Trajan
conscientia mille testes
As well as the US Constitution.The ACLU and a Rutgers University legal clinic are representing the high school senior identified only as A.Z. in an appeal filed on her behalf in a case they claim violates both state and federal laws.
In Plyler v Doe (1982) the Court held that children can not be punished for the bad acts of their parents:
Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977). Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.
[V]isiting . . . condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the . . . child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the . . . child is an ineffectual -- as well as unjust -- way of deterring the parent.
Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 (1972)
Plyler v. Doe
The student will obviously win her case.
Consequently there is no such thing as an anchor baby, and punitive actions can not be taken against such children accordingly in an effort to deter their parents potential law violations. Indeed, per Plyler, this applies to undocumented children living in the United States as well.
a) so if I had sent my child to a school out of school and used her grandmother as a phony address, and discovered she would not have been sent back to an in school district? Bullshit.
b)the kid is not being 'punished', she is being treated exactly in accordance with laws on the books that apply to everyone else.
c) in effect he/she is asking for dispensation from the rules.
d) if the parents lived in say, Nevada, the answer would have been the same.
e) her parts status as illegals actually, has zip to do with it, its just the usual Proggie sob story used to gin up sympathy.
f) you DO understand why the rule is extent...right?