Thread: Can schools defy immigration laws?

Just cite the Ruling. The link is posted for your convenience. Or just rejoice in the fact that you're wrong and we can deport illegal aliens even when they're at school which is a smart place to find them because they're there in huge groups, in some cases the majority of the student body.

Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so. It's very clear that the Plyler v. Doe sets legal precedent that prevents federal law enforcement from going into primary and secondary schools to apprehend children for being illegal. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court reverses their original ruling, it will remain law. Perhaps having someone assist you in interpreting the ruling would be beneficial.

Mexican children cross Texas border to attend school



Mexico to send 30,000 more students to the U.S.



AZ-School accused of taking Mexican students



Children cross Mexican border to receive a U.S. education in Columbus N.M.

Originally Posted by MW

Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so. It's very clear that the Plyler v. Doe sets legal precedent that prevents federal law enforcement from going into primary and secondary schools to apprehend children for being illegal. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court reverses their original ruling, it will remain law. Perhaps having someone assist you in interpreting the ruling would be beneficial.

LOL!!! Plyler vs Doe has nothing to do with the federal government.

One of the things that this ruling makes perfectly clear is that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens. Nowhere does the ruling claim in any way or form that the offspring of illegal immigrants should not be denied a public education because they are citizens. Nowhere. In fact it very carefully and deliberatly circumscribes this obvious conclusion.

And in fact it makes no arguments that the public education system should necessarily provide education for the children of illegal immigrants. It simply says that there is no legal reason to deny them the same.

If the children of illegal immigrants show up in the public education system, all that is necessary is to find their parents and deport them. End of problem.

This is how bad the situation has become, that the obvious has become unthinkable. What better reason to deport illegals than having to educate their children along with that of the children of citizens.

We have enough problems with our public educational system to have to deal with the children of illegal immigrants.

A little common-sense and reasoning would bring anyone that read the ruling to the logical conclusion that Plyler v. Doe offers illegal immigrant children constitutionally protected status while sitting in a primary or secondary school classroom. What this means is ICE agents cannot lawfully go in the classroom and apprehend children based only on the fact that they are in the country illegally. Arresting the parents or the child outside the school classroom was never my argument. My argument with Judy is, and has been from the beginning, that ICE cannot go into a school and start rounding up and apprehending hundreds of illegal immigrant children. For this to happen someone would have to challenge the original court ruling and get it reversed. This is common-sense logic. You can't tell a class of folks they're entitled to something and then go in and arrest them for exercising a right given them by law. I just don't understand why I'm the only one that understands this. Yes, I have read the Plyler v. Doe (1982) ruling from beginning to end.

Originally Posted by MW

... You can't tell a class of folks they're entitled to something and then go in and arrest them for exercising a right given them by law. I just don't understand why I'm the only one that understands this. Yes, I have read the Plyler v. Doe (1982) ruling from beginning to end.

But this is emphatically and precisely what the ruling has not done. It has very carefully, over and over again explained that there is no reason to deny children of illegals of an education. It has not said that they are entitled to an education. Not only that, but its arguments for not denying are themselves very weak and circumspect. The supreme court has made a very embarrassing display of extralegal argument in making this case.

Furthermore, not denying the children of illegals of an education does not make their parents immune from prosecution for being in the country illegally and, in fact, is a very good reason to prosecute their parents from being in the country illegally. No citizen who has children in public education is immune from any prosecution either. If a citizen fugitive felon showed up at a public school to pick up their kids, they would be targeted for arrest too. In fact, efforts to contact the kids might provide such opportunities.


We cannot have our educational system burdened by educating people who don't even belong here. It's bad enough that we have to feed them and give them driver's licenses.


That has to stop too.

But this is emphatically and precisely what the ruling has not done. It has very carefully, over and over again explained that there is no reason to deny children of illegals of an education. It has not said that they are entitled to an education. Not only that, but it's arguments for not denying are themselves very weak and circumspect. The supreme court has made a very embarrassing display of extralegal argument in making this case.

Saying that someone can't be denied something is basically the same as saying they are entitled. For example, saying we can't be denied our constitutionally granted rights in this country means that we're entitled to them by law. I won't argue your other point because personal opinion on the legal aspects of the case are not what's at issue here. I too do not agree with the ruling, but it is what it is.

Furthermore, not denying the children of illegals of an education does not make their parents immune from prosecution for being in the country illegally and, in fact, is a very good reason to prosecute their parents from being in the country illegally. No citizen who has children in public education is immune from any prosecution either. If a citizen fugitive felon showed up at a public school to pick up their kids, they would be targeted for arrest too. In fact, efforts to contact the kids might provide such opportunities.

That was never part of the discussion. I agree with you.

We cannot have our educational system burdened by educating people who don't even belong here. It's bad enough that we have to feed them and give them driver's licenses.

Once again, I do not disagree with you on this.

Originally Posted by MW

Saying that someone can't be denied something is basically the same as saying they are entitled. For example, saying we can't be denied our constitutionally granted rights in this country means that we're entitled to them by law. ...
....

You are stating a logical contradiction. We cannot be denied our constitutional rights because they are constitutional rights. They are an entitlement. Saying you cannot be denied a public education is not anything at all like saying your are entitled.

Look at it this way. The fact is that nobody is entitled to a public education. Public education is not a civil right. As long as public education exists there are civil rights associated with public education. But, for example, if your child cannot conduct themselves properly in school so that they are a constant disruption, they can be removed from school and nobody's civil rights are infringed. If you are an illegal immigrant and you send your children to public school, then this would also qualify as a disruption, there is grounds for removal right there.

Originally Posted by MW

A little common-sense and reasoning would bring anyone that read the ruling to the logical conclusion that Plyler v. Doe offers illegal immigrant children constitutionally protected status while sitting in a primary or secondary school classroom. What this means is ICE agents cannot lawfully go in the classroom and apprehend children based only on the fact that they are in the country illegally. Arresting the parents or the child outside the school classroom was never my argument. My argument with Judy is, and has been from the beginning, that ICE cannot go into a school and start rounding up and apprehending hundreds of illegal immigrant children. For this to happen someone would have to challenge the original court ruling and get it reversed. This is common-sense logic. You can't tell a class of folks they're entitled to something and then go in and arrest them for exercising a right given them by law. I just don't understand why I'm the only one that understands this. Yes, I have read the Plyler v. Doe (1982) ruling from beginning to end.

Either you didn't read the ruling or you missed the fact that Plyler vs Doe only applies to state funded elementary schools not being allowed to charge illegal aliens tuition.

Wow, MW, how you get from a case that only applies to state school districts charging illegal aliens tuition to attend elementary schools to the federal government being unable to enforce US immigration law is a leap so giant and wrong you'd think a liberal Democrat wrote those posts.

And yes, any federal authority or state authority enforcing federal law can go into schools or anywhere for that matter and round them up, load them up on buses or in vans and haul them to a detention center for deportation hearings and removal.

Originally Posted by Judy

Either you didn't read the ruling or you missed the fact that Plyler vs Doe only applies to state funded elementary schools not being allowed to charge illegal aliens tuition.

Wow, MW, how you get from a case that only applies to state school districts charging illegal aliens tuition to attend elementary schools to the federal government being unable to enforce US immigration law is a leap so giant and wrong you'd think a liberal Democrat wrote those posts.

And yes, any federal authority or state authority enforcing federal law can go into schools or anywhere for that matter and round them up, load them up on buses or in vans and haul them to a detention center for deportation hearings and removal.

Geez, I'm tired of going in circles with you. Either I'm not making myself clear or you're just having a difficult time comprehending what I'm saying. Maybe you're not even reading what I'm saying. Regardless of the reason behind your failure to understand what I'm saying, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe (1982) is very clear in its meaning.

All children, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to a free public education, as required under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is the law. Whether you or I agree with it, which I don't, is irrelevant. Being entitled means federal law enforcement can't go in and yank the illegal children from their classrooms just for being illegal. I don't know how to be anymore clearer than that. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you petition your congress critter to file an amendment to change the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (good luck with that). It is the U.S. Supreme Courts job to interrupt the law and in my opinion this wouldn't be the first time they got it wrong, however, we're stuck with it unless, under a new challenge, they admit their error and reverse their original ruling (not likely).