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.