Eric Holder: Public Schools, You will Enroll Children of Illegal Immigrants!

[Harry Dresden]

I think a lot of people posting in this thread seemed to have missed the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that states MUST provide education to undocumented aliens back in 1982.

This isn't anything new.

you can say illegal aliens Doc....

 

[johnwk]

.
.
SEE: Feds to schools: You must accept children of undocumented immigrants

”The Justice and Education Departments are teaming up to remind public schools that they are required to provide all children with equal access to education at the elementary and secondary level regardless of their parents' or guardians' citizenship or immigration status.”


Of course, Eric Holder, is relying upon a 1982 Supreme Court opinion, Plyler vs. Doe, in which the court intentionally misrepresented both the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment declares:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When the Court says "the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens” as distinguished from “persons”, it is absolutely correct. The amendment declares “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. But the amendment then goes on to extend a specific protection to “any person” as distinguished from “citizens” and forbids “any person” from being deprive of life, liberty, or property without due process being extended. Due process must be extended before “any person” may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, which is a very reasonable requirement and not in dispute. What is in dispute is Eric Holder’s assertion that a State’s public schools must enroll a foreigner who is not a citizen of the United States or of the State in which enrollment is applied for.

Getting back to the 14th Amendment, we come the wording which commands that “any person” within a State’s jurisdiction may not be denied “the equal protection of the laws” which have been established by a State. Note that these words do not even remotely suggest to negate the power of a State to create “privileges and immunities” for her “citizens” which are not afforded to “persons” who are not citizens. But the words do forbid a state to deny the equal protection of the laws, e.g., if a State decides to issue a driver’s learner’s permit to citizens of their state at the age of 16, then it may not refuse such a permit to any person who is a citizen based upon race or color to be in compliance with the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. But denying the equal protection of the laws within the context of the 14th Amendment was not intended to, or does it, prohibit a State from making distinctions based upon citizenship with reference to “privileges and immunities” created by a States. A State’s public school system is within the category of “privileges” which a State may offer her citizens, and under the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent that privilege may not be denied to a State’s citizens based upon race or color. But it can be denied to those who are not citizens of the united States or of the state in question!

In fact, the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was eloquently summarized by one of its supporters as follows:


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293



The bottom line is, there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States which prohibits a State from exercising its reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment and refuse to enroll a foreigner in its public school system who has entered the United States illegally and is not a citizen. Each State would do well to tell Eric Holder to go fly a kite and refuse to enroll any child whose parents are unable to show their child is a Citizen of the United States and of the State in which they reside and wish to enroll that child in its public school system.


JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

I'm not saying these kids should be coming in, or that they shouldn't be deported unless there's some inhuman situation in their country and if they have someone legally here who will be financially and parentally responsible for them.

But, I don't see the point of your thread/OP. It's been the law for at least 30 years now that illegal alien kids get educations. I'm all for COMPREHENSIVE reform, but if you're just picking this issue out of the entire thing, it seems ... incomplete.

Actually, Plyler vs. Doe was one of the first cases I studied when doing a research paper at the University of Maryland back in the 80s. The point of the OP is that there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States, including the 14th Amendment, which prohibits a State from exercising its reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment and refuse to enroll a foreigner in its public school system who has entered the United States illegally and is not a citizen. Each State would do well to tell Eric Holder to go fly a kite and refuse to enroll any child whose parents are unable to show their child is a Citizen of the United States and of the State in which they reside and wish to enroll that child in its public school system.

Do you not support our Constitution and enforcing its legislative intent? Keep in mind that our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and only those laws which are made in pursuance thereof. Law to the contrary are absolutely null and void!

JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[johnwk]

It's a "fact" that the Supreme Court ruled the way they did.

That they ruled incorrectly is your opinion, not "fact".

Oh. but I did lay out the facts in the OP. If you are in disagreement with any of the facts I posted concerning the 14th Amendment, feel free to post your objections and supportive documentation.


JWK

 

[rdean]

many kids in South Central run from danger every day just getting to school and back again....

And that's what we should send them back to? Just asking.

did not think you would care or understand what i said....but then you have proven like so many other people here that you only "care" about people if you can bad mouth your favorite political party otherwise....you can give a shit....

Hmmm, you say "many kids in South Central run from danger every day just getting to school and back again...."

Then I say, "And that's what we should send them back to? Just asking."

And then you:

 

[S.J.]

I think a lot of people posting in this thread seemed to have missed the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that states MUST provide education to undocumented aliens back in 1982.

This isn't anything new.

Doesn't mean its right.

Nonsense, of course it's right.

We don't want politicians deciding who is a citizen or who will have his due process rights.

We don't want politicians deciding our healthcare options either, but I haven't heard you complain about that.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

.
.

The bottom line is, there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States which prohibits a State from exercising its reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment and refuse to enroll a foreigner in its public school system who has entered the United States illegally and is not a citizen. Each State would do well to tell Eric Holder to go fly a kite and refuse to enroll any child whose parents are unable to show their child is a Citizen of the United States and of the State in which they reside and wish to enroll that child in its public school system.
]

That's what conservatives have been saying for years. According to the tenth amendment, education is entirely a state matter and states need to say that.

Let me add that the first 7 words of the constitution are "we the people of the united states" and that makes it clear that the word "people" means citizens.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If the 14th amendment says everybody gets equal protection then why is affirmative action allowed.?

 

[Harry Dresden]

And that's what we should send them back to? Just asking.

did not think you would care or understand what i said....but then you have proven like so many other people here that you only "care" about people if you can bad mouth your favorite political party otherwise....you can give a shit....

Hmmm, you say "many kids in South Central run from danger every day just getting to school and back again...."

Then I say, "And that's what we should send them back to? Just asking."

And then you:

like you give a shit about those kids being shot at here or in Central America....you have shown as much sympathy for them as your buddies on the far right....

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Keep in mind that our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and only those laws which are made in pursuance thereof. Law to the contrary are absolutely null and void!
]

Which brings up the question of who decides if a law is unconstitutional or not? The federal courts have GRANTED themselves that power but the constitution does not say who should make the decision. By the tenth amendment that means the states have it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is pathetic are those who give their allegiance to a Supreme Courts written opinion rather than the words of our Constitution and their intended meaning as documented from the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified.

What is pathetic is the ignorance exhibited by you and others on the right where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means as authorized by the Constitution and doctrine of judicial review.

What is pathetic is the hate exhibited by you and others on the right where you seek to violate the 14th Amendment by denying undocumented immigrants their due process rights for no other reason than who they are.

And what is pathetic is the contempt you and others on the right exhibit toward the rule of law and the inalienable rights of all persons within the United States, where you would have politicians, bureaucrats, and capricious referenda determine who is or is not a citizen, and who will or will not have his inalienable rights.

 

[S.J.]

What is pathetic are those who give their allegiance to a Supreme Courts written opinion rather than the words of our Constitution and their intended meaning as documented from the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified.

What is pathetic is the ignorance exhibited by you and others on the right where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means as authorized by the Constitution and doctrine of judicial review.

What is pathetic is the hate exhibited by you and others on the right where you seek to violate the 14th Amendment by denying undocumented immigrants their due process rights for no other reason than who they are.

And what is pathetic is the contempt you and others on the right exhibit toward the rule of law and the inalienable rights of all persons within the United States, where you would have politicians, bureaucrats, and capricious referenda determine who is or is not a citizen, and who will or will not have his inalienable rights.

What's pathetic is the twisting of words and meanings to justify the left's violations of the Constitution and the spirit in which it was written. The left interprets it through the prism of political correctness. Nobody gave a shit about political correctness back then, especially the founding fathers. You embrace a perverted view of what this country should be.

 

[johnwk]

What is pathetic are those who give their allegiance to a Supreme Courts written opinion rather than the words of our Constitution and their intended meaning as documented from the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified.

What is pathetic is the ignorance exhibited by you and others on the right where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means as authorized by the Constitution and doctrine of judicial review.

What is pathetic is the hate exhibited by you and others on the right where you seek to violate the 14th Amendment by denying undocumented immigrants their due process rights for no other reason than who they are.

And what is pathetic is the contempt you and others on the right exhibit toward the rule of law and the inalienable rights of all persons within the United States, where you would have politicians, bureaucrats, and capricious referenda determine who is or is not a citizen, and who will or will not have his inalienable rights.

Court decisions which are not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which a provision of our Constitution was adopted are absolutely null and void!


I suggest you study the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, the primary rule being stated as follows:



The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.



JWK





Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Harry Dresden]

What is pathetic are those who give their allegiance to a Supreme Courts written opinion rather than the words of our Constitution and their intended meaning as documented from the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified.

What is pathetic is the ignorance exhibited by you and others on the right where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means as authorized by the Constitution and doctrine of judicial review.

What is pathetic is the hate exhibited by you and others on the right where you seek to violate the 14th Amendment by denying undocumented immigrants their due process rights for no other reason than who they are.

And what is pathetic is the contempt you and others on the right exhibit toward the rule of law and the inalienable rights of all persons within the United States, where you would have politicians, bureaucrats, and capricious referenda determine who is or is not a citizen, and who will or will not have his inalienable rights.

No_Reply_Jones strikes again....the most irrelevant poster in this forum....

 

[johnwk]

What is pathetic are those who give their allegiance to a Supreme Courts written opinion rather than the words of our Constitution and their intended meaning as documented from the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified.

What is pathetic is the ignorance exhibited by you and others on the right where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means as authorized by the Constitution and doctrine of judicial review.

What is pathetic is the hate exhibited by you and others on the right where you seek to violate the 14th Amendment by denying undocumented immigrants their due process rights for no other reason than who they are.

And what is pathetic is the contempt you and others on the right exhibit toward the rule of law and the inalienable rights of all persons within the United States, where you would have politicians, bureaucrats, and capricious referenda determine who is or is not a citizen, and who will or will not have his inalienable rights.

No_Reply_Jones strikes again....the most irrelevant poster in this forum....

Jones has a long history here of throwing bombs, posting absurd and insulting remarks, and when presented with truth and documented facts which contradict his absurdities, there is no intelligent rebuttal.


JWK



Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[bendog]

What is pathetic are those who give their allegiance to a Supreme Courts written opinion rather than the words of our Constitution and their intended meaning as documented from the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified.

What is pathetic is the ignorance exhibited by you and others on the right where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means as authorized by the Constitution and doctrine of judicial review.

What is pathetic is the hate exhibited by you and others on the right where you seek to violate the 14th Amendment by denying undocumented immigrants their due process rights for no other reason than who they are.

And what is pathetic is the contempt you and others on the right exhibit toward the rule of law and the inalienable rights of all persons within the United States, where you would have politicians, bureaucrats, and capricious referenda determine who is or is not a citizen, and who will or will not have his inalienable rights.

Court decisions which are not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which a provision of our Constitution was adopted are absolutely null and void!


I suggest you study the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, the primary rule being stated as follows:



The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.



JWK





Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

null and void is null and void

However, if the gop had any interest in compromise, this would be a non-issue because there'd be a way to fast track deportation.

 

[Redfish]

What is pathetic is the ignorance exhibited by you and others on the right where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means as authorized by the Constitution and doctrine of judicial review.

What is pathetic is the hate exhibited by you and others on the right where you seek to violate the 14th Amendment by denying undocumented immigrants their due process rights for no other reason than who they are.

And what is pathetic is the contempt you and others on the right exhibit toward the rule of law and the inalienable rights of all persons within the United States, where you would have politicians, bureaucrats, and capricious referenda determine who is or is not a citizen, and who will or will not have his inalienable rights.

Court decisions which are not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which a provision of our Constitution was adopted are absolutely null and void!


I suggest you study the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, the primary rule being stated as follows:



The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.



JWK





Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

null and void is null and void

However, if the gop had any interest in compromise, this would be a non-issue because there'd be a way to fast track deportation.

the truth is that both parties are scared shitless of losing the hispanic vote, so neither will do anything and our country is being overrun by disease carrying illegals, many of whom are dedicated to the destruction of this country.

THIS IS FUCKIN LUNACY.

 

[bendog]

That's true, Fish.

But, I think its more than that for the GOP. If they'd offer to accept some form of amnesty in exchange for whatever legal status we gave these folks to include no voting rights for anyone who came here illegally, I think the dems would have to take it.

I'm all for patrolling the borders. But the only way to actually be able to deport the folks we really need to deport, for our own security, is to shorten the deportation lines.

The kids are just an example. If a kid has a horror story back wherever he came from, but also has an employed family member here willing to care for him/her, why send him back? I can see we don't need more wards of the state, and if the kid's a hardened criminal, we don't want him. But if the kid has not committed some violent crime inside the US, and has a family of sorts, it makes no sense to me to add to the backlog of deportation cases that frankly are never gonna be heard anyway.

 

[RKMBrown]

.
.
SEE: Feds to schools: You must accept children of undocumented immigrants

”The Justice and Education Departments are teaming up to remind public schools that they are required to provide all children with equal access to education at the elementary and secondary level regardless of their parents' or guardians' citizenship or immigration status.”


Of course, Eric Holder, is relying upon a 1982 Supreme Court opinion, Plyler vs. Doe, in which the court intentionally misrepresented both the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment declares:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When the Court says "the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens” as distinguished from “persons”, it is absolutely correct. The amendment declares “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. But the amendment then goes on to extend a specific protection to “any person” as distinguished from “citizens” and forbids “any person” from being deprive of life, liberty, or property without due process being extended. Due process must be extended before “any person” may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, which is a very reasonable requirement and not in dispute. What is in dispute is Eric Holder’s assertion that a State’s public schools must enroll a foreigner who is not a citizen of the United States or of the State in which enrollment is applied for.

Getting back to the 14th Amendment, we come the wording which commands that “any person” within a State’s jurisdiction may not be denied “the equal protection of the laws” which have been established by a State. Note that these words do not even remotely suggest to negate the power of a State to create “privileges and immunities” for her “citizens” which are not afforded to “persons” who are not citizens. But the words do forbid a state to deny the equal protection of the laws, e.g., if a State decides to issue a driver’s learner’s permit to citizens of their state at the age of 16, then it may not refuse such a permit to any person who is a citizen based upon race or color to be in compliance with the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. But denying the equal protection of the laws within the context of the 14th Amendment was not intended to, or does it, prohibit a State from making distinctions based upon citizenship with reference to “privileges and immunities” created by a States. A State’s public school system is within the category of “privileges” which a State may offer her citizens, and under the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent that privilege may not be denied to a State’s citizens based upon race or color. But it can be denied to those who are not citizens of the united States or of the state in question!

In fact, the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was eloquently summarized by one of its supporters as follows:


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293



The bottom line is, there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States which prohibits a State from exercising its reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment and refuse to enroll a foreigner in its public school system who has entered the United States illegally and is not a citizen. Each State would do well to tell Eric Holder to go fly a kite and refuse to enroll any child whose parents are unable to show their child is a Citizen of the United States and of the State in which they reside and wish to enroll that child in its public school system.


JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

If the state accepts federal money for education they have to accept the federal rules laid on them to continue to receive federal money for education. The feds use said leverage to force the states to comply with the federal vision for education.

So you have a choice, do it the way the feds want it and accept the money back that the feds taxed from the payrolls of your state's citizens, or you can not accept the money and let the taxes paid by your state's citizens go to other states who do accept the money. Either way you're gonna pay for it.

 

[AmericanFirst]

What is pathetic is the ignorance exhibited by you and others on the right where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means as authorized by the Constitution and doctrine of judicial review.

What is pathetic is the hate exhibited by you and others on the right where you seek to violate the 14th Amendment by denying undocumented immigrants their due process rights for no other reason than who they are.

And what is pathetic is the contempt you and others on the right exhibit toward the rule of law and the inalienable rights of all persons within the United States, where you would have politicians, bureaucrats, and capricious referenda determine who is or is not a citizen, and who will or will not have his inalienable rights.

Court decisions which are not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which a provision of our Constitution was adopted are absolutely null and void!


I suggest you study the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, the primary rule being stated as follows:



The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.



JWK





Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

null and void is null and void

However, if the gop had any interest in compromise, this would be a non-issue because there'd be a way to fast track deportation.

If dimwits like obamashitforbrains followed the Constitution we would be better off.

 

[AmericanFirst]

That's true, Fish.

But, I think its more than that for the GOP. If they'd offer to accept some form of amnesty in exchange for whatever legal status we gave these folks to include no voting rights for anyone who came here illegally, I think the dems would have to take it.

I'm all for patrolling the borders. But the only way to actually be able to deport the folks we really need to deport, for our own security, is to shorten the deportation lines.

The kids are just an example. If a kid has a horror story back wherever he came from, but also has an employed family member here willing to care for him/her, why send him back? I can see we don't need more wards of the state, and if the kid's a hardened criminal, we don't want him. But if the kid has not committed some violent crime inside the US, and has a family of sorts, it makes no sense to me to add to the backlog of deportation cases that frankly are never gonna be heard anyway.

Stop them at the border first.