Thread: Public education and illegal immigrants

The 1982 Plyer v. Doe decision addressed the rights of a legal immigrant in the K-12 public education system. It bears re-reading with emphasis on "legal" and "K-12". The Supreme Court considered illegal alien students to be a "special class" whose members could well expect deportation.

The matter is germaine in the current Colorado debate on whether to extend in-State tuition rates at public colleges to illegal aliens. Is Colorado the one State in the country that wants to submerge rights of citizens and legal immigrants in order to cater to the illegal alien contingent, and that still has money to burn?

================================
Denver Post
By William Perry Pendley

Guest Commentary: Public education and illegal immigrants

At the State Capitol last month, Dr. Jim Polsfut, chair of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, testified in support of Senate Bill 126, which proposes to give in-state college tuition to students who are illegal immigrants.

He said it would be wrong for Colorado's public schools to collect data on undocumented students because that is prohibited by the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler vs. Doe.

This popular misunderstanding of the Plyler ruling shows that Will Rogers was right when he said, "It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble; it's what we know that ain't so." The 1982 Plyler decision said nothing at all about data collection.

In Plyler vs. Doe, five liberal justices, in a classic example of judicial activism, ruled "illegal alien children" a "special class" and that Texas had not shown that its law "had a substantial relationship to a substantial state interest" when it voted to deny them free education. The justices admitted that free school was not a "right," but it was a special benefit whose denial violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, with Justices William Rehnquist, Byron White, and Sandra Day O'Connor, responded with a vigorous dissent: "In an effort to become an omnipotent problem solver the court distorts our constitutional function"; and "Illegal aliens have no right whatever to be here, and the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expense of those who are lawfully in the state."

In fact, Plyler does not prohibit a state from denying primary education to illegal immigrants. Plyler holds only that, if a state wants to do that, it needs a better reason than Texas had in 1982.

A state might very well make a better, more persuasive case today because the "facts on the ground" have changed since 1982. But even within the confines of the Plyler ruling, states have far more latitude than commonly assumed. It is remarkable that so few elected officials and education leaders have taken time to read the ruling and separate fact from fiction.

The Plyler ruling applies only to elementary education, not to secondary and post-secondary education. It does not hold that public education is a right. Nor does it confer legal status on illegal immigrant children or prevent them from being arrested and deported. Finally, it does not prevent a school from inquiring as to the legal status of students enrolled in school.

It is undoubtedly true that any state that attempts to deny a free education to children who are illegal immigrants will be taken to court by the ACLU and other groups. But we ought to welcome that opportunity to bring new arguments and new facts to the Supreme Court's attention. The legal arguments over the "substantial state interest" associated with that free education might very well play out very differently today.

For example, the cost to Texas taxpayers for providing that education in 1982 was only a fraction of what it is today in Texas and many other states. In an era of multibillion- dollar state budget deficits, that financial burden is quite substantial. No one can deny that these costs significantly reduce the funds available to provide a quality education to children who are citizens and legal residents.

As for the collection of data on enrollments, it would easily withstand any challenge based on Plyler because, contrary to the mythology in the education community, that ruling was totally silent on data collection. In fact, there is no prohibition anywhere in federal law to a state school system requiring schools to collect that data and transmit it to school boards and state lawmakers. Surely, having such data would help elevate and enlighten the public debate on these matters.

More than a quarter century after Plyler, the "facts" relied on by the majority in that ruling have changed dramatically. A case that challenges that ruling is long overdue.

Attorney William Perry Pendley is president of Mountain States Legal Foundation in Lakewood.

Read more: Guest Commentary: Public education and illegal immigrants - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17 ... z1Ghd95GF0

The majority of children belonging to illegal aliens have U.S. citizenship bestowed upon them at birth; the huge costs in education and health care are due to taxpayers supporting these "American citizens", as opposed to actual "illegal" students.

Originally Posted by hattiecat

The majority of children belonging to illegal aliens have U.S. citizenship bestowed upon them at birth; the huge costs in education and health care are due to taxpayers supporting these "American citizens", as opposed to actual "illegal" students.

================================

And with each new anchor baby comes a brand-spanking new SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.

The possibilities suddenly become ENDLESS!

The more anchor babies, the more endless possibilities!

If the parents are illegal then so should the baby be also considered illegal. There is NO reason that the birth of a child should act as cause to allow illegals to remain in this country nor should it be grounds to grant citizenship to a child whos family clearly has no respect for this country, are criminals, and who deserve to be deported as soon as they are identified. Taxpayers of this country should NOT have to pay for educating these illegal and undocumented children and schools should revoke any diploma given in the past and future to illegals. Colleges also should cancil all credits of illegals who are in our colleges.

Out of all of this discussion on teachers, public education and state budgets, not once have I seen the blame being put directly on educating illegal aliens. If we quit educating illegals we could do without lots of teachers, cut school budgets, state budgets and even quit building new schools. Budget problem solved. We need more and more money in our school because we continue to get more and more illegals. So we need more teachers, more social handouts, more schools and more money.

CO cut 260 m last year from k through 12 and wants to cut 332 ? million this year. We pay for a 5 th year already and 28 percent of the kids need it so they can use it for trade school or for college credits. Very little out of pocket to the kids as they are still in high school.

As long as these anchor babies are given U.S. citizenship they are legally eligible for all education, healthcare, welfare, etc. etc. It is birthright citizenship that has to end.

Originally Posted by hattiecat

As long as these anchor babies are given U.S. citizenship they are legally eligible for all education, healthcare, welfare, etc. etc. It is birthright citizenship that has to end.

It would be helpful to find out the number though who are not citizens or legal residents so we know the number we are educating. Do we really know that the majority of them are citizens?

The problem is our foolish government cannot differentiate the difference between an illegal and a legal alien. I see many illegals aside from anchors going to the school my daughter goes to. One gal who lives in this complex is about 11-12 years old, barely speaks English and goes to my daughter's school. She also has a five year old sister who goes to this school and I know their mother is illegal, the woman hardly ever goes anywhere and doesn't speak English.

Originally Posted by hattiecat

As long as these anchor babies are given U.S. citizenship they are legally eligible for all education, healthcare, welfare, etc. etc. It is birthright citizenship that has to end.

It is also a magnet that brings many of these illegal aliens to our country. If you have enough anchors you will never have to work a day in our life and they know it. Even if they don't come here with that intention they learn real fast what producing an anchor on our soil will do for them financially. They also hope that somewhere down the line that their U.S. born children will "anchor" themselves permanantly to our country by using the "seperation of famlies" rhetoric.