Bill banning undocumented students from attending Georgia’s colleges passes in committee

Posted by Joeff Davis

“Fundamentally unjust,” was how Azadeh Shahshahani of the ACLU of Georgia described Senate Bill 458 during a rally against the bill this morning at the state capitol. Sponsored by state Sen. Barry Loudermilk, R-Cassville, the bill would ban undocumented students from attending all state colleges, universities and technical colleges in Georgia. A Senate committee gave the bill its blessing today and it awaits a floor vote.

Currently, undocumented students are not permitted to attend Georgia colleges that “for the two most recent academic years, did not admit all academically qualified applicants.” Schools which fit that description include the University of Georgia, Georgia State University, and Georgia Tech. If they do attend a state school, he or she must pay out-of-state tuition.

If SB 458 is approved, Georgia will become only the second state in the country to ban undocumented students from higher education. Fourteen states currently have bills that not only allow undocumented students to attend state colleges and universities, but also allow them to pay in-state tuition costs, according to Shahshahani.

“It gives me the worst feeling of discrimination and rejection I have ever experienced,” Elizabeth Gariby, an undocumented Georgia high school student who was brought to the United States when she was five by her parents, said during this morning’s rally against the legislation. “I broke no laws and I am not a criminal. Please do not treat me like one.”

According to the state, fewer than one-tenth of one percent of the university system’s 318,000 students are undocumented. They all pay the out-of-state tuition rate, which is roughly three times more than that paid by in-state students. That cash more than covers the cost of education, according to testimony University System Chancellor Hank Huckaby delivered last Wednesday on SB 458. The former state representative, who took the head state job last year, came out against the bill. “No one gets a free benefit,” he said.

Loudermilk argues that the new law is important because the current system takes slots at state colleges away from citizens. “Our colleges and universities are for those that are U.S. citizens and are here legally,” he told the AJC.

View the article here

Press Conference to Take Place After Hearing

ATLANTA – Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Immigration Law Center and other civil rights groups will be at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit Thursday to present arguments against Alabama and Georgia’s anti-immigrant laws.

In addition to the ACLU, SPLC and NILC, the civil rights coalition includes MALDEF, the ACLU of Georgia, the ACLU of Alabama, the Asian American Justice Center, LatinoJustice PRLDEF and NDLON. The groups brought lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of a number of provisions in HB 87 in Georgia and HB 56 in Alabama. While key sections of the Georgia law have been blocked by the district court, major components of the Alabama law went into effect in September, leading to widespread civil rights abuses.  Some portions of Alabama’s law were successfully blocked by the federal courts and the civil rights coalition will also be defending these provisions on Thursday.

WHAT: Federal appeals court hearing where the civil rights coalition will present arguments in the Alabama and Georgia anti-immigrant law cases. Omar Jadwat, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, will present arguments in the Georgia case. Samuel Brooke of SPLC and Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, will present arguments in the Alabama case. A news conference will follow the hearing.
WHO: They will be joined by Marielena Hincapié, executive director, National Immigration Law Center, Mary Bauer, legal director, Southern Poverty Law Center and plaintiffs from both cases.
WHEN: Court hearing will begin at 9am EST on Thursday, March 1; press conference will follow outside the courthouse immediately after.

WHERE: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit, 56 Forsyth Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA, 30303

For more information about the Alabama case, go here: www.aclu.org/crisis-alabama-immigration-law-causes-chaos.

For more information about the Georgia case, go here: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/georgia-latino-alliance-human-rights-et-al-v-deal.

Anti-Choice members of the Georgia General Assembly have introduced HB 954, which seeks to ban all abortions at 20 weeks after conception unless the abortion is necessary to “avert the death of the pregnant woman or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function….” There are no exceptions for the mental health of the woman, and there are no exceptions allowed in cases of rape or incest.

Consider the case of Anna Murray, the brave woman that testified in a Senate committee last year. Anna and her husband wanted a child, and they were thrilled when they found out they were having a boy. At 19 weeks she had an anatomy ultrasound, and soon they were heartbroken to find out that the baby had a medical condition that guaranteed that it would not survive past birth. She had to explain to friends and family that asked about her pregnancy that she was planning for a funeral, not a birth. Under this bill, Anna and many other women would be forced to carry these fatal pregnancies to term, spending months in agony. Is this really the kind of legislation we want?

Sponsors of the bill admit that they are seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which guarantee that women have the constitutional right to choose prior to viability (around 24 weeks). These anti-choice legislators are confident that they have the votes to pass this bill and impose an unconstitutional restriction on women’s reproductive rights.

This bill has passed out of the House Judiciary Committee and may be presented for a vote by members of the House of Representatives any day.  We hope that you will take a few minutes to contact your State Representative to ask them to vote NO on HB 954.

To find your Representative and Senator, please visit http://www.votesmart.org 

Here are some suggested talking points:

Oppose HB 954

Overview: House Bill 954 (HB 954) seeks to restrict abortions regardless of a woman’s medical circumstances. Most women with high-risk pregnancies, who know that their own health or their fetuses are at risk, must have every medical option – including ending the pregnancy -to consider in consultation with medical professionals, religious advisers, family members, and other people they trust. And certainly, women and their families should not be forced to adhere to legislative directives that are based on unsound medical science or inaccurate clinical practice.

You Should Know:

*     Every woman’s pregnancy is different. One size fits all legislation like HB 954 can cause harm to women and their families.

*     One of the most tragic things that can happen to a pregnant woman and her loved ones is to discover that something has gone terribly wrong with her pregnancy — either a fatal condition or genetic fetal anomaly that will cause a serious impairment. Often nothing can be done to give this future baby a chance for a normal life – perhaps not even a chance for life itself.

*     HB 954 leaves no exception for serious fetal anomalies that would present during the middle weeks of a pregnancy. Most pregnant women undergo an anatomy scan ultrasound at approximately 20 weeks. Often, when a scan indicates a potential, serious complication, the physician may ask the woman to wait an additional week before returning for additional testing. Thus, in many instances, HB 954 would force families to make premature decisions regarding whether or not a pregnancy termination is necessary, as well as forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term in cases where there are serious physical deformities, injuries or a fatal condition.  

*     Later abortions are rare. Nationally, less than 1.4% of abortions occur past 20 weeks.

*     It is vital that physicians have the ability to protect their patient’s health by providing an abortion when medically appropriate. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy, or becomes pregnant while she has cancer, she must have an abortion in order to receive life-saving cancer treatment. Women can also experience health conditions related to the pregnancy itself, such as preeclampsia or high blood pressure, conditions that could threaten her health.

*     HB 954 eliminates the ability of physicians to consider a woman’s mental health or illness and the potential that she may commit suicide and/or self-inflict “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function” in deciding whether or not a termination is medically appropriate. Physicians should be able to use their judgment in such circumstances and the act should include an exception that covers mental health.

*     HB 954 contains no exception for rape or incest.

*     Passage of HB 954 would require a fiscal note and revenue budgeted in order to fulfill the reporting requirements of the bill. HB 954 requires the Department of Community Health to collect substantial data from physicians who perform abortions and to issue a public report providing statistics from all the reports from the previous calendar year. Such requirements will affect more than obstetricians, gynecologists and peri-natalogists, as emergency room doctors will also be burdened.

*     HB 954 does not require protection of the identity of the physicians, who performed or attempted to perform the abortions, in the public report to be published by the Department of Community Health. There are a number of cases of murder and violence against physicians who perform legal abortions in the U.S. This would place OB/GYN’s and Emergency Room Physicians in Georgia at serious personal risk when complying with HB 954.

*     There is no “substantial medical evidence” that fetuses are capable of feeling pain as indicated in the findings of HB 954. The prevailing scientific understanding, endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is that the capacity for functional pain perception may begin around week 29-30-well into the third trimester. The word “may” is used as there is increasing evidence that the fetus remains in continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation while in-utero, suggesting that amniotic fluid may act as analgesia throughout the pregnancy.

*     HB 954 is unconstitutional because it fails to adequately protect women’s health. HB 954 allows abortions after 20 weeks gestation only when the physician determines that “in reasonable medical judgment that an abortion is necessary to avert the death of the pregnant woman or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” This health exception is completely inadequate. The Supreme Court repeatedly required an exception for circumstances when abortion “is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health” of the woman.

Chad Brock                                                            Joseph Rose
Lobbyist                                                                  Reporductive Freedom Lobbyist

 ACLU of Georgia
1900 The Exchange, Suite 425
Atlanta, GA 30339

Phone: 770-303-8111; Fax: 770-303-0060

cbrock@acluga.org                                                                                                         www.acluga.org

HB 59 and SB 458 would ban undocumented students, regardless of their academic credentials, from attending all 35 public universities and colleges as well as 26 in the Technical College System. 

 These bills are economically shortsighted, fundamentally unjust, and unnecessary.

 Economically Shortsighted

 Denying higher education access to Georgia’s undocumented students fails to capitalize on the state’s investment in the students’ K-12 education. 

 Many students may well regularize their status under current or future federal laws and are likely to remain in Georgia. 

 Facilitating educational access to students also promotes economic growth.  By increasing the number of college graduates who earn higher wages, Georgia generates significantly more income, sales, and property taxes. 

 If these bills were to become law, undocumented students will not be able to utilize their full potential to advance the competitive edge of the state that is their home.

 Fundamentally Unjust

 Banning access to public higher education to students who graduate from high school in Georgia violates principles of fundamental fairness recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1982 landmark case of Plyler v. Doe.  Undocumented students are by and large talented high achievers who were brought to the U.S. as children by their parents.  They persevered against the odds to earn their admission to college. 

 Higher education is also increasingly essential to an individual’s potential and opportunity. 

 Unnecessary 

• Only 501 of 310,000 students within the University System of Georgia were found to be undocumented per an investigation conducted by the Board of Regents.  It is unwise to burden a great number of school administrators as well as students with authorized status with additional verification requirements in an attempt to exclude a small number of students who are otherwise qualified and paying their own way.
   
• In addition, allowing undocumented students to enroll in public colleges and universities in Georgia poses no additional cost to the state.   These students are already paying out of state tuition which covers more than the cost of instruction

 HB 59 would prohibit all 35 public universities and colleges as well as 26 in the Technical College System from admitting undocumented students, regardless of their academic credentials.

This bill is economically shortsighted, fundamentally unjust, and unnecessary.

Economically Shortsighted

 Denying higher education access to Georgia’s undocumented students fails to capitalize on the state’s investment in the students’ K-12 education.

 Many students may well regularize their status under current or future federal laws and are likely to remain in Georgia.

 Facilitating educational access to students also promotes economic growth. By increasing the number of college graduates who earn higher wages, Georgia generates significantly more income, sales, and property taxes.

 If this bill were to become law, undocumented students will not be able to utilize their full potential to advance the competitive edge of the state that is their home.

Fundamentally Unjust

 Banning access to public higher education to students who graduate from high school in Georgia violates principles of fundamental fairness recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1982 landmark case of Plyler v. Doe. Undocumented students are by and large talented high achievers who were brought to the U.S. as children by their parents. They persevered against the odds to earn their admission to college.

 Higher education is also increasingly essential to an individual’s potential and opportunity.

Unnecessary

 Only 501 of 310,000 students within the University System of Georgia were found to be undocumented per an investigation conducted by the Board of Regents. It is unwise to burden a great number of school administrators as well as students with authorized status with additional verification requirements in an attempt to exclude a small number of students who are otherwise qualified and paying their own way.

 In addition, allowing undocumented students to enroll in public colleges and universities in Georgia poses no additional cost to the state. These students are already paying out of state tuition which covers more than the cost of instruction

Download the Fact Sheet

Lawmakers Need Accurate Information About Long-Term Savings Potential of Proposed Bills

States are missing opportunities to pass legislation that would reform criminal justice systems and help alleviate budget shortfalls because legislators are not getting accurate information about how much money the bills would save, according to a new American Civil Liberties Union report released today.

The process of evaluating the fiscal impact of proposed legislation needs to be overhauled, the report finds, because too often states fail to provide legislators with information about the long-term savings potential of bills and instead focus only on up-front costs.

“States are needlessly spending billions of dollars incarcerating people even in the face of research proving that there are far cheaper and more effective solutions to crime,” said Inimai Chettiar, ACLU legislative policy counsel who co-authored the report along with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is imperative that lawmakers get full and complete budget analyses of proposed legislation aimed at reducing our prison populations so that they can see how these laws will help balance their budgets while continuing to protect public safety – and then take action to enact these laws.”

According to the report, it costs states between $18,000 and $30,000 per prisoner per year, and of the 2.3 million people incarcerated nationally, the vast majority are housed in state prison systems. Over the past 25 years, state corrections spending has grown 674 percent, according to the report, outpacing the growth of other government expenditures and making corrections the fourth-largest category of state spending. The report also finds that since the late 1980s, 14 states have doubled their spending and 30 states have increased their spending by half.

“Accurate and complete information about the budgetary costs and savings of criminal justice reforms will help states reduce this exorbitant spending while protecting communities and combating the vast racial disparities that plague the nation’s criminal justice system,” said Chettiar.

Some 40 percent of the legislation proposed in statehouses across the nation does not receive any sort of fiscal analysis. Without an official certification that a bill would save money, legislators are less inclined to vote for it, the report says. And even when states do analyze the fiscal impact of bills, the majority of them fail to analyze that impact beyond a year or two.

Compounding the problem, the methodology used to arrive at fiscal impact conclusions is often not made clear, which hampers the ability of lawmakers and the public to decide how accurate a given conclusion is.

A full copy of the report, “Improving Budget Analysis of State Criminal Justice Reforms: A Strategy for Better Outcomes and Saving Money,” can be found at:  www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/improving-budget-analysis-state-criminal-justice-reforms-strategy-better

ACLU Blog  - Downsizing Incarceration is Good for Fairness, Safety, and our Wallets

The Obama administration announced today that it will keep in place a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that determines which essential services are covered by new health insurance plans. The administration resisted heavy pressure from the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops and other groups to permit a broad range of religiously affiliated organizations to deny contraception coverage to their employees.  The administration’s decision will ensure effective birth control will be more affordable for millions of women.

“Virtually all women from all religious backgrounds use contraception at some point in their lives to protect their health and plan their families and their lives,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office. ”With today’s action, the administration refused to give religious employers the right to discriminate.”

 Have you noticed how some candidates pursuing the presidency are bending, twisting and misconstruing our precious Constitution to fit their personal views?  The ACLU has taken note, and with our mission of protecting the Constitution, we’re not happy about it.

That’s why we’ve launched ACLU Liberty Watch 2012. While other people will focus on flip-flopping and political maneuvering, ACLU Liberty Watch is the one and only initiative solely focused on how candidates of all parties discuss the Constitution and the fundamental laws and liberties of our country.

Join ACLU Liberty Watch 2012 today by following us on Twitter and Facebook.

The ACLU is determined to make sure civil liberties, freedom, justice and equality are at the heart of campaign discourse and that they are represented fairly and accurately.

As a non-partisan organization, the ACLU does not endorse any candidate, but we still have a role to play in this election. Through ACLU Liberty Watch 2012, we’re monitoring what all the candidates are saying about our constitutional rights and setting the record straight when they play fast and loose with our civil liberties. We’re even assembling a report card to rate the candidates on their civil liberties track records.

Help us watch the candidates and hold them accountable. Follow ACLU Liberty Watch 2012 on Twitter and Facebook.