Newsom typically relishes battling Trump. On letting undocumented college students work, not so much.

Por Eric He — POLITICO – TOP Stories

Gavin Newsom has rarely shied away from a fight with Donald Trump, especially over immigration.

He didn’t hesitate last year to sign into law a ban on federal immigration agents wearing masks in the state. And when he put his name on a package of legislation this year further clamping down on immigration enforcement, he said he was doing so to “push back on Trump’s Orwellian immigrant tactics.”

But when it came to a bill that would have required the state’s public universities and community colleges to make undocumented immigrant students eligible for campus employment, Newsom balked.

Trump officials, he wrote in a message explaining his vetolast month, are “quick to wreak destruction for political spectacle.” The risk of them seeking retribution against the schools was too great.

Newsom’s decision to avoid confrontation prolongs a yearslong student-led push to persuade skeptical university officials to enact a first-in-the-nation policy that would benefit the roughly 60,000 undocumented students enrolled in the three school systems. And it has deflated immigrant rights activists in his home state ahead of Newsom’s likely presidential run.

“There’s disappointment that on this issue, the governor hasn’t been willing to take a risk for a very important part of the California population,” said Maria Blanco, the former executive director of the UC Immigrant Legal Services Center. “Even in a progressive state like California, immigration sometimes still continues to be this third rail, especially if you’re running for president.”

The governor’s unwillingness to force the issue with Trump stemmed, at least in part, from what he said in his veto message was a concern that the hiring requirement wouldn’t hold up under legal scrutiny since federal law prohibits employers from hiring undocumented workers.

Asked for comment, a spokesperson for Newsom referred to the governor’s veto message.

Advocates for the idea that students living in the country illegally should be permitted to work campus jobs have relied heavily on a legal theory a group ofUCLA law professors published in 2022 that argued the federal ban doesn’t apply to state agencies.

The theory was enough to spur discussion among the UC Board of Regents, which considered implementing a policy allowing the hires, but ultimately punted on the idea in 2024.

Rich Leib, the chair of the regents at the time who had signaled support for hiring undocumented students, said that enthusiasm on the board waned after three “established” law firms said they would not defend the university if its policy was challenged in court. With a second Trump term looming, Leib said a majority of the regents, including him, decided the timing was not right to challenge an administration that could be hostile to immigrants and voted to table the issue. They were particularly concerned, he said, about the possibility that immigration officials might be able to gain access to personal data about undocumented students on the university payroll.

“It was the most emotional experience I had as a regent because it brought you to people who were directly negatively affected by it,” Leib said, referring to students who protested at the board meeting following the vote to shelve the plan. “These are people who have done really well their whole lives. They worked really hard to get where they did, and now you’re telling them they can’t get a job.”

Joel Raznick, a regent emeritus who also voted for the delay, said that the possibility of Trump returning to the White House was “certainly on my mind.” Raznick, who emphasized he was not speaking on behalf of the UC, said he had been concerned about the possibility the Trump administration would respond to the hiring policy by cutting federal funding to the university – a tactic it has used in other fights with the UC – and that undocumented students could be “readily identified and deported.”

“I thought that we were doing a better service for undocumented students at that moment by preserving the university’s ability to operate,” Raznick said. “Because those risks are real, as we now know.”

Anna Markowitz, president of the UCLA Faculty Association, which advocated for the hiring policy, pushed back on that rationale.

“Who are we allowing to suffer by claiming that we’re saving the institution?” she asked.

Omar Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the UC, said that the university’s “evaluation of this important issue is ongoing.” He pointed out that the UC remained neutral on the bill Newsom vetoed.

“UC has been a leader in supporting undocumented students, who are vital members of the UC community and make significant contributions to our economy and society as scholars, researchers, and future leaders,” Rodriguez said.

Along with the UC, the legislation would have applied to the California State University and community college systems. In statements, spokespeople for both systems said they also did not come out for or against the bill and support undocumented students while complying with state and federal laws.

Immigration advocates criticize Newsom and the regents for what they see as their overly cautious approach. Having a law on the books, they argue, would provide a layer of protection for the school systems if they were to have a policy allowing undocumented students to work on campus. They also point to a ruling in a state appeals court last year that found the UC’s adherence to federal law forbidding employment was discriminatory. The ruling stated that the university could not rely on fear of federal retaliation as a reason for not adopting a more permissive stance, and ordered it to “reconsider its policy based on proper criteria.”

“They’re really caught in between a rock and a hard place,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, a UCLA law professor who helped write the 2022 legal theory. “They have to comply with the state court decision, and they’re not going to get the benefit of any California legislation protecting them from above.”

The ruling, though, did not require the university to change its policy and did not include a deadline for the UC to comply.

“Large institutions tend to be risk adverse,” Blanco said. “And I don’t think this is a climate where the UC would affirmatively go do this and then wait to be sued.”

Fonte: POLITICO – TOP Stories