Thread: WA Post: Immigrants' Access to Schools Is Discussed

Immigrants' Access to Schools Is Discussed
Supervisors' Say Would Be Limited

By Ian Shapira
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 15, 2007; PW01

As Prince William County supervisors debated a measure last week to restrict government services for illegal immigrants, questions were raised about possible limits on access to public schools. But the county School Board's attorney said the supervisors face significant constraints on their power to intervene in the educational arena.

First, attorney Mary McGowan said, is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe. That 1982 ruling protects the right of children to attend public schools regardless of their immigration status.

Second, McGowan said, the county School Board is separate from the Prince William Board of County Supervisors under the Virginia Constitution. That gives the School Board power over school system policy, she said, even though the schools depend on the county government for much of their annual revenue.

The measure the supervisors passed Tuesday authorizes county staff to examine what public services may be denied to illegal immigrants. It does not include any provision specifically targeting public schools.

But some supervisors may discuss access to public education over the next several weeks as they consider implementation of the resolution. Supervisor W.S. Covington III (R-Brentsville) said that he believes the school system is "part of Prince William County" and that it's difficult to say it is "a separate agency when they still have ties to the government."

Covington said that he does not want to attract lawsuits but that the supervisors could consider taking steps that would bring a "test case" on education and illegal immigration to the nation's highest court. He also said he hopes the federal government will provide more money for the staffing and resources needed to educate illegal immigrants. It is unknown how many such students are in the county. The school system is prohibited from asking students about their immigration status.

Some School Board members expressed ambivalence about any move to deny public education to illegal immigrants, but others seemed open to the idea if there were no legal hurdles. School Board member Grant Lattin (Occoquan) said the board asked McGowan within the past year whether the school system was obligated to provide services to illegal immigrants. The query, Lattin said, surfaced about the same time the School Board was dealing with crowding issues and seeking ways to save.

"Board members asked the question, 'Just who are we required to provide services to? Can we provide services to citizens and noncitizens?' " Lattin said. "I have grave concerns about the impact that undocumented aliens have on the services, including school services, and I wonder what can be done about it."

School Board member Donald P. Richardson (Gainesville) said he believes local governments should wait for the issue to be resolved at the federal or state level. "I think it's very difficult to figure out who's illegal and who's not illegal," he said. "I have a real hard time punishing children for sins their parents may have committed. But the bottom line is that Prince William is not in control. We're going to follow the law whatever it is right now."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 41_pf.html

First, attorney Mary McGowan said, is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe. That 1982 ruling protects the right of children to attend public schools regardless of their immigration status.

Is the "Doe" an actual person??

A couple of weks ago I was listening to the Rick and Bubba Show in Alabama. A couple of Teachers called in. They said they were highly encouraged to pass Spanish Speaking students. Some type of free lunch program they called it. Originally designed for hardship cases. They also said the Illegals are being allowed to enter schools without their blue card(shot records). They also admitted that the illegals children hold back the rest of the students. They are having some serious trouble teaching anything to any of the students.

It is hard to teach students that are illiterate in 2 languages.. Don't forget the parents are illiterate also...

So the answer is to hold back the American kids.... Thanks.... I Wonder why Home Schooling is so popular??

Immigration has changed since this 1982 decision.Sounds like it is time for a upgrade to our laws.

I am so angry at our government for not protecting its citizens and making us look like uncaring hate mongers when in fact we are trying to protect our country and its citizens especially our children who are not getting the education they deserve.

Instead we are told schools are not turning out students suitable for hi tech jobs
so employers must look to other countries for employees ! Bill Gates has made remarks of this nature.

457 U.S. 202

Plyler v. Doe
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. The deprivation [p203] 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 wellbeing 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. 80-1638, 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. [p205]

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html ... 02_ZS.html