Laws dealing with 'illegal immigration' such as education, citizenship and medical care are confusing and convoluted!

 

Yes, it’s legal to strip school funding for illegal aliens

By Allan J. Favish www.americanthinker.com

Because of the current president and the current composition of Congress, we may never have a better opportunity to eliminate federal funding for illegal aliens in K–12 government schools.

Many assert that the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide elementary and secondary education in all circumstances at taxpayer expense to children who are illegal aliens.  In support of their assertion, they cite the 1982 United States Supreme Court opinion in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).  They are wrong.

Plyler arose out of a Texas law from 1975 that sought to deny illegal aliens a taxpayer-funded elementary and secondary education.  Plyler did not state that illegal aliens are entitled to such an education in all circumstances; it described circumstances under which, presumably, it would be legal for a state to deny illegal aliens a taxpayer-funded elementary and secondary education.

Unbelievably, the Supreme Court stated in Plyler that such a circumstance was not present in the record before the court in 1982.  However, such circumstances are present now in every state that is burdened with illegal aliens in elementary and secondary public schools.  These circumstances are easily proved and would be part of the evidentiary record in any legal action involving an attempt by the federal government or a state to exclude illegal aliens from taxpayer-funded elementary and secondary schools.  These circumstances exist when exclusion of illegal aliens from taxpayer-funded elementary and secondary schools is likely to improve the overall quality of education in any government school, make direly limited educational resources available for students who are legally in the country, and eliminate a significant burden on a state’s economy or that of the United States.

Plyler stated that the “Equal Protection Clause directs that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike,” but it “does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same” (216).  Plyler further recognized that children who are legally here are not similarly situated to children who are illegal aliens because the latter are “in violation of federal law” — a distinction Plyler stated is “not a constitutional irrelevancy” (223).

Plyler held the Texas denial of education under the 1975 law would be constitutional if it furthered “some substantial state interest” (230).  But incredibly, Plyler held that “the record in no way supports the claim that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State” (229).  Plyler also held that the record does not support “the claim that the educational resources of the State are so direly limited” that the exclusion is a reasonable solution (229, n. 25).  Plyler further stated, “There is no evidence in the record suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the State’s economy” (228).

Plyler also recognized that although regulation of immigration is an exclusively federal function, a state is permitted to take action, consistent with federal immigration policy, to protect its economy and ability to provide governmental services from the deleterious effects of a massive influx of illegal aliens.  Plyler stated,

Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service.  Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without any power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. (228, n. 23)

Apart from individual states, the federal government would be able to make the showing in court that Plyler stated Texas failed to make in 1982.  According to Education Data Initiative, “K-12 schools nationwide receive $119.1 billion total or $2,400 per pupil from the federal government.”  Obviously, some of that money is being spent on illegal alien students.  This would easily satisfy the Plyler criteria and allow the federal government to deny illegal aliens a taxpayer-funded elementary and secondary education, without conflicting with Plyler.

A new law should be enacted that would cease the federal government’s funding of elementary and secondary education for illegal aliens.  Once the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the law, which it could to without overruling Plyler, the states would benefit.  States would be free to decide for themselves whether they want to continue providing this educational benefit for illegal aliens.  Various states may want to, but they should not say that Plyler requires them to.