Thread: Can schools defy immigration laws?

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).

No child is entitled to a free public education in the United States under the 14th Amendment..

Originally Posted by Judy

No child is entitled to a free public education in the United States under the 14th Amendment..

My comment was referring to the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, not education. That's what the U.S. Supreme Court used in their ruling to justify their position.

Originally Posted by MW

My comment was referring to the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, not education. That's what the U.S. Supreme Court used in their ruling to justify their position.

Neither Plyler vs Doe nor the 14th Amendment empower schools to defy US immigration law. No state, person or school has any power or authority to defy immigration law, not at school, not at a hospital, not at the welfare office, not at a court house, not at a funeral, not at a wedding, not at a church, not anywhere within the boundaries of the United States.

The authority of the federal government is whole and complete under the US Constitution with the plain and simple power to prohibit immigration and the importation of labor into the United States by any means it chooses at any time and location it deems suitable to that purpose. No state, school, church, mayor, police chief, sheriff, welfare clerk, judge, pastor, doctor or anyone else can defy US immigration law in the United States under federal law or the US Constitution.

Therefore, the federal government or states on behalf of the federal government can remove illegal aliens wherever they may be, subject only to a hearing to ensure against mistaken identity so we don't remove US citizens and legal immigrants by mistake. It's that simple.

The essence of Plyler vs Doe was just as simple. The court said, if you allow illegal aliens to remain in your school district, and they show up at an elementary school, you can not charge them tuition to attend because you aren't charging anyone else. The decision was a silly decision, but at the same time, the school district shouldn't have tried to profit from illegal immigration, it should have removed the illegal alien children and their parents from the community or asked the federal government to do so. The court was basing its narrow 5/4 decision on the simple premise that you can't have your cake and eat it, too. It's message was deport and remove or treat them the same as everyone else until you do.

Originally Posted by Judy

Neither Plyler vs Doe nor the 14th Amendment empower schools to defy US immigration law. No state, person or school has any power or authority to defy immigration law, not at school, not at a hospital, not at the welfare office, not at a court house, not at a funeral, not at a wedding, not at a church, not anywhere within the boundaries of the United States.

The authority of the federal government is whole and complete under the US Constitution with the plain and simple power to prohibit immigration and the importation of labor into the United States by any means it chooses at any time and location it deems suitable to that purpose. No state, school, church, mayor, police chief, sheriff, welfare clerk, judge, pastor, doctor or anyone else can defy US immigration law in the United States under federal law or the US Constitution.

Therefore, the federal government or states on behalf of the federal government can remove illegal aliens wherever they may be, subject only to a hearing to ensure against mistaken identity so we don't remove US citizens and legal immigrants by mistake. It's that simple.

The essence of Plyler vs Doe was just as simple. The court said, if you allow illegal aliens to remain in your school district, and they show up at an elementary school, you can not charge them tuition to attend because you aren't charging anyone else. The decision was a silly decision, but at the same time, the school district shouldn't have tried to profit from illegal immigration, it should have removed the illegal alien children and their parents from the community or asked the federal government to do so. The court was basing its narrow 5/4 decision on the simple premise that you can't have your cake and eat it, too. It's message was deport and remove or treat them the same as everyone else until you do.

Geez, you're just not listening. I'm done.

LOL!! It was time for you to listen, not the other way around.