Posted on 09/22/2004 10:59:54 AM PDT by Iron Eagle
Supreme Court ready to deny illegal aliens free public education
A Sept. 7 letter writer urged schools to check the immigration status of students to stop illegal aliens from stealing educational services. This will shock most Americans, but the Supreme Court gave "illegal" aliens the constitutional right to an education funded by U.S. citizens. Now it's time to overturn that decision.
The case that grants illegal immigrants the right to taxpayer-funded education is Plyler vs. Doe. Plyler costs taxpayers plenty of dough. Indeed, with many New Jersey towns paying $10,000 per pupil for an education each year, the cost of Plyler is in the millions annually for some towns. Moreover, the effect of the decision is to entice more illegal aliens to come to our country.
"Just in case you are to PC to read it"
Too PC? Wow. That really bodes well for an intelligent dialogue. If you'd like to share ideas, great. If you're angle is to throw silly taunts because its easier than engaging in the realm of ideas, count me out.
We don't need ALL these immigrants, bet we need far more that are legally allowed to enter. The legal number is very low because the HUGE illegal number is subtracted from the "required amount" before the legal amount is set.
We would be FAR better off if we cracked down hard on illegal immigration, and raised the legal number to EXACTLY to what the current total (legal and illegal) is now.
The reason we would be better of is that
1) Legal tend to be better immigrants. Better educated, better screened, etc.
2) Spreading the bulk of the immigration over dozens of countries (instead of one) would help the immigrants to assimilate better. When 10% of our country is from your old country, you have no reason to assimilate.
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:
All members of Congress should be impeached for not doing their constitutional duty.
Believe it or not, Christie Todd Whitman sued the INS in 1997, alleging, among many counts, that the U.S. had failed to protect the States from an invasion of illegal aliens. The District Court held, which was later affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, that an invasion must be an "armed invasion." I just wonder how that analysis might change in a post- 9-11 world.
Absolutely right. Here's the Netherlands finally waking up to the danger of Muslims in their midst...not bothering to learn Dutch, with no desire to become Dutch in any way. Does this sound familiar? Watching Fox news...We're promising to help Iraqis rebuild Mosul. Why don't we simply replace the whole country with all the modern cons. They'll still complain.
Good point!
Another reason, of course, why this year's election is so very important . . .
That has nothing to do with individual states and communities being forced to pay for public education for individuals not here legally.
If a state is making a distinction of eligibility based on one's country of origin, that is prohibited under the constitution unless that state has been given such authority by congress. I have no idea what 'the ICE' is, but I'm quite confident that it has no such authority.
If the state has a law that allows for free public education, it can't discriminate based on one's country of residence. All the court did was say if you are giving out free education, you can't discriminate when passing out that 'gift'.
That's incorrect.
"IN" implies they came from somewhere else. Making that simple distinction gets your side knocked out of the ball game time and time again.
How so? Abortion was illegal across this nation until Roe v. Wade. Then the Supreme Court ordered it to become legal via their judicial opinion. What part of this is "incorrect"?
Do you really know what you're talking about?
Your analysis is off, significantly. First, ICE is the former INS. Second, ICE makes determinations of lawful status for the purpose of giving credentials, i.e. green card, student visa, citizenship etc. A person who does not have lawful status is guilty of at least one violation, but probably two. In most cases, they are guilty of the criminal act of illegally entering the United States. In every instance, they guilty of the civil violation of being present without papers. (Some came legally and overstayed, thus those are not guilty of both offenses).
States have an absolute right to determine who receives a free public education. That education, of course, is not a gift. It is funded by the lawful taxpayers of each state.
States routinely determine eligibility for student to receive education within a given district. For example, a student living in one town or county may not be able to attend a school in another town or county. Proof of residency is required.
under your theory, a school can deny a student from another jurisdiction within the state from attending a school based on residency within the state, but cannot ask about residency within the Country? Now, the obvious answer is that such a student is entitled to get his or her education somewhere in that state i.e. where he or she legally resides.
States have, or should have, the same right with respect to illegal immigrants. That is, a state is not making a determination of status for an alien, but they are requiring proof that such status has been determined. The distinction is important, and not that difficult to grasp.
By refusing to permit an illegal alien to use educational services, a state has not effected or determined his or her lawful status. Granting status is the sole responsibility of ICE -- as granted by Congress. States certainly, however, have the right to require PROOF of status. The burden is properly on those seeking to avail themselves of public services paid by lawful residents.
Now -- it is also CRITICAL that you and everyone else here understand that while ICE determines status, and that it alone can deport a person, States have the right to enforce many elements "criminal" violations of immigration law. The case law on this is significant, and substantially uncontested.
In fact, a state police officer who witnesses the illegal entry into the Country of an alien may arrest that alien for that crime. Indeed, if an officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual has entered the Country illegally, he or she may question that individual, and if further evidence is elicited, again he may arrest that individual. (One arrested however, only ICE may determine status and deport.)
The case was about a challenge to the Texas statute and the right of a state to limit an abortion. The Court in Roe, ultimately created a Constitutional right to abortion, finding at that time that the state had little if any right to limit a fundamental right to abortion.
Congress, to my knowledge, never took any action. Of course, Constitutionally, Roe is about as suspect a case as one can imagine. It is undisputed that there is no Constitutional right, nor basis for or against abortion. Accordingly, the Constitution provides that the issue be left to the states. The opinion in Roe, had it been judicially sound, could have been written in one paragraph.
Congress, to my knowledge, never took any action.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to recreate your point because this tangent isn't relevant to our discussion. I will say I agree with your first paragraph, I disagree with your second. Congress has passed a number of laws over time to address abortion practices. Were you present when they passed (multiple times) the partial birth abortion ban?
States routinely determine eligibility for student to receive education within a given district. For example, a student living in one town or county may not be able to attend a school in another town or county. Proof of residency is required.
under your theory, a school can deny a student from another jurisdiction within the state from attending a school based on residency within the state, but cannot ask about residency within the Country? Now, the obvious answer is that such a student is entitled to get his or her education somewhere in that state i.e. where he or she legally resides.
Please understand that your example is woefully inadequate. We were talking about a state denying a public benefit based on someone's country of origin. Your example is one of a state providing a benefit to residents of any of the school districts that lie within its borders. A distinction based on where in the state one lives is in no way analogous to a distinction based on one's country of origin. The child in your example WILL receive a state education once they enroll in a school within the district in which they live.
It's a shame that the folks in California didn't know about this substantial case law. Perhaps then Proposition 109 and every other attempt by a state to deny benefits based on country of origin would have survived.
Or more accurately stated, We can refuse to take money from some people (at gunpoint if necessary) and give it to other people (in this case non citizens who reside here illegally) to whom it does not belong, and pretend that whatever they do after that is our fault.
OR
We can invest a little money now to educate them and hopefully they will turn into productive tax paying American citizens in the future.
More correctly stated,,We can take the liberal Democratic company line, misstating the word "spending" (tax money) by calling it an "investment" and applaud a fantasy scheme to raise more tax money from compliant automatons in the future.
One thing is clear. not the Democrats or the Republicans have the intestinal fortitude to deport the illegal aliens but instead both parties propose Amnesty Programs to accept the illegals as American Citizens.
You got that part correct. They will not do the right thing.
You keep introducing separate and distinct issues. The issue you discus has little if anything to do with enforcement of criminal immigration violations.
Having said that, I think there is a great argument to be made, and I am not aware of any municipality or prosecutor yet to make it, that States that provide benefits (e.g. housing subsidies, welfare, day labor out-posts, health-care, etc.) are in criminal violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a), which makes it a Federal Felony to "knowingly" "induce" an illegal alien to come or stay in the Country.
I don't profess to know about prop 109, how it was defeated, or if it went up on any Court challenge. I do know, that the rationale of Plyer v. Dough would make it very easy for any Court to say that the equal protection doctrine extends to not only to protection and due process for illegal aliens, but also extends the rights and privileges of citizenship to those illegal aliens. That is what Plyler does, and that is the law. So in a sense, any subordinate Court -- which is all other Courts, would be justified in reaching the same or similar result on the same issue.
It seems to me, this is the whole point of the editorial. That is, we have a judicial ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that extends certain Constitutional rights to illegal aliens, and that only that Court can consider changing that access.
A point you no doubt realized by my admission of the very same fact.
I am trying hard not to get frustrated, but it seems you do not understand what I am writing.
A state does not confer legal status or award an immigration status by checking for lawful residency. It only asks that the illegal alien give PROOF that such lawful status exists.
In the absence of that proof, no state should be mandated to educate an individual who cannot prove lawful residency -- either within the district or within the Country.
The determination of status is made by ICE. Proof of that lawful status is the burden of the person seeking the services. I hope the distinction is more clear.
When I expressed my dissatisfaction over this problem, I did not intend that it be directed at any individual. My sentiment is that people should not be allowed to come here illegally to have children just so that those children may automatically be United States Citizens. I don't care if they come from Central America or Azerbaijan.
As far as situations like that, my DIL has relatives here who came as illegals, but later got in under the amnesty. They are wonderful people. I would NEVER direct hatred towards them or any of their ilk. "Their ilk" meaning responsible people who work and pay their own bills, never expecting the freebies that's going out to scam artists.
So, as you can see, I was agreeing with the idea (however badly it was expressed), not the hatred. Sorry that I gave that impression.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.