Thread: Maryland schools NOT ALLOWED to ask immigration status......

Originally Posted by zyggytoo

Schools need to get the Social Security numbers of both parents....that might send a few packing.

that SHOULD be the law.

however, since maryland is a state that doesn't ask for a social security number to obtain a driver's license, why should they ask for s.s.#'s of parents entering their kids into school? we are a sanctuary state, and illegals are welcome here. that's why all the bills in senate this week are such a big deal. we have to win them all to start driving out the illegals.

denying them driver's licenses is a first step, and we are close to passing that. BUT we still need pressure on that one. i will keep everyone posted what i hear. the bill making it to the senate floor (the bill that would require proof of residency to obtain a license) is almost at victory lane for us.......

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

Originally Posted by Richard

At the time of Plyler vs Doe part of the argument was that illegal alien students were only a minor part of Texas enrollment and so the cost did not impose unreasonable hardship on the state. This decision while being etically wrong then is no longer factually true and the numbers partly attracted by the decison and cost have become even more clearly unreasonable.

If I am not mistaken, this issue was revisited when California attempted to deny illegal immigrants from public education. California voters voted to deny public education and the Supreme Court revisited Plyler v. Doe once again and still struck down the proposition. Being that it was in California, where the problem is believed to be most severe, I doubt the court would reverse with regards to this particular state

And if i'm not mistaken, you must be referring to prop 187, which the voter passed overwhelmingly back in 1994.

Most reasonable people would admit that illegal immigration and the economic burden it has become is no longer sustainable. In addition, much has changed in the 15 years since the court has addressed Plyer v. Doe. Nobody can argue the situation has improved in the past 15 years.

Therefore, states such as Maryland would seemingly have a compelling interest in reviving a challenge to Plyer v. Doe. Especially, since California now serves of the role model of what an absolute failure a no questions asked enrollment policy is on our public schools.

The so called right granting illegal invaders access to our public schools has now intersected and infringed upon the rights of American citizens to receive a decent (Yes, I understand the word decent is subjective. Therefore please see graduation rates for LAUSD) public education.

Class overcrowding and a decline in the overall educational environment is now to often the norm in many of our public schools. Gang violence and intimidation now plagues many schools here in California. Nobody can argue that illegal immigration does not play a role in this situation. Classes and programs are being cut because of budget constraints, while illegals still have carte blanche access to our school systems. That's a disgrace!

With these interests in mind, it's not unreasonable to expect a different outcome if a Plyer V. Doe challenge were initiated. The issue is whether or not the Supreme Court would hear the case.

Yes, I was referring to 187. Usually when I hear or think of 187 I think of the Penal Code for murder.
Money is NEVER a compelling interest. That is law school 101.

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

Originally Posted by Richard

At the time of Plyler vs Doe part of the argument was that illegal alien students were only a minor part of Texas enrollment and so the cost did not impose unreasonable hardship on the state. This decision while being etically wrong then is no longer factually true and the numbers partly attracted by the decison and cost have become even more clearly unreasonable.

If I am not mistaken, this issue was revisited when California attempted to deny illegal immigrants from public education. California voters voted to deny public education and the Supreme Court revisited Plyler v. Doe once again and still struck down the proposition. Being that it was in California, where the problem is believed to be most severe, I doubt the court would reverse with regards to this particular state

And if i'm not mistaken, you must be referring to prop 187, which the voter passed overwhelmingly back in 1994.

Most reasonable people would admit that illegal immigration and the economic burden it has become is no longer sustainable. In addition, much has changed in the 15 years since the court has addressed Plyer v. Doe. Nobody can argue the situation has improved in the past 15 years.

Therefore, states such as Maryland would seemingly have a compelling interest in reviving a challenge to Plyer v. Doe. Especially, since California now serves of the role model of what an absolute failure a no questions asked enrollment policy is on our public schools.

The so called right granting illegal invaders access to our public schools has now intersected and infringed upon the rights of American citizens to receive a decent (Yes, I understand the word decent is subjective. Therefore please see graduation rates for LAUSD) public education.

Class overcrowding and a decline in the overall educational environment is now to often the norm in many of our public schools. Gang violence and intimidation now plagues many schools here in California. Nobody can argue that illegal immigration does not play a role in this situation. Classes and programs are being cut because of budget constraints, while illegals still have carte blanche access to our school systems. That's a disgrace!

With these interests in mind, it's not unreasonable to expect a different outcome if a Plyer V. Doe challenge were initiated. The issue is whether or not the Supreme Court would hear the case.

Yes, I was referring to 187. Usually when I hear or think of 187 I think of the Penal Code for murder.
Money is NEVER a compelling interest. That is law school 101.

There are several possible arguments that could be made, none of which completely dependent on the issue of money. The quality of our public educational system has been eroded by illegal immigration, having a detrimental impact on the educational rights of American citizens. A substantial state interest could be shown to justify the exclusion of those who are not US citizens.

I suspect the most compelling legal argument would lie somewhere in the neighborhood of the 14th Amendment and more specifically, the Equal Protections Clause contained therein and the very broad interpretation of that clause needed to reach the conclusion the majority did.

Also, there were four dissenting Justices in Plyer (O’Conner, Burger, Rehnquist and White). There is still a legal argument to be made against Plyer.

BTW... Do you think Plyer V. Doe was a correct decision?

It seems like all the cases are 5-4. I guess that's why they actually get to the Supreme Court. Yes there are plenty of arguments to be made in favor of such legislation. Equal Protection, you think? How so?
I have to read the whole case again to even remember what the issues and points were in order to decide if I agree with the ruling. Sorry, Con Law was a long time ago.

I have a better idea, given that i'm not a lawyer and any argument I present will likely be dismissed by you anyway. Your supposedly the lawyer here. Why don't you go back and read the case and report back to us a possible legal argument that might work to overturn Plyer.

That is unless you are content to leave Plyer as is.

[quote="NoBueno"]I have a better idea, given that i'm not a lawyer and any argument I present will likely be dismissed by you anyway. Your supposedly the lawyer here. Why don't you go back and read the case and report back to us a possible legal argument that might work to overturn Plyer.

That is unless you are content to leave Plyer as is.[/quote

I am not supposedly a lawyer, I am an attorney. In addition, why are you offended? Because I disagreed that money was not compelling state interest. I was just making a point that this has already been established and why beat it to death because our personal opinions aren't consistent with the law. I have to comply with laws and tell clients to abide by laws which are ridiculous; however because my personal opinion contrasts the law does not give me the right to give advice which contradicts the law. This case has been decided and with illegal immigration becoming more of a burden, I would argue that social services as well as public education are becoming more of a tax on state economies. What good does that do to argue the point when it has been decided that this alone is not a compelling state interest.
I think I see where you are going with Equal Protection now. Your argument is that American citizens are being discriminated against because they are not being given the opportunity that they should because their quality of education has been reduced by illegal alien students? Is this correct? Please correct me if I am wrong.
I believe the problem with this argument is two-fold. First, if American citizens are being discriminated against there has to be another class that is receiving a better education, for lack of better words? In order for this to be a valid argument, there must be another class that is not being discriminated against. Who is that class that is not being discriminated?
Second, I think you can go to any school, including schools inundated with illegal aliens and find students who are successful. This would refute the statement that all students or American citizen students are not receiving a quality education.
Lastly, whether anyone agrees or not, I doubt the courts would be willing to punish students so severely as to deny them an opportunity to get an education even though their parents may be in violation of the law. I have seen courts be unfair to adults, but the courts always keep children's interests at heart. This is why I think illegal aliens will never be excluded from public schools.
Sorry if you are offended, but this is my professional opinion based on my legal education and experience.
I have quotes to support my humble opinion.

"The court determined that the State's concern for fiscal integrity was not a compelling state interest, id. at 582-583"

"The Fourteenth Amendment provides that

[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments"

" Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.

[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual -- as well as unjust -- way of deterring the parent."

I'm, not offended AAL. I believe a more apt description would be frustrated regarding this issue. In any event, You did touch upon some of my arguments regarding the 14th Amendment and how that might be used to address this particular issue. Of course being an attorney, you were able to discuss and analyze them with relative ease.

But you touched upon a very important aspect of the Plyer decison that I would like to explore further, that is if you do not mind.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that

[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments"

They key here is the term due process of the law. What if the Appellants did not frame the question properly? That is, what if they would have argued that illegals within the jursidiction of Texas were not entitled to be educated since there was no law at the time which mandated that we must educate citizens of another country. Remember, it's due process of THE LAW.

Thus, the issue immigration status of subjects would have been removed and then focused on our obligations as a nation to educate people who are not citizens of this country.

This is not my argument by the way, I came acorss this after conducting further research on this case. It's obviously a more compelling argument than my limited legal education would allow me to make . In any event, here is the link. Please read it if you get the chance and comment if you like. I would be interested in hearing your opinion.

http://federalistblog.us/2008/03/sup...ler_v_doe.html