It is the State’s principal argument, and apparently the view of the dissenting Justices, that the undocumented status of these children vel non establishes a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that a State might choose to afford other residents. But if the Federal Government has, by uniform rule, prescribed what it believes to be appropriate standards for the treatment of an alien subclass, the States may, of course, follow the federal direction. The more difficult question is whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated by the refusal of the State of Texas to reimburse local school boards for the education of children who cannot demonstrate that their presence within the United States is lawful, or by the imposition by those school boards of the burden of tuition on those children. Children who do not receive a public education because of a trait that they cannot control the immigration status of their parents will suffer from illiteracy and its associated stigmas for the rest of their lives. The stigma of illiteracy will mark them for the rest of their lives.
Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as “persons” guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In , the Supreme Court struck down the Texas statute in a decision, also holding that it violated the equal protection clause:. It is true that, when faced with an equal protection challenge respecting a State’s differential treatment of aliens, the courts must be attentive to congressional policy concerning aliens. The DREAM Act’s near-passage in — coupled with recent visibility of unauthorized college students seeking its passage and fewer deportations of such students under the Obama administration — suggests the widespread public acceptance of these children in the polity. Los Angeles Times , October 23,
Nearly a third of the state’s children under 18 resided in a family with at least one immigrant parent. By contrast, access to the public schools is made available to the children of lawful residents without regard to the temporary. Congress, “vested by the Constitution with the responsibility of protecting our borders and legislating with respect to aliens,” ante at U.
Post at U. The dispositive issue in these cases, simply put, is whether, for purposes of allocating its finite resources, a state has a legitimate reason to differentiate between persons. State does not claim that the conservation of state educational resources was ever a congressional concern in restricting immigration.
The classes certified in these cases included all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin residing in the school district, see ante at U.
By definition, illegal aliens have no right whatever to be here, and the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expense of those who are lawfully in the state.
It is thus clear that Tyler’s residence argument amounts to nothing more than the assertion that illegal entry, without more, prevents a person from becoming a resident for purposes of enrolling his children in the public schools.
We reject this argument.
;lyler attitude is likely due to a combination of factors. The revision also authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in their public schools to children not “legally admitted” to the country.
Plyler v Doe Essay
In a sense, the Court’s opinion rests on such a unique confluence eesay theories and rationales that it will likely stand for little beyond the results in these particular cases. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter.
These are surely markers of how deeply the roots of Plyler have reached into the country’s soil. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the. Yet a state legislature is not barred from considering, for example, relevant differences between the mentally healthy and the mentally ill, or between the residents of different counties, simply because these may be factors unrelated to individual choice or to any “wrongdoing.
They filed a case on behalf of four families, whom the court allowed to be identified using pseudonyms. The Equal Esaay Clause directs that “all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.
Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure, 1.
Plyler v. Doe :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
In De Canas v. The State provides free public education to all lawful residents whether they intend to reside permanently in the State or only reside in the State temporarily.
We cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests. This situation led to questions about the legal status and rights of these people, who are often referred to as “undocumented workers” or “illegal aliens,” because they have not obtained papers necessary for being in the country.
Instead, regulation of the electoral process receives unusual scrutiny because “the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights.
Plyler v. Doe | CourseNotes
Ezsay, Texas has classified appellees on the basis of their own illegal status, not that of their parents. This article examines the original case and the direct and indirect challenges to it, then looks at Plyler ‘s role in the college-tuition debate, how Plyler could eoe challenged in the near term, and its long-term outlook.
Our conclusion that the illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases may claim the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection only begins the inquiry.
Given the extraordinary nature of the interest involved, this makes the classification here fatally imprecise. The Court makes no attempt to disguise that it is acting to make up for Congress’ lack of “effective leadership” in dealing with the serious national problems caused by the influx of uncountable millions of illegal aliens across our borders. Even Superintendent Xoe Plyler, long-retired from the Tyler schools, recanted his edsay opposition to the enrollment of the children.
Educating About Immigration
Inthe U. By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation. It is significant that the Federal Government has seen fit to exclude illegal aliens from numerous social welfare programs, such as the food stamp program, 7 U.
The Court’s holding today manifests the justly criticized judicial tendency to attempt speedy and wholesale formulation of “remedies” for the failures — or simply the laggard pace — of the political processes of our system of government.