BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 132|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 132
Author: Mendoza (D)
Amended: 7/14/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/17/09
AYES: Romero, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Simitian
NOES: Huff, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Maldonado, Padilla
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 7/7/09
AYES: Corbett, Florez, Leno
NOES: Harman, Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-28, 5/4/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : School safety: immigration investigations
SOURCE : California Teachers Association
DIGEST : This bill specifies the policies of the state in
regards to federal immigration agents and the involvement
of children in schools, as specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law recognizes that all pupils
enrolled in the state public schools have the inalienable
right to attend classes on school campuses that are safe,
secure, and peaceful. Existing law establishes various
safety programs and procedures to address issues relating
to school safety.
CONTINUED
AB 132
Page
2
This bill:
1.Finds and declares that under law, children are entitled
to a public education while in California, regardless of
immigration status, and that California schools should
take steps to protect the integrity of the learning
environment for all children.
2.States that it is the policy of the state that
immigration agents not interfere with the education of
pupils in school. However, nothing in this bill shall be
construed to impede or restrict any lawful authority of
immigration agents.
3.Specifies that, except as required under federal or state
law, school officials and employees shall not collect
information or documents or inquire about the immigration
status of pupils or their family members.
4.Specifies that if an employee of a school is aware that a
pupil's parent or guardian is not available to care for
the pupil, the school is encouraged to first comply with
any parental instruction specific to that situation. If
there is no parental instruction, the school is
encouraged to exhaust the emergency contact information
it has for the pupil to arrange for the pupil's care and
is encouraged to contact Child Protective Services to
arrange for the pupil's care only if the school is unable
to arrange for care through the use of emergency contact
information, or other information or instructions
provided by the parent or guardian.
5.Encourages schools to provide appropriate counseling for
pupils who may be affected by enforcement activities of
immigration agents that occur at the pupil's home, in a
pupil's community, or at a parent's or guardian's place
of employment.
This bill was introduced in response to a series of
immigration raids that took place between 2007 and 2008.
An October 2007 report commissioned by the National Council
of La Raza (NCLR) states that in 2007, almost 5,000 arrests
were made nationally in connection with worksite
AB 132
Page
3
enforcement investigations. These arrests impact not only
the children of those detained, many of whom were born in
the United States (U.S.) and are citizens, but also the
surrounding communities where the arrests took place. When
parents are detained, schools and social service systems
must find caregivers for the children. The NCLR states
that there is growing alarm in the community that U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents engage in
intimidation and enforcement tactics near public schools
and Head Start programs. Head Start staff in other states
has reported sightings of federal agents parked near
migrant Head Start centers during drop-off and pick up
times. Parents become fearful of leaving their homes to
take children to school or to child care centers. In
incidences in other states, NCLR reports of ICE agents
removing children from schools following arrests of their
parents.
In 2007, a six-year-old U.S. citizen, Kebin Reyes, and his
father were apprehended at their San Rafael home and kept
in detention for 10 hours. The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on the child's behalf. In a
2007 press release, staff attorney Julia Harumi Mass with
the ACLU of Northern California said, "ICE's treatment of
children is not in line with American values of decency and
fairness. In addition to Kebin's case, we have heard
reports of children left without care after their parents
are detained, immigration agents targeting areas around
elementary schools, and children too upset to participate
in class after witnessing early morning raids in their
communities. The human cost of these tactics is
unacceptable." Co-counsel Howard Slavitt added that "Kebin
thought he was in jail - this was clearly a traumatic
incident for him. There was no reason for his arrest, and
no explanation that Kebin's family can offer him. That's
because the arrest was arbitrary and irrational. Over six
weeks have passed, and Kebin is still having nightmares."
The ACLU reported similar raids in Marin, Contra Costa
County, San Francisco, Redwood City, Van Nuys, and Santa
Cruz.
The Board of Education of the San Rafael City Schools, in a
letter to Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (Sonoma and Marin) in
2007, wrote that: "The ICE raids sent our schools into a
AB 132
Page
4
state of emergency. Teachers, support staff, principals,
and district administrators were placed on buses and at bus
stops to make sure children connected safely with adults in
their homes? Absentee numbers spiked as high as seven times
the usual amount in one school and four times the normal
rate at another school. Parents were afraid to walk with
their children to and from the bus stops. Older siblings
skipped sports, work and homework to tend to their brothers
and sisters. Many students were and remain distracted from
school work as they worry about their loved ones."
Since 1993, ICE, formerly called the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, has had a policy to "attempt to
avoid apprehension of persons and to tightly control
investigative operations on the premises of schools, places
of worship, funerals and other religious ceremonies."
Following the 2007 ACLU lawsuit, ICE issued a memorandum
with guidelines that directed agents not to take legal
permanent residents or U.S. citizen minor children into
custody; to coordinate the transfer of a minor child to the
nearest child welfare authority or local law enforcement
agency (if not feasible, then document the parent's request
for the transfer of the child to a third party); and, to
the greatest extent possible, coordinate with child welfare
authorities prior to an enforcement operation. NCLR
expresses concerns that as guidelines, these directives are
not binding, and that there is no mechanism to hold ICE
accountable for compliance.
This bill finds that all children have the right to a
public education regardless of their immigration status.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision,
upheld the right of undocumented children to free public
education. The lawsuit stemmed from 1975 Texas law that
authorized school districts to deny enrollment of children
and withhold state funds for the education of children not
legally admitted to the U.S. The Supreme Court argued that
the denial of public education would be a violation of the
U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, which does not
allow states to deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
AB 132
Page
5
In 1994, Proposition 187 was a statewide initiative that
would have prohibited public health, social services, and
education to undocumented immigrants and would have
required law enforcement, teachers, social service and
health care workers to verify a person's immigration
status. While passed by voters, a federal judge found the
initiative unconstitutional.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/14/09)
California Teachers Association (source)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
Antioch Unified School District
California Catholic Conference
California Communities United Institute
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Rural Legal Assistance
Californians Together
International Institute of the Bay Area
San Francisco Unified School District
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/14/09)
Capitol Resource Family Impact
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"There have been significant increases in immigration
enforcement operations throughout the country by the US
Department of Homeland Security in the last couple of
years. These raids have had adverse affect on schools,
churches and the community in whole. There are
approximately 5 million children in the country that have
an undocumented immigrant parent, the majority of these
children are US citizens and under the age of ten. The
Urban Institute researchers found that, for every two
immigrants detained as a result of work place raids,
approximately one child is left behind. There are
currently not any California laws that provide protection
for children. There are also not any policies in
AB 132
Page
6
California law that outlines how a school should deal with
ICE raids in their communities and the impacts to local
schools. There are negative consequences to these children
such as: depression, loss of sleep, loss of an appetite,
fearfulness, mood swings and feelings of abandonment by
their parent(s). Schools can play a role of first
responders in these situations, and AB 132 seeks to provide
them some support in protecting their students."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Capitol Resource Family
Impact states, "AB 132 is an attempt to use public schools
to impede immigration investigations. While it is crucial
that each campus maintain peace for the most conducive
learning environment, public schools should not insert
themselves into immigration investigations conducted by law
enforcement. By prohibiting law enforcement from entering
classrooms and talking with students, teachers and
principals will be forced to choose between upholding our
nation's immigration laws and California's attempt to
subvert those laws. Students will be taught that public
schools are havens for those violating our immigration
laws."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, V.
Manuel Perez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,
Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Yamada, Bass
NOES: Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee,
Conway, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Fletcher, Fuller,
Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Huber,
Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello,
Nielsen, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Adams, Tran
DLW:nl 7/15/09 Senate Floor Analyses
AB 132
Page
7
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****