[7] Some proponents of the DREAM Act argue that barring undocumented students from higher education is a violation to equal protection. The precedent case of Plyler v. Doe is argued on the grounds of Equal Protection Clause, which only applies to primary and secondary education. Particularly, the Court heightened its scrutiny in that case because of the subject group’s “young age” and “lack of culpability” (Manuel, 2014). It also established that children “can affect neither their parents’ conduct nor their own status”, and denial of a “basic education” to “some isolated group of children” as contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of abolishing “governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual
…show more content…
For example, to qualify for college access, undocumented students in California has to attend a Californian high school for three years and sign affidavit to indicate the will of becoming a U.S. citizen. This alternative criteria was intended to act as a substitute for residence but in turn creates the patina of compliance with the federal statute (Spakovsky, 2011). This law clearly stated that if they were to provide such education to illegal immigrants “on the basis of residence”, they have to provide equal benefits to out-of-state citizens as well. However, none of the states that provide in-state tuition rates to undocumented students provides equal rates to out-of-state U.S. citizens. In a recent case of Martinez v. Regents of the University of California in 2010, the Supreme Court of California overturned the court of appeals’ decision that “the wording of the California statute… creates a de facto residence requirement” (Spakovsky, 2011). The decision of the California Supreme Court is based on the assumption that “because §1623 is not an ‘absolute ban’ on illegal aliens receiving such benefits, that section of law is not in accord with the expressed intention of Congress to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits” (Spakovsky, 2011). This case has been turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court but “such a denial has no precedential effect whatsoever”, and thus is not ruled by any federal courts yet (Spakovsky,
For example, to qualify for college access, undocumented students in California has to attend a Californian high school for three years and sign affidavit to indicate the will of becoming a U.S. citizen. This alternative criteria was intended to act as a substitute for residence but in turn creates the patina of compliance with the federal statute (Spakovsky, 2011). This law clearly stated that if they were to provide such education to illegal immigrants “on the basis of residence”, they have to provide equal benefits to out-of-state citizens as well. However, none of the states that provide in-state tuition rates to undocumented students provides equal rates to out-of-state U.S. citizens. In a recent case of Martinez v. Regents of the University of California in 2010, the Supreme Court of California overturned the court of appeals’ decision that “the wording of the California statute… creates a de facto residence requirement” (Spakovsky, 2011). The decision of the California Supreme Court is based on the assumption that “because §1623 is not an ‘absolute ban’ on illegal aliens receiving such benefits, that section of law is not in accord with the expressed intention of Congress to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits” (Spakovsky, 2011). This case has been turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court but “such a denial has no precedential effect whatsoever”, and thus is not ruled by any federal courts yet (Spakovsky,