This white house plans to go through with it regardless of it being voted down, just another violation of the constitution by this administration. In typical liberal fashion, if they cannot push their agenda through the house and senate they will have it legislated from the bench.
If this doesn't piss you off "No matter what side of the isle you're on, then something is wrong with you. It is a blatant slap in the face of every American for this white house to ignore the will of the people.
Actually the WH is complying with Constitutional case law, where in
Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court held that it was a violation of the 14th Amendment to disallow undocumented children access to public education:
Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). [n9] [p211]
In addition to violating the 14th Amendment, restricting undocumented children from public education also violates the fundamental legal principle that children may not be punished for their parentsÂ’ misdeeds:
The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply [p220] with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. 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) (footnote omitted).
Indeed, if the Administration were to deny undocumented children access to higher education, it might be subject to a court challenge it would likely loose. Consequently, the Administration isn’t violating the Constitution, it’s obeying its case law. There is no ‘agenda’ here, liberal or otherwise; merely an understanding on the Administration’s part that rulings by the Supreme Court become the law of the land – Supreme Court rulings are not ‘legislating from the bench.’ It would be a slap in the face of the American people to ignore the Court’s ruling and precipitate a needless, unwarranted lawsuit.
Lastly, the Administration is acting within its Constitutional authority to set policy in its departments as it sees fit, in this case deciding whom to prosecute and whom not to:
An ICE memo obtained by FoxNews.com said the effort would not provide "categorical relief for any group," but would try to prevent "low-priority" cases -- like those not involving convicted criminals -- from clogging the system.
Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, wrote on the White House blog that the review would "clear out low-priority cases on a case-by-case basis and make more room to deport people who have been convicted of crimes or pose a security risk" -- while ensuring the low-priority cases are kept "out of the deportation pipeline in the first place."
Describing groups of people similar to those targeted in the DREAM Act, she said the low-priority list would include "individuals such as young people who were brought to this country as small children, and who know no other home," as well as "individuals such as military veterans and the spouses of active-duty military personnel."
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid praised the decision.
"This new DHS directive will help prioritize our limited enforcement resources to focus on serious felons, gang members and individuals who are a national security threat rather than college students and veterans who have risked their lives for our country," Reid said in a statement. "I am especially pleased about the impact these new policies will have on those who would benefit from the DREAM Act. ... We lose a lot by sending them back to countries they do not know."
No ‘laws’ are being altered or implemented, the Administration is allocating resources as it sees necessary and establishing its own prosecutorial criteria accordingly.
Given these facts, therefore, that neither the Constitution is being violated nor the will of the people ignored, itÂ’s clear that opposition to this policy is based not on the law or facts but on an unwarranted hostility towards children brought illegally to the United States through no fault of their own.
Plyler v. Doe
