This was the very first paper I had written on my revised and chosen topic (immigrant children's education). Although I get a very general idea across, this outline lacks a lot of the key components to make it complete. The introduction and thesis are not very clear, and it lacks a lot of evidence. My recent event was about the 2016 election and the candidates' immigration platforms, but Brendan suggested I revise this and use an article that was more specific to an event that pertained to immigration and education. I used the prospectus as my guide for further research and expanded on it to come up with more complete drafts and, eventually, my final HCP paper.

Danielle Arellano

Dr. Brendan Shapiro

Writing 39C F16

11 October 2016

HCP Prospectus

I. Statement of Problem

     In a country who takes pride in itself to provide equal opportunity for all, there still remains a widening gap between immigrant and non-immigrant families with regard to their children’s level of education and the role in which their education plays on their social mobility. More recently, the topic of immigration, specifically those emigrating from Mexico, has become a heated debate amongst politicians who argue whether or not it is the country’s responsibility to provide the same resources to these “illegal aliens.” Although this is a moral dilemma of whether or not to help the welfare of these children and their families, there is also an economic dilemma. For lawmakers and the nation, there is an economic issue of deciding if taxpayers’ money should go toward funding educational programs to aid children who are not citizens of the country. For many immigrant children who live in poverty with their family, the immigration debate and policy changes have lasting effects on their welfare, including their ability to receive a quality education. Several immigrant children have taken advantage of the newly enacted DREAM Act, however, many still face the possibility of deportation and the inability to attain the American Dream.

II.Recent Event

     The topic of immigration has become a heated debate in the 2016 election with both parties expressing polar opposite policies. One candidate wants to build a wall to keep immigrants from further entering the country and deporting those that remain while the other wants to give amnesty to these people.  In one of several debates on immigration, Hillary Clinton has “pledged she would not deport children or break up families.” (NBC News). In his political address, Trump wants to enact a “deportation task force” and “no one will be immune or exempt from enforcement.” (NBC News). The stark difference in the candidates’ immigration policies is obvious: one would help immigrant children remain in the US with their families while the other aims at deporting them at any cost. Even in the very current times, the topic of immigration is still brought up and the issue of whether or not to provide equal education to these children for a better chance at life is a heated topic. Looking at the bigger picture, these different policies would determine if an immigrant child would be able to gain equal opportunity to education leading to their ability, or inability, to gain social mobility.

III. Summarize and Evaluate Main Views of Your Problem

     In the debate over immigration and education, there are several sides and arguments to the problem. There are the states versus the national government, democrats versus republicans, social activists, and scholars who all have different viewpoints on child immigration and their ability to receive an education. In an effort to help aid immigration reform, President Obama attempted to pass an executive order that would give amnesty to immigrant children and their families known as DAPA and DACA. Although at the national level, many states became involved in the issue and saw it as a states’ rights problem as it would ultimately be taxpayers’ dollars funding the programs. According to the Solicitor General Donald Verilli, “the states didn’t have the legal right to be in court because the Constitution ‘assigns formation of immigration policy exclusively to the National Government precisely because immigration is an inherently national matter’” (CNN). Aside from the national and state governments, there are also scholars with different views on the issue. Although they see it as an asset for children to receive a better education, and in turn better opportunities, one article states, “In particular the Act [DREAM Act] promotes the rights of children over their parents, discourages family stability and unity, and impacts family interdependence negatively” (Duhita Mahatmya and Lisa M Gring-Pemble).

     According to Walter A. Ewig, a senior researcher at the Immigration Policy Center, Immigration Council, immigrant education and the DREAM Act are “rooted in common sense.” By allowing immigrant children to benefit from higher education, they would also be able to get better, higher-paying jobs which would lead to greater contributions to the U.S economy and society. Not only would it increase their social mobility, but it would also allow them to contribute back into society and become well-earning taxpayers. On the other hand there is also Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigrant Studies, who believes that providing the resources for education for immigrants would only waste taxpayer’s money. He believes that providing education for immigrant children only opens the door for more illegal immigration. Policy such as the DREAM Act would only allow children to reap the benefits of education while their parents would still remain without contributing to society (Jost).

IV. Historical Contexts

     Equal rights to education can be traced back to the 1950s when the Supreme Court passed Brown v. Board of Education. This ruling called for the equal opportunity for black and white children to attend the same school. In this case, the Supreme Court used the “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment to justify their ruling.  This can be compared to a later case, Plyler v. Doe. In the Supreme Court Case of 1982, the Court prohibited states from denying free education to immigrants and charging tuition based on immigration status. As in the Brown v. Board of Education case, the Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that children had the right to a free education using the “equal protection clause.” For years, immigrants have faced segregation and discrimination in schools making it more difficult to receive an education and therefore move up on the social ladder. This trend also coincides with the fact that immigrant children earn less as adults, and their wages have been steadily falling between the 1940s and 2000s. It is projected that there wages will continue to slowly decline as we near 2030 (Haskins). Although immigration has been a popularly debated topic for years, it has been brought back up for debate with stronger opinions. Typically, immigration has been focused on adult immigrants, but now the focus has turned to children and the implications their immigration status has on their education and their ability to contribute back into society.

Works Cited

De Vogue, Ariane, and Tal Kopan. "Deadlocked Supreme Court Deals Big Blow to Obama Immigration Plan." CNN Politics. CNN, 23 June 2016. Web. 9 Oct. 2016.

Jost, Kenneth. "Immigration Conflict." CQ Researcher 9 Mar. 2012: 229-52. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.

Haskins, Ron. "Immigration: Wages, Education and Mobility." Brookings. The Brookings Institution, 25 July 2007. Web. 9 Oct. 2016.

"History - Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment." United States Courts. Administrative Office of the U.S., n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.

Mahatmya, Duhita, and Lisa M Gring-Pemble. "Dreamers And Their Families: A Family Impact Analysis Of The DREAM Act And Implications For Family Well-Being." Journal Of Family Studies 20.1 (2014): 79-87. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2016.

"Public Education for Immigrant Students: States Challenge Supreme Court’s Decision in Plyler v. Doe." American Immigration Council. N.p., 15 June 2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.

Sarlin, Benjy, and Alex Seitz-Wald. "Deadlocked Supreme Court Deals Big Blow to Obama Immigration Plan." NBC News. NBC, 2 Sept. 2016. Web. 10 Oct. 2016