"United States is lawful, or by the imposition by those school boards of the burden of tuition on those children. In July 1977, it adopted a policy requiring undocumented children to pay a "full tuition fee" in order to enroll.
Citation. "(b) Every child in this state who is a citizen of the United States or a legally admitted alien and who is over the age of five years and not over the age of 21 years on the first day of September of the year in which admission is sought shall be permitted to attend the public free schools of the district in which he resides or in which his parent, guardian, or the person having lawful control of him resides at the time he applies for admission.Because I believe that the Court's carefully worded analysis recognizes the importance of the equal protection and preemption interests I consider crucial, I join its opinion as well as its judgment.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 who are lawfully within the state and those who are unlawfully there.
The right to an education, in contrast, is a social benefit of relevance to a substantial number of those affected by Texas' statutory scheme, as is discussed below.Rehearings Denied Sept. 9, 1982.Despite the enactment of § 21.031 in 1975, the School District had continued to enroll undocumented children free of charge until the 1977-1978 school year. and all men." But that is not the issue; the factIt is arguable, of course, that the Court never should have applied fundamental rights doctrine in the fashion outlined above. A State may not, however, accomplish what would otherwise be prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause merely by defining a disfavored group as nonresident. 31-32. Justice Harlan, for example, warned thatIn a sense, the Court's opinion rests on such a unique confluence of theories and rationales that it will likely stand for little beyond the results in these particular cases. A state has no power to prevent unlawful immigration, and no power to deport illegal aliens; those powers are reserved exclusively to Congress and the Executive. Facts of the case. . Even assuming that such an interest is legitimate, it is an interest that is most difficult to quantify. "The Fourteenth Amendment provides thatDespite the enactment of § 21.031 in 1975, the School District had continued to enroll undocumented children free of charge until the 1977-1978 school year. "The "fundamental rights" aspect of the Court's equal protection analysis -- the now-familiar concept that governmental classifications bearing on certain interests must be closely scrutinized -- has been the subject of some controversy. Neither is there any merit to the claim that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence within the United States renders them less likely than other children to remain within the State's boundaries and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State.
"Senator Howard, also a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, and the floor manager of the Amendment in the Senate, was no less explicit about the broad objectives of the Amendment, and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a State:"credible supporting evidence that a proportionately small diminution of the funds spent on each child [which might result from devoting some state funds to the education of the excluded group] will have a grave impact on the quality of education. James PLYLER, Superintendent of the Tyler Independent School District and Its Board of Trustees et al., Appellants, v. J. and R. DOE et al.
4, of the Constitution provides: "The Congress shall have Power .
Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . at 577.
John C. Hardy Argued the cause for the appellants in Plyler v. Doe. "Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1981) (testimony of William French Smith, Attorney General).Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Plyler v. Doe. Other estimates run as high as 12 million. This law also authorized local school districts to deny entry in … 80-1934, affirmed.Finally, appellants suggest that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence"the absolute deprivation of education should trigger strict judicial scrutiny, particularly when the absolute deprivation is the result of complete inability to pay for the desired benefit. …
condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. 501 F. Supp. . Yet that appears to be precisely the effect of § 21.031.Representative Bingham's views are also reflected in his comments on the Civil Rights Bill of 1866. 031, we may appropriately take into account its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children who are its victims. The Court employs, and, in my view, abuses, the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to become an omnipotent and omniscient problem solver.
.