The Enactment Of The Fair Education Act Of 2006

Education Act 1996 places a legal duty on the parent or guardian of a child aged five to sixteen years (known as compulsory school age), to ensure that their children or child attends and receives full-time education, either in a traditional school or any other means that is appropriate for their age, ability, and aptitude, taking into account any special needs they may have. The Act makes it a criminal offense for a parent or guardian to take their child out of school without authorisation from the school, and an offense for parents who are aware that their child is failing to attend school to not take reasonable action to ensure that the child attends. The offense of failing to ensure regular attendance at school is punishable by up to three months’ imprisonment and/or fine up to one thousand pounds.

In “Undocumented students’ Access to College: The American Dream Denied,” Chavez, Soriano and Olivia (2007) have stated that millions of students who live in United States are undocumented immigrants; most of them come to U.S at a very young age. They completed their high school and achieved great academic success, some of them even got admitted by well know universities. From 2002 onwards , Assembly Bill 540 (AB 540) , authorized by the late Marco Antonio Firebaugh , allows any student who has completed three years high school, and received a high school diploma or equivalent in California, regardless of their immigration status, are legally allowed to attend colleges and universities (Chavez,Soriano and Oliverez 256).Even though they are eligible to apply and be admitted to universities, but they are not eligible to apply for federal financial aid, without the help of financial aid, it is extremely difficult for them to afford tuition. In this case, it severely limits undocumented student’s chances for upward mobility.

In the case, Arizona versus United States, I am representing the respondent, United States, where we are seeking to stop the enforcement of S.B. 1070 in the federal district court before the law can be taken into effect. S.B. 1070, also known as Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, was passed in the state of Arizona in 2010 as an effort to address the large numbers of unlawful immigrants entering the state. The United States seeks to declare S.B. 1070 as preempted by the federal immigration law, where the four provisions of S.B. 1070, Section 3, Section 5, Section 6 and Section 2(B) violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) which prevented undocumented students to receive postsecondary educational benefit on the basis of residence in a state unless U.S. citizens a were eligible for the same benefit (Frum, 2007). However, the act did not prohibit states from granting in-state tuition to undocumented students; rather, the act mentioned that out-of-state U.S. citizens must also qualify for the same benefits. According to Olivas (2004), the IIRIRA gives states the authority to determine state residency for tuition purpose.

When President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) into law in 2002, the legislation had one goal-- to improve educational equity for all students in the United States by implementing standards for student achievement and school district and teacher performance. Before the No Child Left Behind Act, the program of study for most schools was developed and implemented by individual states and local communities’ school boards. Proponents of the NCLB believed that lax oversight and lack of measurable standards by state and local communities was leading to the failure of the education system and required federal government intervention to correct. At the time, the Act seemed to be what the American educational system

In the Court’s highly fragmented decision, the justices attempted to define a proper balance of and boundary between federal and state authority: by arguing that state action constituted only those acts sanctioned by the state’s laws and by dismissing Section 20 for vagueness, the major block of dissenters suggested that the risk posed to state autonomy by federal intervention was too great; by recognizing the defendants’ actions as those perpetrated “under color of law” and by creating a “willful” test for acts under Section 20, the majority Opinion affirmed the federal government’s interest in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by state authority, but provided it with a tenuous means for defending those liberties.

In this paper I argue that S.B. 1070 should be not be upheld for two reasons. First, in ways that will be explicated below, S.B. 1070 directly conflicts with federal immigration law; thus it is preempted according to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Second, the law is unconstitutional because it allows for discrimination by police officers on the basis of race or national origin. This Note contends that the Ninth Circuit correctly affirmed the decision of the lower court to find S.B. 1070 preempted by federal immigration law; however the Ninth Circuit should have also found that S.B. 1070 is unconstitutional on discriminatory grounds. Part II discusses the evolution of the relevant case law. Part III of the Note illustrates the relevant portions of S.B. 1070 and the District Court’s reasoning in United States v. Arizona. Part IV explains why the Ninth Circuit correctly affirmed the decision that S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal immigration law and expounds how the law is also discriminatory on the basis of national origin against Hispanics. Finally, Part V comments on the possible consequences of S.B. 1070 and the effect of a Supreme Court decision to either affirm or reverse the injunction.

The state of Arizona has issued a new state law which enables police officers to act as immigration officers. With this underestimated powers given to the police, it will cause a lot of problems, and sensitivities to all the legal and illegal immigrants (Cnn.com). Undocumented students residing Arizona will be in a constant fear of being deported since any minor issue such as calling the police for help in any case given can put their lives in the danger of deportation. It’s only a matter of time if the government doesn’t stop this act, Arizona will impose unfair laws for education toward undocumented students. This will only cause chaos, and taking away the validity of the American Dream.

As documented in the book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” written by Rebecca Skloot, Henrietta lived her childhood in the segregated rural south. There was no real inspiration for her to attend school, much less develop a strong interest in getting a formal education. Segregation contributed to a cycle of oppression and poverty that affected Henrietta’s knowledge, and quality of life. The unfair early education laws, impaired all black children’s potential to learn, and negatively affected their confidence. America has laws that intend on producing, equal education for all children regardless of economic circumstances, race, religion, or academic ability level. On the other hand, a studied by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, find that “public school, especially in the south, is becoming re-segregated at a surprising level.”(Hancock Jones) Today there is evidence that suggest public education still needs equal protection reform in order to give all children a high quality education.

Plyler v. Doe, 1982 (American Immigration Council, 2012). The Supreme Court issued a ruling, based on the Fourteenth Amendment, that states cannot deny students a free public education because of immigration status. In addition, the court also said that denying children access to public education would be harmful to the children as well as society as a whole and that children should not be held accountable for their parents’ actions.

Many students, in general are able to afford and attend college due to the support of government funding. However, many undocumented students are unfortunate to obtain any financial assistance because of certain rules and regulation that affect their eligibility. In 1996, Congress passed a major bill involving with reforming national immigration called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which to enforce, restrict and imposed limitation on illegal immigrants (IIRIRA, 1996). In Title V, eligibility for undocumented aliens are restricted for public assistance and benefits (IIRIRA, 1996). One specific restrictions is to limit and denied any alien who is not lawfully present in the United States, eligibility

Supreme Court decided in Plyler v. Doe that the equal protection provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment requires public schools to admit illegal alien children, on the presumption that denial of public education to children whose parents brought them illegally to the United States is not a rational response to states' concerns about illegal immigration. 1 The opinion, however, was based on specific circumstances that could change and it did not apply to education beyond mandatory public schooling (qtd. in Stewart, par. 8).

It is under state law that anyone under the age of 21 is entitled to an education regardless of their legal status. Extracting students of undocumented immigrants from school to prevent them from receiving an education is unconstitutional according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe. Taking a

So far, attempts to bar undocumented children from public schools have failed. In the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. In a 5-4 decision, it overturned a Texas law that allowed schools to deny education to illegal immigrants. Martha McCarthy reports that Texas had justified its law as a means of "preserving financial resources, protecting the state from an influx of illegal immigrants, and maintaining high quality education for resident children" (128). The Court considered these issues but concluded that in the long run the costs of educating immigrant children would pale in comparison to the costs--both to the children and to society--of not educating them.

In the given scenario we see that the rules of Education act which was revised in 2002 and initially it was Education Act 1972 it is mentioned that bringing or consuming or even keeping in possession cannabis, heroin, cocaine on the TAFE (The technical and further education) campus shall be treated as an offence and the concern person shall be penalised for the same accordingly. Section 25 of the Education Act 2002 was introduced in order to avoid drug trafficking on the TAFE campuses in Australia. TAFE is a body corporate having a perpetual succession and a common seal which is formed to provide further technical education which is required in the industry, community and among the students.