Joint statement regarding DACA
Posted by Andrew Careaga
Today (Tuesday, Sept. 5) Dr. Christopher G. Maples, interim chancellor of Missouri University of Science and Technology, joined University of Missouri System President Mun Choi, University of Missouri-Columbia Chancellor Alexander Cartwright, University of Missouri-Kansas City interim Chancellor Barbara Bichelmeyer and University of Missouri-St. Louis Chancellor Thomas George to issue the following statement in support of students classified as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA):
“DACA students are hardworking, bright individuals who have much to contribute to our society in many disciplines, including the sciences, humanities, arts and social sciences. Many have persevered to attend college to better themselves and contribute to American society. For these reasons, we request a fair and compassionate solution to support the young people who have been placed in desperate situations through no fault of their own.
“More than 35 DACA students attend the University of Missouri System campuses, and they are charged the same tuition that applies to international students, as per state law. We will work closely with our DACA students to provide support and guidance during this period of uncertainty.”
I totally agree with Dr. Maples position on DACA students. I graduated in 71, before these current students were born, I am proud to be a Rolla grad and proud of the University for taking a stand.
My question is what the Missouri school system’s stance is on 8 U.S. Code § 1227? If our publicly funded school system believes the current immigration code to be unconstitutional or unlawful I would be curious as to their argument. If this is not the case, then I am unsure of what exactly is one solution the school system would find amicable. The only solution I see is a change of US national immigration law, something I have become rather familiar with as a certified border clearance agent. This, however, impacts future immigration issues by simply sweeping current enforcement issues under the rug.
So, are we saying we simply grant permanent residency to all the child arrivals already here, then enforce the law better in the future? Or, are we saying we do the first and then change the second?