BILL ANALYSIS
AB 132
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 132 (Mendoza)
As Amended July 14, 2009
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |50-28|(May 4, 2009) |SENATE: |24-14|(September 3, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |49-29|(September 9, | | | |
| | |2009) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY : Specifies the policies of the state in regards to
federal immigration agents and the involvement of children in
schools. Specifically, this bill :
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.
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.
Specifies that except as required by federal and state law,
school officials and employees shall not collect information or
documents or inquire about the immigration status of pupils or
their family members.
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
AB 132
Page 2
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.
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.
The Senate amendments specify that except as required by federal
and state law, school officials and employees shall not collect
information or documents or inquire about the immigration status
of pupils or their family members and add co-authors.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Legislative Counsel, this bill
is non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : 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 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
AB 132
Page 3
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 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."
AB 132
Page 4
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.
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.
This bill also states that it is the policy of the state that
federal immigration agents not interfere with the education of
pupils in schools and for schools to take steps to protect the
AB 132
Page 5
integrity of the learning environments for all children by not
collecting information or documents or inquire about the
immigration status of pupils or their family members; providing
appropriate counseling for pupils affected by enforcement
activities of immigration agents; and, taking steps to abide by
parental instructions in the event a parent is not available to
care for a pupil and contacting Child Protective Services to
arrange for a pupil's care only if the school is unable to
arrange for care though the use of emergency contact information
or other information provided by the parent or guardian.
However, nothing in the bill shall be construed to impede or
restrict any lawful authority of immigration agents.
The sponsor of the bill, the California Teachers Association,
states that the bill is intended to help ameliorate the effects
on public school students from immigration raids by federal
agents.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
"This bill is unnecessary since the California Constitution
already prohibits the state from discriminating against, or
granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on
the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in
the operation of public employment, public education, or public
contracting. The Constitution also states that all students and
staff have the inalienable right to attend campuses which are
safe, secure, and peaceful. Therefore, a codified policy
statement is unnecessary. "
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003318