Thread: Should Trump deny illegal immigrants education by Executive Order

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 artist

Unfortunately, they will FORCE higher property taxes, soda taxes etc to pay for this overload of anchor babies being schooled with NOT ONE CITIZEN PARENT! AND SCHOOL THE CENTRAL AMERICAN "FEAR" VICTIMS SUCH AS THE 2 RAPISTS IN MARYLAND TOO.

This is why more Americans must speak out and demand change.

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 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

In regard to Plyler vs. Doe, the court intentionally misrepresented both the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment declares:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.

When the Court says "the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens”, it is absolutely correct. The amendment declares “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” as distinguished from "person". The amendment then goes on to identify a specific protection to “any person” as distinguished from “citizens” and forbids “any person” from being deprive of life, liberty, or property without due process being extended. Due process must be extended before “any person” may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, which is a very reasonable requirement and not in dispute. What is in dispute is the assertion that a State’s public schools must enroll a foreigner who is not a citizen of the United States or of the State in which enrollment is applied for.

Getting back to the 14th Amendment, we come to the wording which commands that “any person” within a State’s jurisdiction may not be denied “the equal protection of the laws” (laws which have been established by a State). Note that these words do not even remotely suggest to negate the power of a State to create “privileges and immunities” for her “citizens” which are not afforded to “persons” who are not citizens of the State or United States.

Denying the equal protection of the laws within the context of the 14th Amendment was not intended to, or does it, prohibit a State from making distinctions based upon citizenship with reference to “privileges and immunities” created by a States. A State’s public school system is within the category of “privileges” which a State may offer her citizens, while refusing to extend those privileges to persons who are not citizens of the United States or of a State in question.


In fact, the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was eloquently summarized by one of its supporters as follows:


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


If a State allows children of illegal aliens who are white entry into its public schools, it must then, because of the 14th Amendment allow children of illegal aliens who are not white to attend as well. This is the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment with regard to state created public school systems.


The bottom line is, there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States which is intended to prohibit a State from exercising its reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment and refuse to enroll a foreigner in its public school system who has entered the United States illegally and is not a citizen.

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

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!