Posted on 09/25/2011 1:57:43 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009
Maybe Mitt Romney doesn't realize that nearly all of the rest of children of illegals had no choice in whether to live in Texas or not. If they were brought there by parents who were illegal--how is that the child's fault? Is Romney ready to charge those children with crimes? Mass deportations? Even Romney has not pledged to go that far.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
GREAT ONE!
I’m not actually worried about whether or not its the child’s fault.
I want to make illegals so miserable that they self-deport.
You don’t do this by giving their kids “in-state tuition” to your colleges.
Help me some if you are still here.
I have read what you said a couple of times, and I’ll read it again, but could I ask this? It might make it easier when I read it again.
Are the results of Plyler vs. Doe still in effect but flawed in nature or reasoning, causing contradictions in other laws and believed by many that it should be overturned, or do we not have any of that at ALL anymore, completely done away with with no lingering consequences?
It sounds like there were some changes, but I can’t quite understand if that court case still applies or not.
Thanks for any clarification you can provide.
Educating them gets them working and contributing to the state's treasury faster, and is more meaningful than letting them sit on the sidelines
How can these young adults **work** here if they are **illegal**??? Am I missing something?
Maybe the proper action to take would be to work with the Mexican government to get these young adults repatriated with their own country and reunited with the family that remained behind in their country.
Plyler vs Doe is still very much in effect. The decision is bankrupting our schools. Here in Fairfax County we have 36,000 LEP students out of a total of 175,000. There are 21,000 ESOL students, which cost about $3,500 additional on top of normal tuition. One in four students receives free or susidized meals in one of the three richest counties in America. The school budget is $2.2 billion. 53 cents out of every county dollar is spent on education. Alexandria and Arlington are even worse.
For the majority, however, Justice Brennan airily dismissed the Texas law as having means–denial of school funding for illegal aliens–unrelated to its ends of cost control. With that out of the way, he abandoned altogether the idea that legal admission to the United States, or even American citizenship, should mean anything at all— in favor of a compulsory compassion for the illegal aliens he favors at the expense of the Americans he clearly does not:
In addition to the pivotal role of education in sustaining our political and cultural heritage, denial of education to some isolated group of children poses an affront to one of the goals of the Equal Protection Clause: the abolition of governmental barriers preventing unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit. [A worthy sentiment, but one not found in the Equal Protection Clause's text, nor in his quotes from Bingham and Howard.]… Illiteracy is an enduring disability. The inability to read and write will handicap the individual deprived of a basic education each and every day of his life. [xii]
What is striking is the presumption that America's political and cultural heritage is somehow sustained by providing free schooling to multitudes of foreign nationals and that it is Americans' constitutional duty to guarantee foreigners' children educational excellence.
The harm done to American parents and children was never considered. As parents labor to pay ever-higher taxes, their children must share their schools with scores of illegal aliens— most not English-speaking. Or the parents can take on the double burden of sending their children to private schools.
None of this mattered to Brennan. He asserted that American states must school illegal aliens because denying them access to public schools:
…imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. The stigma of illiteracy will mark them for the rest of their lives. 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. [xiii]
Without using the phrase, the Supreme Court here declared the U.S. a "universal nation," one with no borders–in effect, no nation at all. The only requirement for full participation in American life is to get here—somehow, anyhow.
Justice Brennan's final rationale for the majority's result was the most cynical: the Federal government does next to nothing about removing illegal aliens, so it is tacitly granting them permission to stay. He wrote:
Sheer incapacity or lax enforcement of the laws barring entry into this country, coupled with the failure to establish an effective bar to the employment of undocumented [sic] aliens, has resulted in the creation of a substantial "shadow population" of illegal migrants–numbering in the millions–within our borders. [xiv] … To be sure, like all people who have entered the United States unlawfully, [illegal alien] children are subject to deportation. But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. … It would of course be most difficult for the State to justify a denial of education to a child enjoying an inchoate federal permission to remain. [xv]
Plyler v. Doe is a naked usurpation of Congressional powers— as Chief Justice Burger emphasized in his dissent:
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. … However, it is not the function of the Judiciary to provide "effective leadership simply because the political branches of government fail to do so. … The Court employs, and in my view, abuses the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to become an omnipotent and omniscient problem solver. That the motives for doing so are noble and compassionate does not alter the fact that the Court distorts our constitutional function to make amends for the defaults of others. [xvii] … If ever a court was guilty of an unabashedly result-oriented approach, this case is a prime example. [xviii]
The answer to Plyler is political. The 14th Amendment itself says "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." [xx] Contrary to what most people today believe, the Supreme Court is not the sole interpreter of the Constitution. The Congress can and should pass legislation clarifying that the Equal Protection Clause cannot be construed to compel a state to provide discretionary benefits, including public education, to anyone who is not legally admitted into the United States. The legislation should specify that it is not subject to judicial review.
At one stroke, such a law would overturn Plyler v. Doe— and go a long way toward countering the growing belief that we have no choice but to pretend that illegal aliens are in fact American citizens
Making tuition-free K-12 education unavailable to illegals is the **COMPASSIONATE** action to take!!!! That needs to change, even if it means a Constitutional amendment for two reasons:
1) It would make coming to the U.S. far less attractive for those illegals who have children.
2) Having children wandering around during school hours would make these illegal parents and their children far more visible to the community and their likelihood of being detected and deported far greater.
My husband and I are fluent in Spanish. We were asked by our church leaders to help with the Spanish speaking congregation in our county. We have worked **closely** with this congregation for almost three years. This is what I have observed and **none** of it is compassionate:
— Reports of abandoned mothers and children in Mexico and in South and Central America.
—Bigamy when men marry other women here in the U.S. without divorcing their wives in their home country.
—Whole villages and town denuded of the most productive men between the ages of 16 and 50. ( Fewer women)
— Women and children in the home countries left **defenseless** against the predations of warlords and drug dealers.
— Economies of the home country wreck because their most intelligent, productive, and aggressive men are no longer in the country to build businesses and to demand honest government.
Thank you for posting that link. I think everyone seeing this thread should read it and read your highlighted parts (and the other parts too, lol). It looks like information we should all have.
It is very long and lots of legal wording, so I obviously can’t do any justice to it, but I want to show my appreciation for your posting that link and to bring it to other’s attention so as not to appear to be taking any sides on this issue.
***
I did get one little feel from your highlighted segments. It looks like the federal government has relinquished some of its authority to the states because of its inability, or at least perceived inability, to protect our borders and our states. (One reason provided for that change was the concern of additional threats after 9-11). If that is not correct, please correct me. It that IS correct, I think our country should be talking about this. Have we allowed our federal government to focus on so many of the WRONG things that they have given up what they SHOULD be doing? Have we allowed our federal government to grow into some kind of ... something ELSE than what our country’s first leaders and makers of our Constitution intended? If we are letting our federal government divide some of its Constitutional role, is that right for us to have done that, or should we lessen our federal burden somehow to get them back to doing what they SHOULD be doing to begin with?
Those are possibly very stupid questions since I’m not a lawyer nor am I really even a very good reader, but that was something I noticed and wondered. If those questions are legitimate questions, I think some discussions there would possibly help us to get to where we need to with our immigration problems then too.
Thanks again for posting that link. It’s a keeper for anyone interested in this issue!
Dwight D Eisenhower-—Operation Wetback and he did it with some Texas Rangers and and a minimum of other Law Enforcement Officers. The illegal Mexicans just scooted south for the most part once saw the law swing into action. A bonus was they took their anchor babies home with them. These days you can’t get these arrogant reconquistas out with dynamite
America is party town for them, like Las Vegas for them. They come here to make money and party and engage in criminality they would be too scared to do in Mexico
“At one stroke, such a law would overturn Plyler v. Doe— and go a long way toward countering the growing belief that we have no choice but to pretend that illegal aliens are in fact American citizens”
I agree with that.
Many ( most) of the children in our congregation have never met a member of their extended family! No grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins. For most, there is never any hope that they will.
Whoa, even Romney over Perry?
My preferences:
(Top 4 subject to rearrangement.)
1. Santorum
2. Cain
3. Bachmann
4. Palin
5. Perry
3,521. Romney
98,823,962. Paul
6,959,000. V.I. Lenin
T-6,960,000. Obama
T-6,960,000. Satan
Excellent, excellent, it is like the Kim decision, the liberals, think the first part of the decision, about his parents were here legally, does not exist, and that it says all children, it does not.
The Congress can and should pass legislation clarifying that the Equal Protection Clause cannot be construed to compel a state to provide discretionary benefits, including public education, to anyone who is not legally admitted into the United States. The legislation should specify that it is not subject to judicial review.
I changed the bolding to highlight a constitutional point that most Americans are completely unaware of, and which the powers that be desperately don't want them to know. I'm referring to the US Constitution's Article III (Judiciary) clause's provision that is known as "the Exceptions Clause":
Article III - Section 2: “…the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
The dirty little secret that our corrupt political establishment doesn't want people to know is that the Congress has, and has always had, the power to stop the decades of activist judicial abuse and destruction of our rights and freedom, by simply legislating that certain issues are no longer subject to SCOTUS and federal court jurisdiction.
The reason they don't do this, of course, is that once Congress asserts their rightful authority, they also acknowledge their accountability and can no longer hide behind "the courts" for their failure to take action. The Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of our government have been perpetrating a devastating shell-game scam on us for decades: they all claim and exercise the power and authority to order us how to live our lives, but then evade the accountability by passing it around to the other branches.
That Articles III constitutional provision is the basis for kabar's suggestion that "The legislation should specify that it is not subject to judicial review". Every American needs to be educated about this. The Constitution is not "broken", it's not "outdated", it's simply being perverted and subverted by evil people.
Lincoln said: " ... in saving the union, I have destroyed the Republic. Before me I have the Confederacy, which I loath. But behind me I have the bankers, which I fear."
Lincoln is well loved by many but he forever changed our form of government from a Republic to a Centralized Government. which almost immediately morphed into a socialist democracy. That is where we stand today. Can we go back?... doubtful.
Excellent point.
(quoting you)
“If perry was actually smart enough to write a book I might read it. But he is not. When ever you say a person, that is a law breaker, has some how earned the right to special treatment, you are pissing on the constitution.”
And...
really? “pissing on the Constitution”
Was Rubio pissing on the Constitution?
(Miami Herald)
The issue flared up at the last presidential debate when Perry defended a bill he signed in Texas that gave in-state tuition rates to some illegal immigrants who graduated from Texas high schools. Perry was booed by the tea-party crowd.
Rubio, who hasn’t and won’t endorse in the race, might meet the same fate.
“I think there’s general consensus behind the idea that we need to do something to help out kids who were brought here by our parents longtime ago and who have grown up in this country,” Rubio said a few weeks ago, echoing comments and sentiments he made on the campaign trail last year.
“I do think that we need to figure out how we accommodate kids who have something to contribute to our nation’s future. Whether it’s serving in the armed forces or going on to college and graduated who have basically lived most of their lives (here),” he said.
“I would say the vast majority of Americans would say that doesn’t feel right,” to deport or deny education help to a person in a case where “you’re going to go to college and you’re a good student and you’re valedictorian of your school or you’re going to go into the military,” Rubio said. “We’ve got to figure something out. And that’s what we’re in the process of trying to do.”
And Congress just skates along ....
I believe that specific suggestion comes from a piece authored by Howard Sutherland on February 13, 2003, "Plyler vs. Doe: The Solution."
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.