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.
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.