BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Dede Alpert, Chair
1999-2000 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1197
AUTHOR: Firebaugh
AMENDED: June 30, 1999
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 7, 1999
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Scott P. Plotkin
SUMMARY
This bill qualifies long-term California residents, as
specified, regardless of citizenship status, for the lower
resident fee payments at the California Community Colleges
and the California State University. The bill would be
applicable to the University of California, if the Regents
so decide.
BACKGROUND
Existing law, generally known as the Uniform Residency Law,
establishes a variety of residency requirements for
students attending a campus of the California Community
Colleges or the California State University. The
determination of such residency status is required in order
to assess either resident or non-resident fees and tuition.
The Regents of the University of California may, by
resolution, make these provisions of law applicable to the
University of California (and have historically done so).
Current law also precludes students who are not in the
United States legally from establishing residency in
California for the purposes of paying resident fees and
tuition. The courts have found this provision of law to be
constitutional, and non-resident tuition is being charged
of undocumented students in California public colleges and
universities.
In addition, notwithstanding Proposition 187 (the
constitutional determination of which is still pending),
neither current law or the courts preclude undocumented
students from enrolling at a California public college or
university; they must nevertheless pay non-resident
AB 1197
Page 2
tuition.
ANALYSIS
This bill qualifies long-term California residents, as
specified, regardless of citizenship status, for the lower
resident fee payments at the California Community Colleges
(CCC) and the California State University (CSU). The bill
would be applicable to the University of California (UC),
if the Regents so decide.
The specified criteria that would have to be met by the
student is as follows:
1) The student attended a California high school for at
least three years.
2) The student graduated from a California high school.
3) The student has obtained admission to a California
Community College or, in the case of the California
State University, continues his or her education at a
California institution of higher education, within one
year of high school graduation or on or before January
1, 2001.
4) The student must declare his or her intent to seek
legalization of his or her immigration status, should
they not have legal residency status, as determined by
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101,
et. seq.).
5) The Regents of the University of California are
requested to implement the provisions as outlined
above, as they apply to the CSU.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, many of
the students that would benefit under this measure are
children of parents who have been granted amnesty by
the federal government and are waiting for their own
applications for citizenship to be accepted by the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The
majority of these students consider California their
home and are expected to become citizens.
AB 1197
Page 3
In the current year, CSU resident undergraduate students
pay $1,506 in mandatory systemwide fees, while
nonresident students pay $9,253. At the UC, resident
undergraduate students pay $3,609 while nonresident
students pay $14,547. In the 1999-2000 fiscal year,
the amount of nonresident tuition will increase to
$9,991 for CSU students and $14,959 for UC students.
For many of these students, the biggest barrier to
attending and enrolling in college is the cost. Under
federal and state law, whether or not they are
undocumented, students, regardless of their academic
achievement or financial need, are not eligible for
federal or state financial aid nor are they eligible
to receive campus-based aid or subsidized student
loans.
This measure will help qualified California high school
students, who cannot afford to pay nonresident
tuition, to afford college. While the costs of
attending CSU and UC will still be difficult for many
families to meet, this measure takes a positive step
towards ensuring that postsecondary education truly is
accessible and affordable for all our state's
students.
2) Legal history . The educational rights of undocumented
students is a longstanding issue that has been debated
within legislative and judicial arenas for years.
Current law, as noted above, was contested in a 1985
court case (" Leticia A" v. Board of Regents of the
University of California ) when a group of undocumented
students challenged UC and CSU for not recognizing
them as California residents and charging them
out-of-state (nonresident) tuition. At that time, the
court ruled that charging nonresident tuition to
undocumented students was unconstitutional because
both UC and CSU used a different definition of
"residency" for undocumented aliens as is used for US
citizens.
The 1985 decision was later overridden by a 1990 Court of
Appeal, Second District decision ( Regents of the
University of California v. Los Angeles County
Superior Court ), also known as the Bradford decision.
AB 1197
Page 4
In Bradford , the court held that current law (as noted
in the existing law portion of this analysis) was
constitutional and that the related Education Code
sections were to be upheld. As a result of Bradford ,
current law regarding the assessment of nonresident
tuition charges on undocumented students is being
enforced at California public colleges.
Both the Leticia A case and the Bradford case dealt solely
with the issue of defining "California Residency" for
purposes of assessing nonresident tuition, and prior
legislation on this topic (AB 592, Polanco/1991) would
have statutorily altered the definition of "California
Residency" as it applies to college tuition.
3) Similar statute has existed before . From 1974 until
it sunsetted in 1980, the Education Code provided an
exception to the Uniform Residency law that permitted
long-term California residents to qualify as residents
for the purposes of tuition. This law made no
distinction relative to a student's legal status in
the United States.
When the law sunsetted in 1980, legislation was introduced
to extend the sunset clause, on the grounds that the
large number of immigrants from Southeast Asia and
Cuba had not yet acquired permanent residency, and,
because they were not all defined as "refugees" (which
would have allowed them to be classified as
"residents"), many were attempting to take advantage
of the opportunity to further their education in
California public colleges and universities.
However, at the time of the 1980 legislation, the United
States Embassy hostage crisis in Iran was occurring,
and the Legislature was concerned about the large
number of Iranians who were attending California
colleges and universities under the provisions of that
act. As a result, the bill failed passage, and
subsequent efforts to renew the original law over the
years were unsuccessful.
4) What about students who go from Community Colleges to
UC or CSU ? As written, the bill provides that one of
the criteria for a student to qualify for resident
classification for the purposes of tuition is either
AB 1197
Page 5
obtaining admission to a community college within one
year of high school graduation (in the case of
residence status at the community colleges) or, in the
case of UC and CSU, the student "continues his or her
education at a California institution of high
education" within one year of high school graduation.
Obviously, the language is designed to accommodate the
continued resident classification of students who
transfer from a community college to either UC or CSU,
or, for that matter, transfers between UC and CSU.
However, what about the student who first goes to UC
or CSU, decides that they aren't ready for those
institutions, and decides to go to the community
colleges?
After a year at UC or CSU, the unintended consequence of
the current language of the bill is to have the
student classified as a resident at UC or CSU, but
become a non-resident at a community college if their
attendance there is more than a year after graduation
from high school. Therefore, staff recommends that
the language of the bill as it applies to the
community colleges be amended so that the resident
status of the student transfers completely among
California public colleges and universities.
5) Consistency in the Uniform Residency Law . As a
construction of the Education Code, past practice has
been to incorporate changes - as well as exceptions -
to the Uniform Residency Law within the body of law
relative to student residency classification (Section
68000 et. seq.). In this way, since all other
references to residency classification are found in
the same place, one does not have to search the codes
relative to the community colleges, the California
State University, and the University of California in
order to find similarities and exceptions to the
rules.
Therefore, since the bill is attempting to cast the same
language relative to all of California public colleges
and universities, staff recommends that the bill be
amended to provide for the residency classification
exceptions outlined in this bill be incorporated into
the Uniform Residency Law.
AB 1197
Page 6
SUPPORT
American Civil Liberties Union
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative
City of Bell Gardens
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Community College League
East Bay Citizenship Network
Estrella Community Development Corporation
Justice and Peace Commission for the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
National Center for Youth Law
Public Counsel Law Center
Watts/Center Latino Organization
Numerous individual letters
OPPOSITION
American Civil Responsibilities Union, Inc.
California Coalition for Immigration Reform
Numerous individual letters