Banning Students?

[Unkotare]

Tennessee bills could block undocumented students from public schools

The sponsors acknowledge that their bills are unconstitutional. Enactment could set up a challenge to longstanding federal guarantees of free education.

www.chalkbeat.org

"Undocumented students could be denied enrollment in Tennessee public schools under new legislation introduced by Republican state lawmakers in a direct challenge to current federal law.

The bills are set for debate in the House Education Committee and the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee this week, where lawmakers could vote to advance the legislation for further consideration.

Both bills are unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe, the sponsors of the legislation acknowledge. That decision held that students have a right to a free public education regardless of their immigration status. If passed, the Tennessee legislation could become a test for the conservative-leaning Supreme Court to revisit the decision amid a broader crackdown on illegal immigration by the Trump administration."

 

[DGS49]

Maybe it's time to have the USSC take another look at the presumptive rights granted to young criminals.

The Left, as a matter of policy, seeks to minimize or even erase the distinction between the rights of U.S. Citizens and the rights of others within our borders. Lord knows, if they could get a way to have the alien bastards voting, they would do it.

 

[okfine]

Tennessee bills could block undocumented students from public schools

The sponsors acknowledge that their bills are unconstitutional. Enactment could set up a challenge to longstanding federal guarantees of free education.

www.chalkbeat.org

"Undocumented students could be denied enrollment in Tennessee public schools under new legislation introduced by Republican state lawmakers in a direct challenge to current federal law.

The bills are set for debate in the House Education Committee and the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee this week, where lawmakers could vote to advance the legislation for further consideration.

Both bills are unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe, the sponsors of the legislation acknowledge. That decision held that students have a right to a free public education regardless of their immigration status. If passed, the Tennessee legislation could become a test for the conservative-leaning Supreme Court to revisit the decision amid a broader crackdown on illegal immigration by the Trump administration."

The guy you praise has masked police grabbing students off the streets now. What do think of that?

youtu.be/PuFIs7OkzYY

 

[Unkotare]

Another hamas supporter, it turns out.

 

[The Duke]

Another hamas supporter, it turns out.

Yeah, well. They gotta go.
So do all ICLEI and Soros plants everywhere in America. Their funding and communications need to be investigated if we're ever going to have Democracy on the lower levels again.
Chances are you can't deport the latter.

 

[Unkotare]

Yeah, well. They gotta go.
So do all ICLEI and Soros plants everywhere in America. Their funding and communications need to be investigated if we're ever going to have Democracy on the lower levels again.
Chances are you can't deport the latter.

Seems she was here on a legal student visa, but supporting terrorism is a good reason to revoke it.

 

[Unkotare]

As of this morning, nobody at Tufts knew where she was, but she may be in holding at an immigration detention center in Virginia or somewhere.

 

[The Duke]

As of this morning, nobody at Tufts knew where she was, but she may be in holding at an immigration detention center in Virginia or somewhere.

Well ya know, that foreign disruption of American college campuses has to stop.

 

[Unkotare]

The protests have begun.....

 

[Unkotare]

No surprise. Somerville is a very left-wing city.

 

[The Duke]

The protests have begun.....

About this? What college? Tufts..hmm..
"The roughly half dozen speakers ranged from Tufts undergraduate students to members of the Muslim Justice League, Palestinian Youth Movement and the Immigrant Justice Network of MA,"
"The protest was organized by Coalition for Palestinian Liberation, formerly known as the Coalition for Palestinian Liberation at Tufts, and other activist groups from the Greater Boston area."

Over 2000 protest in wake of student detainment - The Tufts Daily

Students and local activists gathered on Wednesday evening at Powder House Park to protest the detainment of Tufts graduate student, Rumeysa Ozturk, by federal authorities on Tuesday. The protest was organized by Coalition for Palestinian Liberation, formerly known as the Coalition for...

www.tuftsdaily.com

She's getting deported and their phones are getting analyzed.

 

[Woodznutz]

Tennessee bills could block undocumented students from public schools

The sponsors acknowledge that their bills are unconstitutional. Enactment could set up a challenge to longstanding federal guarantees of free education.

www.chalkbeat.org

"Undocumented students could be denied enrollment in Tennessee public schools under new legislation introduced by Republican state lawmakers in a direct challenge to current federal law.

The bills are set for debate in the House Education Committee and the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee this week, where lawmakers could vote to advance the legislation for further consideration.

Both bills are unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe, the sponsors of the legislation acknowledge. That decision held that students have a right to a free public education regardless of their immigration status. If passed, the Tennessee legislation could become a test for the conservative-leaning Supreme Court to revisit the decision amid a broader crackdown on illegal immigration by the Trump administration."

Define "public education". And what is the actual cost of a "free" public education?

Did Plyer v. Doe anticipate two hundred illegal immigrant kids that don't speak English showing up at the schoolhouse door?

 

[Unkotare]

Define "public education". And what is the actual cost of a "free" public education?

Did Plyer v. Doe anticipate two hundred illegal immigrant kids that don't speak English showing up at the schoolhouse door?

Legal rulings don't have to predict the future. They have to interpret the law at the time. If Congress decides to change the law at a later time, that's up to them as representatives of their constituents.

 

[Woodznutz]

Legal rulings don't have to predict the future. They have to interpret the law at the time. If Congress decides to change the law at a later time, that's up to them as representatives of their constituents.

If I were a judge, I would rule that this law was not intended to anticipate an influx of immigrants on this scale.

 

[Unkotare]

If I were a judge, I would rule that this law was not intended to anticipate an influx of immigrants on this scale.

You're not a judge, and for good reason.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Define "public education". And what is the actual cost of a "free" public education?

Did Plyer v. Doe anticipate two hundred illegal immigrant kids that don't speak English showing up at the schoolhouse door?

Research the details of the case and you will find your answer.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)​

Argued:December 1, 1981
Decided:June 15, 1982
Annotation
Primary Holding
A state cannot prevent children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school unless a substantial state interest is involved.
Read More

---

Syllabus

U.S. Supreme Court​

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Plyler v. Doe
No. 80-1538
Argued December 1, 1981
Decided June 15, 1982*
457 U.S. 202
Syllabus
Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Pp. 457 U. S. 210-230.
(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 457 U. S. 210-216.
(b) The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State. Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a "suspect class," and although education is not a "fundamental right," so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status. The deprivation
Page 457 U. S. 203
of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological wellbeing of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement. In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered. Pp. 457 U. S. 216-224.
(c) The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents. It is true that, when faced with an equal protection challenge respecting a State's differential treatment of aliens, the courts must be attentive to congressional policy concerning aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the legislative record, no national policy is perceived that might justify the State in denying these children an elementary education. Pp. 457 U. S. 224-226.
(d) Texas' statutory classification cannot be sustained as furthering its interest in the "preservation of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful residents." While the State might have an interest in mitigating potentially harsh economic effects from an influx of illegal immigrants, the Texas statute does not offer an effective method of dealing with the problem. Even assuming that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy is negative, charging tuition to undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration, at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting employment of illegal aliens. Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education. The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. 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. Pp. 457 U. S. 227-230.
No. 80-1638, 628 F.2d 448, and No. 80-1934, affirmed.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J.,post, p. 457 U. S. 230, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 457 U. S. 231, and POWELL, J., post, p. 457 U. S. 236, filed concurring opinions. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined,post, p. 457 U. S. 242.
Page 457 U. S. 205
Read More

---

Opinions

• Opinions & Dissents

U.S. Supreme Court​

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)Plyler v. DoeNo. 80-1538Argued December 1, 1981Decided June 15, 1982457 U.S. 202ast|>*457 U.S. 202APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCUITSyllabusHeld: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If I were a judge, I would rule that this law was not intended to anticipate an influx of immigrants on this scale.

Thank God you are not! Ignorant people should not be given that responsibility.

 

[Woodznutz]

Research the details of the case and you will find your answer.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)​

Argued:December 1, 1981
Decided:June 15, 1982
Annotation
Primary Holding
A state cannot prevent children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school unless a substantial state interest is involved.
Read More

---

Syllabus

U.S. Supreme Court​

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Plyler v. Doe
No. 80-1538
Argued December 1, 1981
Decided June 15, 1982*
457 U.S. 202
Syllabus
Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Pp. 457 U. S. 210-230.
(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 457 U. S. 210-216.
(b) The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State. Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a "suspect class," and although education is not a "fundamental right," so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status. The deprivation
Page 457 U. S. 203
of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological wellbeing of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement. In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered. Pp. 457 U. S. 216-224.
(c) The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents. It is true that, when faced with an equal protection challenge respecting a State's differential treatment of aliens, the courts must be attentive to congressional policy concerning aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the legislative record, no national policy is perceived that might justify the State in denying these children an elementary education. Pp. 457 U. S. 224-226.
(d) Texas' statutory classification cannot be sustained as furthering its interest in the "preservation of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful residents." While the State might have an interest in mitigating potentially harsh economic effects from an influx of illegal immigrants, the Texas statute does not offer an effective method of dealing with the problem. Even assuming that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy is negative, charging tuition to undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration, at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting employment of illegal aliens. Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education. The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. 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. Pp. 457 U. S. 227-230.
No. 80-1638, 628 F.2d 448, and No. 80-1934, affirmed.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J.,post, p. 457 U. S. 230, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 457 U. S. 231, and POWELL, J., post, p. 457 U. S. 236, filed concurring opinions. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined,post, p. 457 U. S. 242.
Page 457 U. S. 205
Read More

---

Opinions

• Opinions & Dissents

U.S. Supreme Court​

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)Plyler v. DoeNo. 80-1538Argued December 1, 1981Decided June 15, 1982457 U.S. 202ast|>*457 U.S. 202APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCUITSyllabusHeld: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I think if a state lacks the human, financial, and infrastructure resources, they have a "substantial state interest" in denying education to these illegals.

All the rest of the judgment is basically bullshit.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think if a state lacks the human, financial, and infrastructure resources, they have a "substantial state interest" in denying education to these illegals.

All the rest of the judgment is basically bullshit.

That's your stupid, uninformed opinion. It is currently the law of the land as decided by SCOTUS. Your opinion is neither valued nor warranted.

When are you going to realize that you are a peon?

 

[Woodznutz]

It is currently the law of the land as decided by SCOTUS.

The decision is an unfunded mandate of $7Billion per year to educate these kids. A clear overreach by the court.