Replies

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.

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 state simply can't ask about your country of origin. It can certainly ask if you reside IN the state or IN a district. It can ask if you live IN the country. What it can't do is make a distinction based on your country of origin. Only congress is empowered to do that or to empower as state to do that. So far, that hasn't happened.

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.

The distinction is clear and irrelevant to this discussion. Keep in mind all kinds of clever schemes have been tried to circumvent the constitution. There is what's called discrimination on its face and discrimination as applied. Discrimination being the unlawful distiction we've been discussing. There is a plate full of cases that deal with residency or what's called prividges and immunities. Anything from milk production to awarding state or local contracts. All have failed in the same way your idea fails the test.