Thread: Can schools defy immigration laws?

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.

The only grounds for removal from a school or anything else under US immigration law is the mere fact that you're in our country in violation of US immigration law which has nothing whatsoever to do with any civil right, any equal protection clause, the 14th amendment of Plyler vs Doe which just says if you let them stay, you can't charge them tuition to attend a school that no one else is being charged. It was a silly decision, but it doesn't have any impact or effect on the federal government's authority to enforce US immigration law any time, anywhere.

Need to get this to Trump, Sessions and his new Head of the Department of Education.

GREATAGAIN.GOV

"Share your Ideas"