Thread: Can schools defy immigration laws?

Originally Posted by Judy

No, it doesn't. That was not a US Supreme Court Ruling. That was a Federal Court decision and was appealed to the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals which the new Governor, Gray Davis, withdrew in mediation prior to the 9th Circuit Ruling. Gray Davis was of course recalled by the voters of California which resulted in the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

That standing court ruling doesn't have squat to do with what the federal government does, that was still a state standing issue.

I've read the complete ruling. The final ruling applies to all ill public schools and the illegal children attending those schools nation-wide. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling specifically requires ALL public schools to accept and educate illegal immigrant children. That does mean that federal law enforcement agents can't go in the schools and rip them out of class based on their immigration status.

12. What behaviors does Immigration and Customs Enforcement consider “harboring” in relation to school employees assisting undocumented students and parents?

During an ICE enforcement action, school employees should not assist parents in remaining in the U.S. illegally, but may offer care-giving assistance to undocumented students whose parents have been detained by ICE.

Federal law prohibits any person from intentionally concealing, harboring, or shielding an illegal alien from detection, where the alien’s illegal immigration status is known.71

t is also against federal law to conspire, aid, or abet such acts.72

Moreover, it is a crime to harbor an alien who entered the U.S. legally, but whose continued presence in the U.S. is now unlawful.73

“Harboring”includes any conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the U.S. illegally.74

The statute extends the prohibition against harboring to “any place,” which is intended to be broadly inclusive.75

Thus, schools could constitute locations where persons may be found to be harboring illegal aliens. An argument could be made that schools may be technically harboring illegal aliens by taking custody of undocumented children during the school day.

However, ICE has never brought an action against a school district for harboring illegal aliens and is unlikely to do so.

Instead, simply taking custody of undocumented students and educating them falls within Plyler’s constitutional protections.

School employees should be cautious about assisting parents in remaining in the U.S. illegally,particularly during an ICE enforcement action.

For example, if a school employee calls parents to warn them about an impending enforcement action at their workplace, such actions likely fall outside of Plyler’s protections because they go beyond simply providing an education for all students.

Nevertheless, offering to undocumented students whose parents have been detained in an ICE enforcement action care-giving assistance, such as a ride to a relative’s home or place to stay until a parent is able to pick up the child, is not considered harboring.| 19 20 |13.

What are a school district’s responsibilities to assist students whose parents have been detained during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement action?76

To avoid claims of negligent supervision, school districts should take adequate steps to ensure the safety of children whose parents are detained.

Several highly publicized ICE worksite enforcement actions provide lessons for how schools can more effectively care for students whose parents are detained in a raid.77

But these incidents fail to clarify the legal responsibilities facing schools when such raids occur.78

School districts may be liable for negligent supervision if they do not take adequate steps to ensure the safety of children whose parents are detained.79

In New York, for example, courts have noted how the duty of care imposed on a school district generally “ends when it relinquishes custody,” but that duty of care “continues when the student is released into a potentially hazardous situation.”80

When a worksite enforcement action occurs, school districts either will be contacted by ICE or will find out about it through other channels.

Receiving knowledge of a raid gives a district reason to believe that some of its students’ ordinary caregivers may be under detention and unable to take custody of a student.81

Knowledge that a caregiver is unavailable may create further responsibility for the district to care for students in order to avoid releasing students into a “potentially hazardous situation.”

To appropriately care for students and to prevent claims of negligent supervision, schools should take measures to ensure the safety of every child affected by an ICE enforcement action.

In Grand Island, Nebraska, for example, the school district contacted all children whose parents worked at the raid site.82

Elementary schools received specific directives to ensure that every student be released only to relatives or a person that the child could identify.

Each school principal prepared his or her teachers, social workers, and guidance counselors to work through the night to ensure students’ safety.

And although they were not needed, certain schools were designated as emergency shelters for children.83

Schools in Chaparral, New Mexico, took creative measures to ensure their students’ safety after a workplace raid on the first day of school. Because the school did not yet have emergency contact information, school staff followed buses and watched children disembark to ensure that they were not left alone.84

Workplace raids and other ICE enforcement actions do not appear to create any new legal responsibilities for school districts.

Instead, school districts likely owe an ordinary duty of care to ensure the safety of their students.

However, to avoid negligent supervision claims, districts should try to make sure students have adequate supervision and care before releasing them from school custody.

So long as the district takes such steps, the district and its employees should be able to avoid liability even in the event of an unforeseen accident.

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/09...edchildren.pdf

Originally Posted by MW

I've read the complete ruling. The final ruling applies to all ill public schools and the illegal children attending those schools nation-wide. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling specifically requires ALL public schools to accept and educate illegal immigrant children. That does mean that federal law enforcement agents can't go in the schools and rip them out of class based on their immigration status.

You are completely wrong about that, MW.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

12. What behaviors does Immigration and Customs Enforcement consider “harboring” in relation to school employees assisting undocumented students and parents?

During an ICE enforcement action, school employees should not assist parents in remaining in the U.S. illegally, but may offer care-giving assistance to undocumented students whose parents have been detained by ICE.

Federal law prohibits any person from intentionally concealing, harboring, or shielding an illegal alien from detection, where the alien’s illegal immigration status is known.71

t is also against federal law to conspire, aid, or abet such acts.72

Moreover, it is a crime to harbor an alien who entered the U.S. legally, but whose continued presence in the U.S. is now unlawful.73

“Harboring”includes any conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the U.S. illegally.74

The statute extends the prohibition against harboring to “any place,” which is intended to be broadly inclusive.75

Thus, schools could constitute locations where persons may be found to be harboring illegal aliens. An argument could be made that schools may be technically harboring illegal aliens by taking custody of undocumented children during the school day.

However, ICE has never brought an action against a school district for harboring illegal aliens and is unlikely to do so.

Instead, simply taking custody of undocumented students and educating them falls within Plyler’s constitutional protections.

School employees should be cautious about assisting parents in remaining in the U.S. illegally,particularly during an ICE enforcement action.

For example, if a school employee calls parents to warn them about an impending enforcement action at their workplace, such actions likely fall outside of Plyler’s protections because they go beyond simply providing an education for all students.

Nevertheless, offering to undocumented students whose parents have been detained in an ICE enforcement action care-giving assistance, such as a ride to a relative’s home or place to stay until a parent is able to pick up the child, is not considered harboring.| 19 20 |13.

What are a school district’s responsibilities to assist students whose parents have been detained during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement action?76

To avoid claims of negligent supervision, school districts should take adequate steps to ensure the safety of children whose parents are detained.

Several highly publicized ICE worksite enforcement actions provide lessons for how schools can more effectively care for students whose parents are detained in a raid.77

But these incidents fail to clarify the legal responsibilities facing schools when such raids occur.78

School districts may be liable for negligent supervision if they do not take adequate steps to ensure the safety of children whose parents are detained.79

In New York, for example, courts have noted how the duty of care imposed on a school district generally “ends when it relinquishes custody,” but that duty of care “continues when the student is released into a potentially hazardous situation.”80

When a worksite enforcement action occurs, school districts either will be contacted by ICE or will find out about it through other channels.

Receiving knowledge of a raid gives a district reason to believe that some of its students’ ordinary caregivers may be under detention and unable to take custody of a student.81

Knowledge that a caregiver is unavailable may create further responsibility for the district to care for students in order to avoid releasing students into a “potentially hazardous situation.”

To appropriately care for students and to prevent claims of negligent supervision, schools should take measures to ensure the safety of every child affected by an ICE enforcement action.

In Grand Island, Nebraska, for example, the school district contacted all children whose parents worked at the raid site.82

Elementary schools received specific directives to ensure that every student be released only to relatives or a person that the child could identify.

Each school principal prepared his or her teachers, social workers, and guidance counselors to work through the night to ensure students’ safety.

And although they were not needed, certain schools were designated as emergency shelters for children.83

Schools in Chaparral, New Mexico, took creative measures to ensure their students’ safety after a workplace raid on the first day of school. Because the school did not yet have emergency contact information, school staff followed buses and watched children disembark to ensure that they were not left alone.84

Workplace raids and other ICE enforcement actions do not appear to create any new legal responsibilities for school districts.

Instead, school districts likely owe an ordinary duty of care to ensure the safety of their students.

However, to avoid negligent supervision claims, districts should try to make sure students have adequate supervision and care before releasing them from school custody.

So long as the district takes such steps, the district and its employees should be able to avoid liability even in the event of an unforeseen accident.

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/09...edchildren.pdf

Thanks, JohnDoe. That pretty much proves without a doubt that there is a direct correlation between Plyler v. Doe and federal law enforcement against illegal children while in a primary or secondary public school. Any further argument that ignores this fact is ridiculous.

Instead, simply taking custody of undocumented students and educating them falls within Plyler’s constitutional protections.

Miami schools prepare for 'potential influx' after Castro's death

For anyone who wants to read Plyler vs Doe decision, a narrow 5-4 decision with the famous Chief Justice Warren Burger, Justice Byron White, Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissenting.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../202/case.html

This case has absolutely ZERO impact or effect on federal authority to swoop into schools and start loading up illegal aliens of any age for deportation. Illegal aliens have absolutely NO PROTECTION from deportation procedures while at a school or anywhere else.

Plyler vs Doe requires a state school district to admit them for educational purposes, it does not protect them against any action by the federal government or any state action required by the federal government. NONE.

I don't know why some are trying to put protections where they do not exist. There is no place within the United States that is a "safe place" or a "sanctuary" for an illegal alien of any age for any purpose.

Originally Posted by Judy

For anyone who wants to read Plyler vs Doe decision, a narrow 5-4 decision with the famous Chief Justice Warren Burger, Justice Byron White, Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissenting.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../202/case.html

This case has absolutely ZERO impact or effect on federal authority to swoop into schools and start loading up illegal aliens of any age for deportation. Illegal aliens have absolutely NO PROTECTION from deportation procedures while at a school or anywhere else.

Plyler vs Doe requires a state school district to admit them for educational purposes, it does not protect them against any action by the federal government or any state action required by the federal government. NONE.

I don't know why some are trying to put protections where they do not exist. There is no place within the United States that is a "safe place" or a "sanctuary" for an illegal alien of any age for any purpose.

I don't understand why you're having a tough time comprehending the Plyler v. Doe ruling. The ruling does unfortunately protect illegal children while attending public school classes. Do I agree with it, no, but the facts are what they are.

This makes it very clear that the illegal immigrant children in primary & secondary schools are a constitutionally protected class under Plyler v. Doe.:

Instead, simply taking custody of undocumented students and educating them falls within Plyler’s constitutional protections.

Originally Posted by MW

I don't understand why you're having a tough time comprehending the Plyler v. Doe ruling. The ruling does unfortunately protect illegal children while attending public school classes. Do I agree with it, no, but the facts are what they are.

This makes it very clear that the illegal immigrant children in primary & secondary schools are a constitutionally protected class under Plyler v. Doe.:

Oh geez, you're quoting the TEACHER'S UNION with that quote. That is not what the Ruling you claim you read says, not once, not anywhere, nor does anything it states infer or imply that at all on any level!

You all are going to have to come up with better "sources" on Plyler vs Doe than the American Immigration Council that you cited and the NEA teacher's union JD2 chose to cite. I posted the actual Ruling link for you, so dig in and quote the Ruling itself to back up your claims if you think you're right. I know this Ruling, and you're both wrong, so is the "American Immigration Council" as is the "National Education Association".
These orgies are advocates for illegal aliens. The NEA wants more students from "wherever" because the more students, the more teachers, the more dues paid. The AIC is immigration lawyers who line their pockets protecting illegal aliens. Even so, they are not even saying what you and JD2 are claiming. Not even they claim federal authorities can't enter a school to round up illegal aliens for deportation because of course they can do that any time, anywhere, any place they choose to get the job done.

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 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.