And these historic “perceptions of the public schools as inculcating fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system have been confirmed by the observations of social scientists. Drop us a note and let us know which textbooks you need. Drawing upon this power, upon its plenary authority with respect to foreign relations and international commerce, and upon the inherent power of a sovereign to close its borders, Congress has developed a complex scheme governing admission to our Nation and status within our borders. A Conceptualization and Appraisal, 79 Colum. Attorneys representing the Tyler Independent School District, the appellants in this case, answered “no” to both of the constitutional questions. Perhaps that is correct, but it is not dispositive; the Equal Protection Clause does not mandate that a state choose either the most effective and all-encompassing means of addressing a problem or none at all.

In , on the 25th anniversary of the Plyler decision, he told the Dallas Morning News , ” Justice Harlan, for example, warned that “[v]irtually every state statute affects important rights. Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website! The State has no assurance that any child, citizen or not, will employ the education provided by the State within the confines of the State’s borders. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site.

But we are unable to find in the congressional immigration scheme any statement of policy that might weigh significantly.

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 esssy affront to one of the goals.

The Court’s analogy to cases involving discrimination against illegitimate children — see ante at U.

Persuasive arguments support the view that a Plylsr may withhold its beneficience from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. Nonetheless, schools are not police, and education officials acting as if they are immigration authorities may drive unauthorized parents even deeper and could undermine parent-school relationships. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 21 In addition, with a school finance system that funds school systems on a complex formula that counts students in attendance, most legislators and school board members have determined it is foolish to vote against the fiscal interests of dos constituents.


plyler v doe essay

The distinction the State of Texas has drawn — based not only upon its own legitimate interests but on classifications established by the Federal Government in its immigration laws and policies — is not unconstitutional. Bynum did not limit Plylerand the Supreme Court has not decided any other K residency-related immigration case since If I were to have been one of those voting on Plyler v Doe, I would have been with the five who had decided that it was wrong to deny these children of their education.

The Equal Protection Clause directs that “all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike. University of Arizona Press. Bynum, which involved a U. The solution to this seemingly intractable problem is to defer to the political processes, unpalatable as that may be to some.

But so too, “[t]he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same. If a parent decides that they are going to illegally reside in a country, a child has no vote whether or not they go.

If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest.

And, after reviewing the State’s school financing mechanism, the District Court in No. Leave your email and we will send you an example after 24 hours The Court first suggests that these illegal alien children, although not a suspect class, are entitled to special solicitude under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack “control” over or “responsibility” for their unlawful entry into this country.

In these cases, the State of Texas effectively denies to the school-age children of illegal aliens the opportunity to attend the free public schools that the State makes available to all residents.

At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But in Rodriguez, no group of children was singled out by the State and then penalized because of their parents’ status.


plyler v doe essay

But that is not the issue; the fact Page U. The issue of residency and unauthorized students, long dormant, could become a larger issue.

History Lesson Plyler v. Doe: Can States Deny Public Benefits to Illegal Immigrants?

Sheriffs Want to Test Immigration Ruling. This exacting standard of review has been reserved for instances in which a “fundamental” constitutional right or a “suspect” classification is present. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause with regard to the children of undocumented aliens, and the lower courts agreed. Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? It is difficult to understand precisely what the State hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime.

The right to vote, of course, is a political interest of concern to citizens. Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not “persons within the jurisdiction” of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law.

Educating About Immigration

He owes obedience to the laws of the country in which he is domiciled, and, as a consequence, he is entitled to the equal protection of those laws. No State may independently exercise a like power. Indeed, even equal protection analysis in this area is based to a large extent on an underlying theme of preemption and exclusive federal power over immigration.

University of Virginia Press. Almost immediately after Plylerthe Supreme Court heard Martinez v.