Even if DHS policy was changed to take colleges out of the “sensitive location” category (questionable I think) they still have to contend with the constitutional rights of the undocumented students. That’s going to require all the requisite paperwork being in order.
@HarvestMoon1, the issue of ICE enforcement priorities is a policy set by the executive branch. All of this presupposes that the next administration may change those priorities.
@Ohiodad51 sure but to do that they are going to have to say that the deportation of some undocumented college students is more important than the promotion of national security and public safety. Or they are going to have to come up with a hell of a lot of money to build detention centers, provide more agents and hire staff to process these deportations which I assume involve judicial oversight or approval.
I think we had it right a few pages back – not much will change. At least not for the undocumented students already here.
@Demosthenes49, we are copacetic. I would assume if it is questionable, like there is reasonable suspicion of other illegal activiry, they will get the warrant directed to that activity. But I agree with you that if the issue is solely deportation they don’t need a warrant. Since we both assuredly took con law, we agree about the college’s role as well.
@HarvestMoon1, very true.INS policy will not trump any constitutional rights of the target. No one here is saying it does. I doubt that a decision to make or remove colleges from a sensitive locations list raises any issue though. Seems pretty clearly an executive decision.
@HarvestMoon1, I think this is a how many angels dance on the head of a pin question, absolutely. It is highly unlikely that. ICE is going to descend on Middleton Ct in mass and start rounding up kids on overstated visas or law abiding dreamers. That said, and understanding I am not an immigration attorney, the executive does not have to clear any real hurdle in setting or changing enforcement policy. So if I am correct and the sensitive area issue is not statutory, then it is really a simple matter
of the elected executive establishing policy.
I am not an immigration attorney either but I do remember there being some Supreme Court case that mandated a balancing test be met before ICE could deport one group of undocumented people over another. My recollection, vague though it is, was that it involved “federal purpose” and allocation of available resources.
So I am not as sure as you are that it can be accomplished with a simple wave of the hand.
“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”
Anything considered a public record subject to public review would be given to the Feds or anyone else that requests it
@barrons educational records are not public records @Ohiodad51 you said
“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.”
CSU and UC are sovereign governmental entities. In California there are many governmental entities. Do they have to follow federal and state laws? Yes but there is a lot of tension sometimes between the state government and the Board of Regents and the CSU Board of trustees over exactly what that means.
I live in a sanctuary city and the city keeps no lists of undocumenteds. In the many years I have live here I don’t think I have ever seen a federal agent at all for anything. I am not sure how anyone can tell if someone is undocumented since no one ever asks for your immigration status
Why is everyone afraid to use the correct term? Illegal Immigrant
These people are not ‘undocumented’, which suggests that they just went out of their home without valid ID. They are here illegally. That is not to say that it is practical or useful to deport all of them, but we should be using the correct term.
@hebegebe what difference does it make what you call them? Here illegally could be a question of fact and law
If it doesn’t matter what you call them, why not “invited guests”, or “citizens”, or if you want to be offensive, “wetbacks”.
The reason you don’t call illegal immigrants any of those terms is because the last one is unnecessarily offensive, and the first two are inaccurate. Likewise, ‘undocumented’ is equally inaccurate, and it is an attempt to minimize a crime that was committed.
@collegedad13 - agree it doesn’t make much difference what you call them. For what it is worth the Department of Homeland Security and ICE refers to them as “undocumented immigrants” or simply as “aliens” in any publication I have ever seen coming out of those entities. Good enough for me.
I think the flotus to be is a “citizen” but many think she is not properly documented. Also there are other races besides Hispanics that do not have the proper documentation.
If someone came from a war savaged region without papers they may or may not be here illegally. They may be an asylum case.
The following ARE public records for students
Directory (public) information may be obtained without prior authorization. Each department, school, college, office, program, or entity which maintains records is required to give public notice of the categories of information designated as directory information. These units are not required to include all of the following, but may not designate as directory information anything more than:
student’s name
addresses (local/permanent/e-mail)
telephone numbers
date and place of birth
dates of attendance
class level (e.g. freshman, sophomore)
number of units in which enrolled
major field of study
last school attended
degrees and honors received
participation in official student activities
name, weight, and height of intercollegiate athletic team members
But doesn’t FERPA allow the student to request that the “directory information” not be disclosed? I think it does.
I believe it does.
@circuitrider said:
Who is “us”? Please don’t speak for the community. I personally have no issue with this poster’s arguments. There are plenty of others who are politely disagreeing with him and with others and using logic and facts, not emotion, to do so. I find all of it pretty interesting. If the mods think he is off topic, or that the arguments violate the TOS, they will handle it.
The Feds recently amended the regulations to allow for greater disclosures of personal and directly student identifying information.
I read that as allowing institutions to disclose certain personal identifying information on the student ID card or badge. But the student has the option of wearing the ID or badge so I am not certain why anyone would object to that. Including an address on a student ID is often helpful. Many students do not have drivers licenses and it is their sole form of personal identification or picture ID which is often required to be produced.
Students can keep their ID or badges as private as they wish under that new regulation.
@HarvestMoon1, I don’t know what balancing test you are referring to, as I said i don’t deal with immigration matters really at all. I would just tell you to consider that the legal standards for deporting someone are likely different than the decision of the Executive in how to prioritize otherwise lawful enforcement actions. Courts are really loath to try and tell the executive that their priorities in areas clearly within the executive’s purview are out of whack. But again, that part of this discussion is assuredly entirely theoretical. I have seen nothing directly from the incoming administration that indicates either the desire To do so or the will to commit the massive resources a policy of mass deportation of college students would require.
No one is saying there isn’t tension. The nut of it is whether they have to follow federal and state law, which you rightly concede that they do.