Thread: The reason WHY we have to free educate to illegal kids

This IS the court ruling which forces schools to provide free education. IT IS NOT any sort of "consitutional" or legal mandate it is ALL due to a judiciary interpretations, which ends up in the CREATION of law.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~bjordan/PlylervDoe.html

U.S. Supreme Court
PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

457 U.S. 202

PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
v. DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT
No. 80-1538.

Argued December 1, 1981
Decided June 15, 1982 *

Held:

A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 210-230.

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

(b) The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State. Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a "suspect class," and although education is not a "fundamental right," so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status. [457 U.S. 202, 203] The deprivation of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement. In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered. Pp. 216-224.

(c) The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents. It is true that when faced with an equal protection challenge respecting a State's differential treatment of aliens, the courts must be attentive to congressional policy concerning aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the legislative record, no national policy is perceived that might justify the State in denying these children an elementary education. Pp. 224-226.

(d) Texas' statutory classification cannot be sustained as furthering its interest in the "preservation of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful residents." While the State might have an interest in mitigating potentially harsh economic effects from an influx of illegal immigrants, the Texas statute does not offer an effective method of dealing with the problem. Even assuming that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy is negative, charging tuition to undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration, at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting employment of illegal aliens. Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education. The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. Neither is there any merit to the claim that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence within the United States renders them less likely than other children to remain within the State's boundaries and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State. Pp. 227-230.

No. 80-1538, 628 F.2d 448, and No. 80-1934, affirmed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., post, p. 230, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 231, and POWELL, J., post, p. 236, filed concurring opinions. BURGER, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 242.

It is my understanding that we cannot ask illegal alien school children about their legal status for the supposedly "unconstitutional" purpose of barring them from our schools BUT we COULD ask them about it for a constitutional purpose such as seeking reimbursement from the federal government for the cost of educating them.

Any lawyers out there?

If I'm correct, we should all be demanding that our states do this.

Originally Posted by HoosierMama

It is my understanding that we cannot ask illegal alien school children about their legal status for the supposedly "unconstitutional" purpose of barring them from our schools BUT we COULD ask them about it for a constitutional purpose such as seeking reimbursement from the federal government for the cost of educating them.

Any lawyers out there?

If I'm correct, we should all be demanding that our states do this.

Why does this matter? It is not like the government EVER pays for anything. It is US taxpayers that pay. The more levels of beourcrap there is, the less "effective" those dollars are.

It should NOT be to document the little craps, to get reembersment, it should be to NOT have to spend our money to educate them.

H.

I don't want to pay for them either. It still comes out of my pocket whether the money comes from the state or the feds.

The point is...if schools can ask about legal status in order to seek federal reimbursement, we will, at the same time, find out exactly how many illegals are in our schools and how much they are costing us. Once we shine the light on this, I'm hoping taxpayers will scream and get things changed.

The state of Indiana pays about $250 Million for English as a Second Language students while it has a state budget deficit exceeding $600 Million. You'd think the taxpayers would want to send the illegals home rather than pay higher taxes.