Thread: Can schools defy immigration laws?

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.

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"