California is a majority minority state . Hispanics are in the majority in California. CSU is a governmental entity with its own police force and its own land not part of any city per se. CSU has a right to their own policing and governing policies. I don’t know what if any rights that federal authorities have to any information from a CSU campus if they don’t want to give it to them. Maybe @Ohiodad51 can point out a statue he thinks is applicable
Colleges have constitutional rights?
There are several quotes by immigration attorneys and law professors posted above who say the declaration of the Sanctuary Campus is symbolic, that nothing will change from how it is handled now. Currently colleges do not turn over lists of undocumented students but if an official shows up with a warrant, the schools are going to allow the official to serve the warrant. The school is not going to interfere with federal authorities.
The UC and CSU’s are warning students with DACA Advanced Parole who were going to study abroad to return to the US before Jan 20. Why? Because the schools know that they have no power to get their students back if DACA is cancelled. The schools aren’t going to break laws to get the students back, they aren’t going to smuggle them in
Sanctuary cities do the same thing. The city doesn’t turn over lists of undocumented persons they know about, but if the feds serve a warrant on the city to turn over a person in custody, the city is going to do it. If the feds have a warrant to arrest a person within the city limits, the city isn’t going to prevent that.
@twoinanddone: Sanctuary cities usually don’t collect lists of undocumented persons in the first place.
Cities do have access to information on undocumented persons: Public schools, hospitals, some public housing (if one spouse is documented, or grandparents), some food kitchens, arrest records. I live in a sanctuary city. The people aren’t invisible, and the city knows they are here.
Probably the most important Supreme case in the history of corporations involved a small New England college:
-
The judiciary decides on the interpretation of the law, including conflicts. There is no conflict here however. We are discussing what colleges can do if the next president revokes the current president’s executive order or I guess if the congress passes a new law requiring the reporting of residency status.
-
A college has no standing to assert an alleged violation of a student’s right. Nor does it have the ability to add extra judicial hurdles to the enforcement of existing law.
-
The California State University system is not sovereign. It is subject to the laws of both the federal government and the state of California. It has no “right” to make up its own law.
4)“It may just be a small college on a hill, but there are those of us who love it”. Daniel Webster, arguing the Dartmouth case reference above.
Of course they do. The law profession would go out of business if it couldn’t throw up obstacles to the enforcement of existing law.
^Point of information, @Ohiodad51 - Did you mean, extra judicial hurdles as in, additional hurdles, or extra-judicial as in, outside the law? It occurred to me that you could be arguing either case. If the former, I think you’re wrong. If the latter, then we have no disagreement.
I mean both. Let me try it this way. A college can absolutely and vigorously protect its rights. What it can not do is seek to enforce or expand the rights of others, in this case the presumed undocumented student. To be really confusing, any extra (in the sense of additional) judicial hurdles a college attempts to impose would be an extra (in the sense of unlawful) judicial act.
@Ohiodad51 dad
And, who decides if it is unlawful? Again, not the Executive Branch. And, not at the point of a gun.
The judicial branch decides. The college does not. It is really that simple. And enough with the “point of a gun” rhetoric. We are talking about one President perhaps rescinding an executive order issued by another, and the hypothetical consequences of that act. This “point of a gun” talk, or discussing internment camps and the like is flat out crazy.
THANK YOU. You now agree with 99% of all colleges with DACA students.
No. you are missing a very large forest for a very small tree, as every single lawyer posting or quoted on this thread has explained.
Go read Frothingham, Baker, Sierra Club and Lujan and then get back to me.
No can do. Is it possible for you to make your point by way of summary?
The Supreme Court has held, very generally speaking, that a party must show an actual injury before it can challenge the application of a law. Organizations with a political interest in a particular law (arguably colleges here) do not qualify absent the injury. What we have all been trying to tell you is that if a grad student gets arrested and deported for overstaying his visa (hypothetically) the college does not have an actual injury, the student does.
Why do you keep changing the subject? That has nothing to do with whether a college has its own Constitutional rights and its own standing to defend them, a point which I thought - perhaps wistfully - that you had conceded.
The federal government already has a list of DACA applicants. It could go after them if it chose. I doubt this is a priority.
The criminal aliens will be the priority and the issue will be ‘how bad does a crime have to be before deportation proceedings are started’. The LA Times regularly has stories about a person who wrote fraudulent checks or was stopped for DUI complaining that they shouldn’t be deported for ‘such a little crime’.
@circuitrider, I will try one last time. What premise do you believe you are asserting.