BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 132
AUTHOR: Mendoza
AMENDED: May 28, 2009
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: June 17, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Kathleen Chavira
NOTE: This bill has been referred to the Committees on
Education and Judiciary. A "do pass" motion should include
referral to the Committee on Judiciary.
SUBJECT : Immigrant students
SUMMARY
This bill declares it the policy of the state that
immigrant agents should not interfere with the education of
students in the State of California, prohibits the
collection of information or documents about immigrant
status, except as required by federal law, and encourages
schools to take specified actions in relation to pupils
affected by immigration enforcement activities.
BACKGROUND
In May 1975, the Texas Legislature revised its education
laws to withhold from local school districts any state
funds for the education of children who were not "legally
admitted" into the United States. The 1975 revision also
authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in
their public schools to children not "legally admitted" to
the country. In 1982, the Supreme Court struck down the
state law denying funding for education to children who
were illegal immigrants and ruled, in Plyler v. Doe, 457
U.S. 202 (1982), that public schools were prohibited from
denying immigrant students access to a public education. A
5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court found that this policy
was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Proposition 187 was a 1994 statewide ballot initiative
designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social
AB 132
Page 2
services, health care, and public education in the State of
California. Although passed by the voters, Proposition 187
was held preempted by federal law in the case of League of
United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, C.D.Cal. 1997,
997 F. Supp. 1244.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Declares that it is the policy of the State of
California that immigration agents should not
interfere with the education of pupils in school.
2) Clarifies that nothing in the bill's provisions may be
construed to impede or restrict any lawful authority
of immigration agents.
3) Prohibits schools from collecting information or
documents or inquiring about the immigration status of
pupils or their family members, except as required by
federal law.
4) Encourages a school to comply with specified actions
in the event an employee is aware that a pupil's
parent or guardian is not available to care for the
pupil. Specifically it:
a) Encourages the school to first
comply with any parental instruction specific to
that situation.
b) Encourages the school to exhaust
the emergency contact information, if there is no
parental instruction.
c) Encourages the school to contact
Child Protective Services to arrange for the
pupil's care only if the school is unable to
arrange for care through (a) or (b).
AB 132
Page 3
5) Encourages schools to provide appropriate counseling
for pupils who may be affected by the enforcement
activities of immigration agents, as specified.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . In 2007, the National Council of
La Raza (NCLR) commissioned the Urban Institute to
conduct a study of three communities where large-scale
worksite raids had occurred, specifically examining
their impact on children. The report, Paying the
Price: The Impact of immigration Raids on America's
Children, was released in October 2007. In testimony
before Congressional hearings in 2008 about the impact
of immigration enforcement on children, the NCLR noted
that the report found evidence of increased economic
hardship, social stigma, fear, isolation, family
separation, disruption in school, and negative
emotional and mental health consequences for children.
Teachers, caregivers and mental health professionals
consistently described children with symptoms of
depression and other psychological disturbances.
Although the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) agency developed policy memoranda during 2007
that consider children in the conduct of immigration
enforcement actions, the NCLR testified that these
guidelines are non-binding, there is no mechanism for
holding ICE accountable for compliance with these
policies, and the guidelines do not address the burden
placed on schools, and others, who play the role of
first responder to children and families in the
aftermath of a raid.
2) Federal policy . Since 1993, the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (formerly the Immigration and
Naturalization Service) has had a policy to strongly
discourage immigration enforcement actions near
schools. The policy states that agents are to
"attempt to avoid apprehension of and to tightly
control investigative operations on the premises of
schools, places of workshop, funerals, or other
religious ceremonies."
SUPPORT
AB 132
Page 4
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Antioch Unified School District
California Catholic Conference
California Teachers Association
San Francisco Unified School District
OPPOSITION
Capital Resource Family Impact