Thread: Should Trump deny illegal immigrants education by Executive Order

Excerpt:

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

This case might present Trump's most challenging potential hurdle, finding that even non-citizen children still have rights.

Plyler v. Doe struck down a Texas law that withheld funding for schooling of children of immigrants living in the US unlawfully. The last clause of the first section of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Even if those children aren't citizens of the US, an undocumented immigrant is still "a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term," Justice William J. Brennan ruled for the majority. They therefore cannot be discriminated against by the state.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...-babies-2015-8

It's not really a big problem. Congress needs to pass a law that prohibits public education for illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are not persons under the 14th amendment, they are excluded persons under the 14th amendment, because they are not legally within our jurisdiction. Plain meaning of the terms is the general rule so long as it doesn't result in an absurdity. It's absurd to educate the people of other countries at our expense when they are in our country illegally. Just as granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens is an absurdity.

Originally Posted by MW

Excerpt:

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

This case might present Trump's most challenging potential hurdle, finding that even non-citizen children still have rights.

Plyler v. Doe struck down a Texas law that withheld funding for schooling of children of immigrants living in the US unlawfully. The last clause of the first section of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Even if those children aren't citizens of the US, an undocumented immigrant is still "a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term," Justice William J. Brennan ruled for the majority. They therefore cannot be discriminated against by the state.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...-babies-2015-8

MW, our Federal government needs to make life much harder for illegal aliens in the country, not easier.

Enforce the employment laws on the employer side which would prohibit illegal aliens from being able to earn an income
and we wouldn't be saddled with paying for education for their anchor babies.

More info @

Public schools can not ask students about their immigration status

Originally Posted by lorrie

MW, our Federal government needs to make life much harder for illegal aliens in the country, not easier.

Enforce the employment laws on the employer side which would prohibit illegal aliens from being able to earn an income
and we wouldn't be saddled with paying for education their anchor babies.

I agree with you, however, President Trump cannot overrule the U.S. Supreme Court with a presidential executive order. To my knowledge the legislative process is the only way to overcome the courts ruling.

I also believe to over-ride Plyler vs Doe requires Congressional legislation or a new case to overturn it. Best safest shot is Congressional legislation and quicker, too.

Originally Posted by Judy

I also believe to over-ride Plyler vs Doe requires Congressional legislation or a new case to overturn it. Best safest shot is Congressional legislation and quicker, too.

From the dissent in Plyler vs Doe, CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, with whom JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, dissenting.

The Court's analogy to cases involving discrimination against illegitimate children - see ante, at 220; ante, at 238-239 (POWELL, J., concurring) - is grossly misleading. The State has not thrust any disabilities upon appellees due to their "status of birth." Cf. Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 176 (1972). Rather, appellees' status is predicated upon the circumstances of their concededly illegal presence in this country, and is a direct result of Congress' obviously valid exercise of its "broad constitutional powers" in the field of immigration and naturalization. U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 4; see Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410, 419 (194. This Court has recognized that in allocating governmental benefits to a given class of aliens, one "may take into account the character of the relationship between the alien and this country." Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 80 (1976). When that "relationship" is a federally prohibited one, there can, of course, be no presumption that a state has a constitutional duty to include illegal aliens among the recipients of its governmental benefits. 7 [457 U.S. 202, 247]


In the majority opinion we find: "The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. That was in l982, well before the current flood of illegal alien children which has now overwhelmed and aversely affected those schools with large numbers of illegal alien children.


A new case needs to be filed now that is can be shown that exclusion of undocumented children will improve the overall quality of education for the citizens attending those schools, and relief ought to be sought which demands the federal government to pay for the costs and burden put upon them by the federal government. I cannot imagine a legal argument requiring Congress to finance the education of illegal entrants.


JWK

American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax slaves and forced to finance the personal economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.

Yes, a new case but also a new law. The court erred in this opinion. The dissenters were correct, they were also the smarter Judges at the time and historically recognized as such.

The law needs to be a very broad all encompassing law that reads simply:

1. No person, enterprise, profit or not-for-profit, government agency, political subdivision or organization can provide, barter or sell services or products to any person illegally present in the United States in violation of US immigration law.

Pass this simple law and shut it down.

Originally Posted by Judy

I also believe to over-ride Plyler vs Doe requires Congressional legislation or a new case to overturn it. Best safest shot is Congressional legislation and quicker, too.

Yes, it would probably be difficult to overturn it with another legal case since precedent has been set. However, when circumstances change, the Supreme Court has ruled in contradiction to a previous ruling.

Also of interest, California's Proposition 187 would have voided Plyer vs. Doe in California but it too was overturned by the Equal Clause Protection under the 14th Amendment.

Plyer vs. Doe could theoretically be overturned through another legal case, however, such a prospect is a long-shot. Getting the votes for a bill through the legislative process would also be very tough, but it may easier than trying to overturn it through the courts. Right or wrong, that's my opinion anyway.

Oh, remember though, the Plyer vs. Doe case was decided on a very thin margin. If I remember correctly the vote was 5-4. Once Trump gets his nominee in place, perhaps it will be time for one of the states to challenge Plyer vs. Doe again.

Oh hell, I don't know what the best way to overturn it is ..... just know it needs overturned!

Yeah, but remember on Proposition 187, that never went to the US Supreme Court. And it was not ruled on the US Constitution equal protection clause, it was ruled on as states had no authority over immigration on the basis that the federal government had exclusive authority over immigration, which of course is a big fat lie.

To address this, we need a simple bill that says:

1. Any state or other political subdivision has the authority and power to enforce US immigration law, provided however, that all determinations of fact concerning status are verified by the federal government at the time of arrest or within 24 hours thereafter, and physical removal is coordinated with federal authorities to ensure proper deportation destinations.