway, AR] Log Cabin Democrat, May 27, 2008 [ http://www.thecabin.net/stories/052708/loc_0527080003.shtml ]. An Arkansas AGO ruled that Arkansas law allowed the undocumented to attend state institutions, although not at resident tuition rates. Ark. A.G.O: 2008-109 http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2008-109.pdf In September, 2008, Alabama’s two year college board also moved to ban their attendance: http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional
In Summer, 2008, South Carolina became the first state to enact state legislation that banned undocumented students from attending public colleges (H 4400), as signed by governor in June, 2008. Strong Illegal Immigration Bill Biggest Legislative Achievement, Post and Courier [Charleston, SC], June 7, 2008, A10.
The DREAM Act in Congress and Federal Developments
Of course, against the backdrop of considerable state activity, the federal stage was also active. On November 21, 2005, the DREAM Act was reintroduced in Congress. [For information on the NILC website, see http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/index.htm#DREAM ]. It languished there until comprehensive immigration reform efforts failed in Summer, 2007. In July, 2007, the Senate tried a different legislative approach, and developed plans to attach the legislation to the Department of Defense authorization bill, but Sen. Harry Reid pulled it from the floor when an Iraq timetable amendment failed; as a result, the Senate never got to the DREAM vote. The DoD Authorization bill was scheduled to return to the Senate floor in September, 2007, but in late Fall, 2007, there had been no additional movement on the proposal. The House Judiciary Committee held a DREAM Act hearing on May 18, 2007 (Hearings on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: The Future of Undocumented Immigrant Students), and the testimony and written statements are online: http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=321. Elizabeth Redden, A New Tack for the DREAM Act, InsideHiEd, July 19, 2007 [ http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/07/19/dream ]. On September 6, 2007, the House held Subcommittee hearings on the STRIVE Act, the comprehensive House legislation that contained, among other provisions, the DREAM Act. 84 Interpreter Releases 2109-2115 (September 17, 2007).
On October 24, 2007, the Senate voted down the standalone DREAM Act, 52-44, on the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 2205): http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/
In addition, there were developments in other immigration categories, such as college developments for victims of human trafficking (T nonimmigrant visas). New Process Benefits Victims of Human Trafficking Seeking College Aid [Press release by US Dept of Education announcing college scholarship funds for T-visa holders] www.studentaid.edu.gov (May 9, 2006).
Studies by National Organizations, CRS, others:
The National Association of College Admissions Counselors has made the DREAM Act an organizational priority and has provided national materials. Materials providing background information from NACAC are available online at: http://www.nacacnet.org/NR/rdonlyres/659C54BA-566D-4440-B9BA-3B56A644D6C9/0/PressAttachments_July06.pdf . The College Board has also made this a priority, according to testimony by CB president Gaston Caperton at the October, 2006 HACU annual meeting: DREAMActPresentationforGaston.doc. A better national barometer of interest in this issue is the scorecard of how many legislatures have considered legislation on immigration-related issues. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) issued a report detailing the 57 state statutes enacted in 2006 in 27 states, implicating immigration. Over 500 were introduced. The July 3, 2006 report is available at: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/immig/06ImmigEnactedLegis2.htm. Updated versions are available on the NCSL website at www.ncsl.org .
In the summer of 2006, two additional studies of DREAM Act issues were released, one by the Heritage Foundation (Backgrounder #1960), in support of Kris Kobach’s California state court litigation on in-state tuition residency. [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/upload/bg_1960.pdf ] The other was by the Congressional Research Service: Jody Feder, Unauthorized Alien Students, Higher Education, and In-State Tuition Rates: A Legal Analysis (July 20, 2006, RS22500). CRS published a subsequent study on the subject on January 30, 2007: http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33863_20070130.pdf ; UnauthorizedAlienStudentsHigher EducationandIn-State.pdf
In October, 2006, the School of Education at the University of Southern California produced a useful booklet for undocumented students in that State, containing information about AB 540, the statute that enables them to qualify for resident status: CollegeFinancialAidGuidAB540Students.pdf Also in October, 2006, the Migration Policy Institute published a report on students who would benefit from the DREAM Act, New Estimates of Unauthorized Youth Eligible for Legal Status under the DREAM Act. The full 10 page report is available at [ http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Backgrounder1_Dream_Act.pdf ].
Additional articles are included in the bibliography that follows.
H.F. 1083 (85th Leg. Sess. 2007 [Minnesota] ) http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/sessiondaily.asp?yearid=2007&storyid=1098 (Bill analysis );
_year=85&session_year=2007&session_number=0&Go.x=17&Go.y=6 (Bill history)
Day v. Sibelius, 376 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Kan. 2005); aff’d as Day v. Bond, ---F. 3d ---(10th Cir. 2007).
Martinez et al v Regents of the University of California, CV-05-2064, (Cal Super Ct, Yolo Cty) [Order on Demurrers, Motion to Strike, and Motions by Proposed Intervenors] (Oct 6, 2006) (dismissing challenge to state residency statute). REGENTSORDER_10062006_033944PM.PDF ;SFOLIB1-27252647-v1-JENNIEDOEPetitionforWritofMandate.doc
Student Advocates for Higher Education et al v Trustees, California State University et al. http://www.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAME=ROA&ARGUMENTS=-ACPF06506755 (Cal Sup Ct site) [Note the buttons at the top and toggle the pages after you click ENTER.]
Governmental and organizational websites, testimony, actions, and reports:
http://www.fairus.org (FAIR website)
http://www.wlf.org/Litigating/casedetail.asp?detail=366 (WLF website)
http://www.suny.edu/Student/paying_residence.cfm (NY State residency tuition law)
http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/pdf/FINAL_LB239_1.pdf (Nebraska, LB 239)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0151-0200/sb_160_bill_20060907_enrolled.pdf (California, S. B. 160)
http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/sb_160_veto.pdf [ California veto message ]
H.B. 5656 Gov. Jodi Rell veto message:
Virginia (SB 542, 4/6/06) political refugees, while
AGOpinion1-23-2006CCHEtuitionclassification.pdf ( Colorado, AGO 06-01)
AGO 07-03 [ http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2007/0814/20070814_084925_Tuition.pdf ]:
state residency law does allow undocumented students to establish residency, if they meet durational requirements
WYsf0085engrossed.pdf (Wyoming, SB 85, W.S. 21-16-1303)
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2006/12/15/1216metregents.html (Georgia statute )
Articles, News Reports:
Mittelstadt, M. (2005). “In-state Rates for Illegal Immigrants Challenged, Group Targets Break that Texas Colleges Give Illegal Residents.” Dallas News, August 15, 2005, at http://www.uh.edu/ednews/2005/dmn/200508/20050815instaterates.html .
Fischer, K. (2005, September 23). “Washington Legal Foundation Challenges Immigrant-Tuition Laws,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A34.
Hebel, S. (2006, October 11). “California Judge Rejects Challenge to the State's Immigrant-Tuition Law.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 11, 2006, http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/10/2006101102n.htm.
Hopfensperger, J. (2007, February 12). Immigration Proposals Clash; The Governor and DFL Lawmakers Offered Differing Views on Issues Involving the State's Immigrants, [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, p. 5B (concerning DREAM Act legislative proposals in Minnesota).
Boldt, M. (2007, May 30). Reluctant Governor OKs School Spending; Bill Adds $794M Over 2 Years, Restores Aid for Special Education, [Minnesota] Pioneer Press, May 30, 2007, http://www.twincities.com/searchresults/ci_6024474 .
Marcus, R. (2006, April 4). Immigration's Scrambled Politics, Washington Post, p. A23
Wingett, Y. (2007, January 3). Arizona’s Colleges Struggle To Enforce New Tuition Statute, Arizona Republic, p. A1.
Wingett, Y. and Benson, M. (2007, August 2). Migrant Law Blocks Benefits to Thousands; Prop. 300 Denying College Aid, Child Care, Arizona Republic, p. A1.
Eichmiller, J.P. (2007, September 3). “Undocumented Students Get Help Into College;
PSD Program Facilitates Admission, Funding at UNM.” The Coloradoan, September 3, 2007, http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
Bulkeley, D. (2006, September 2). A Law Granting In-State Tuition to Undocumented Students is Legally Sound. Deseret Morning News, p. A1.
Studies by National organizations, CRS, others:
National Association of College Admissions Counselors DREAM Act materials:
College Board materials: DREAMActPresentationforGaston.doc
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) 2006 report: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/immig/06ImmigEnactedLegis2.htm and www.ncsl.org .
Heritage Foundation (Backgrounder #1960), Kris Kobach, [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/upload/bg_1960.pdf ]
Congressional Research Service: Jody Feder, RS22500 -- Unauthorized Alien Students, Higher Education, and In-State Tuition Rates: A Legal Analysis (July 20, 2006).
CRS study,January 30, 2007: http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33863_20070130.pdf ; UnauthorizedAlienStudentsHigher EducationandIn-State.pdf
October, 2006 School of Education at the University of Southern California booklet CollegeFinancialAidGuidAB540Students.pdf
October, 2006, Migration Policy Institute, New Estimates of Unauthorized Youth Eligible for Legal Status under the DREAM Act http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Backgrounder1_Dream_Act.pdf
US Dept of Education. (2006) New Process Benefits Victims of Human Trafficking Seeking College Aid [ Press Release], May 9, 2006 www.studentaid.edu.gov
Articles, News Reports:
Eugene McCormack, “Missouri,” Chronicle of Higher Education, August 31, 2007 [Almanac issue], at p. 68.
Tim Craig, Va. Republican Bill Would Bar Illegal Immigrants From College, Washington Post, August 30, 2007, A1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/
Katherine Mangan, Immigration: A Campaign Primer, Chronicle of Higher Education, March 21, 2008, B10: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i28/28b01001.htm .
Susan Kinzie, U-VA. Accepts Residency Claim, Washington Post, March 24, 2008, B5.
Deborah Bulkeley, Attempt to Repeal Tuition Law Hits Snag, Deseret News, February 7, 2008, A1.
Kristin Collins, Federal Officials Say N.C. Schools Aren't Required to Consider Students' Status, News & Observer, May 10, 2008, A1.
Jon Gambrell, Beebe: Law Bans In-state Tuition for Illegal Immigrants, [Conway, AR] Log Cabin Democrat, May 27, 2008
[ http://www.thecabin.net/stories/052708/loc_0527080003.shtml ].
Michael A. Olivas, Lawmakers Gone Wild? College Residency and the Response to Professor Kobach, 61 SMU L REV 99 (2008).
Nathan G. Cortez, The Local Dilemma: Preemption and the Role of Federal Standards in State and Local Immigration Laws, 61 SMU L REV 47 (2008).
Michael A. Olivas, DREAM Act POSTSCRIPT: