California State LA graduate student Jeffrey Umana Muñoz stands on the cusp of a life-changing moment: the potential ability to get an on-campus job at one of California’s public higher education systems, even though he was brought into the country illegally from El Salvador at the age of 2 and has no legal work permit.
But last week’s passage of Assembly Bill 2586, which would allow the state’s higher education systems to hire them and about 55,000 other undocumented college students in similar distress, has raised concerns at the University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges. In letters sent to state officials, the UC and CSUs have expressed fear that the bill could put them in violation of a federal law that prohibits employers from hiring undocumented people — putting their students, their employees who would hire them and billions of dollars in federal funding at risk.
“While we understand the objectives of AB 2586, the uncertainty and risk involved cannot be underestimated or ignored,” Eric Bakke, CSU’s director of state relations, wrote in a June letter to the bill’s author, Assemblyman David Alvarez (D-San Diego).
Governor Gavin Newsom has until September 30 to sign or veto the bill; his office declined to comment. Hundreds of supporters plan to rally at the state Capitol on Thursday to pressure him to support the bill, as California is home to 1 in 5 of the nation’s undocumented college students.
The implications are substantial, considering the human needs, legal risks and explosive politics. Amid the tight presidential contest between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump, immigration is a major issue, and some fear the California law clearing the way for UCs, CSUs and community colleges to hire undocumented students will prove to be political “red meat” for Republicans. Trump’s ally, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, introduced a bill in March that would cut federal funding to universities that hire undocumented people — and he specifically called for investigation of UC.
“Left-wing college administrators want to turn their campuses into sanctuary cities,” Vance announced the bill with Representative Jim Banks (R-Indiana), saying, which is pending in a Senate committee. “Their latest scheme at the University of California is the most chaotic yet: ignoring federal law and hiring illegal immigrants. Our legislation will put an end to this madness. We will not allow American tax money to be used to pay for illegal labor.”
Turbulent politics
These politickings have given some UC regents pause.
Regent Jose Hernandez asked, “Do we really want to be snoring?” if Trump wins. Though he wants UC to find a way to hire illegal students, he said, “You have to look at the political landscape.”
The undocumented students were given a lifeline under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — known as DACA — which granted work permits and protection from deportation to certain young people who were brought to the United States as children. But Muñoz couldn’t get that status because then-President Trump rescinded the program just as he was about to apply. He filed an application in January 2021 under the Biden administration, but a court order has blocked all petitions.
Students like Muñoz who do not have DACA protections now outnumber those who do. Only 37% of the estimated 86,800 undocumented students in California are recipients of or eligible for DACA. Each year, more than 14,000 undocumented students graduate from California high schools, according to the report. Higher Education Immigration Portal.
Even at a time when attitudes towards illegal immigration are hardening, these students, who inadvertently came here through no fault of theirs, are receiving widespread sympathy and support. July 2024 Gallup Poll The poll showed that a majority of Americans want to reduce immigration, the most in two decades. But 81% supported giving people who were brought to the US illegally as children a chance to become US citizens provided they meet certain conditions – including 64% of Republicans.
The bill — which passed by a margin of 63 to 7 in the Assembly and 31 to 8 in the Senate — would prevent UC, CSU and California Community Colleges from disqualifying any student from on-campus job opportunities for failing to submit proof of federal work authorization. The bill exempts situations where federal law explicitly requires such proof or a work permit is a condition of a federal grant. For example, a grant to work on a military project might require U.S. citizenship while a job at a campus labor center might not.
The three systems have not taken a formal stance on the bill. In the California Community College System, at least four districts are supportive of it — Citrus, Long Beach, Los Angeles and Southwestern. UC and CSU have expressed concerns, while they support the bill’s goal of providing jobs for undocumented students.
“Unfortunately, AB 2586 does not protect our illegal students or employees from prosecution, nor does it protect the university from the risk of potentially losing billions of dollars in federal dollars,” UC Legislative Director Mario Guerrero wrote in a July letter to Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), who heads the Senate Appropriations Committee.
UC receives more than $12 billion in federal funding annually for research, student financial aid and healthcare. The system is the largest recipient of federally sponsored research — $3.8 billion last year — among U.S. higher education institutions.
New legal theories
This law is based on the following: A new legal doctrine which asserts that the federal ban on hiring undocumented people does not apply to states because the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 does not specifically mention them as employers subject to the ban. Prior to that law, The legal analysis stated, The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that Congress must use “plainly unambiguous” language if it wants to regulate state governments.
Scholars at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law developed the theory, and 29 immigration and constitutional scholars — including UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky — have signed on as supporters of it.
Others have rejected this argument. Analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies, A conservative think tank asserted that federal lawmakers did not feel the need to “state the obvious” in the law — that states were included in the law’s key purpose of reducing illegal immigration by removing job magnets for it.
At UC, the issue of hiring undocumented students has provoked intense and emotional divisions for nearly two years. University officials cite their “long history” of supporting them, bolstering state grants and private scholarships with resources like University Legal Aid and fellowships that provide practical education with grants of up to $7,200.
But in January, the UC Board of Regents Action on this issue was deferred After months of consultation with numerous law firms and legal experts inside and outside UC, it was concluded that hiring the students posed too many legal risks. UC’s legal concerns are based on precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court and others that have established federal supremacy over conflicting state laws in immigration cases. The Regents plan to take up the issue again next January.
“We have concluded that the proposed legal path is not viable at this time, and in fact poses significant risks to the institution and the people we serve,” UC President Michael V. Drake said then. “I know many in our community will be disappointed that we are unable to take immediate action. … I would like nothing more than to do this right here, right now, because it is the right thing to do.”
Regent John A. Perez disagreed sharply, saying he had never been “more disappointed” as a board member and calling on his colleagues to lead with courage. Students in the audience, some of whom had their mouths taped shut to symbolize their hunger strike over the issue, reacted angrily, yelling “Cowards!” and other epithets after the 10-to-6 vote, with one abstaining.
Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA, said people cautious about politics are “misreading” the situation. He said that even if Republicans win the White House and Congress and pass the Vance bill, Democrats would still have the power of the filibuster to stop it.
He also said fears about legal risks for undocumented students and university employees who hire them were misplaced. He said federal law does not impose criminal penalties for employing undocumented people; only on those who hire them in some cases. And he and his legal researchers have found no cases in which people have been prosecuted for complying with state law based on a “good faith” interpretation of federal statutes. He believes the proposed state law would essentially protect universities and that no punitive action by federal authorities — such as cutting funding or prosecuting employees — would be taken until the law is repealed and institutions no longer violate the ruling.
Arulanantham and others said colleges and universities would abide by whatever decision comes and believed the legal principle should be tested.
Alvarez said UC would not be forced to comply with the law because the system has constitutional autonomy from the state. But he said he expected compliance so all of the state’s public higher education systems would be on the same page.
“I would certainly be disappointed if an institution receiving public funding decided not to implement this and not adhere to our expectations,” he said.
If the bill becomes law, one likely response would be that UCs, CSUs and community colleges would ask a federal judge to consider its legality before implementing it. Arulanantham said he believes such action would be unnecessary — he said state laws are presumed to be valid. And, asking for a federal ruling would further delay the chance for thousands of undocumented students to get on-campus jobs that could help them afford their education and keep them on a path to career success.
Muñoz agrees. Despite failing to receive DACA protections, he worked hard and got into the highly selective UCLA, graduating in the spring with a double major in labor studies and Chicana/o and Central American studies. He is pursuing a master’s degree at Cal State LA and dreams of returning to UCLA for a PhD. But because of his inability to work legally, Muñoz has lived precariously, surviving on donated grocery cards, loans, the campus food pantry, grants and scholarships and the kindness of others, raising $3,000 on GoFundMe to make up the shortfall for housing and tuition.
She described the UC and CSU’s concerns about the safety of their students as “infuriating” and “patriarchal.”
“Even if it increases the risk, I still have to eat,” he said.
Santa Rosa Junior College student Osmar Enriquez said he wants to transfer to UCLA, UC Berkeley or Stanford, but he needs to work to earn the money for those college dreams. He received a $1,000 fellowship for undocumented students, but it requires 150 hours of community work — the equivalent of $6.60 an hour.
Ana Lara is a UCLA graduate student who was brought to the United States from El Salvador at age 6. Her goal is to pursue a career in information science and library science. Being able to work legally in on-campus jobs would be a big change for her — and, she hopes, for her community, too.
“I would be able to give back to the community, gain more knowledge and become a tutor,” she said. But without the law, “there’s really no hope.”
