Hi, I am Sara from Studymoose Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? With all this said, however, I believe the Court’s experience has demonstrated that the Rodriguez formulation does. The Court’s analogy to cases involving discrimination against illegitimate children — see ante at U. In , California voters approved a referendum, Proposition , that would have denied virtually all state-funded benefits — including public education — to unauthorized Californians. Since the mids, states and localities frustrated with the federal government’s inaction on immigration have passed a range of laws, many of which target unauthorized immigrants. Flores de Otero, U. Indeed, the interests relied upon by the State would seem to be insubstantial in view of the consequences to the State itself of wholly uneducated persons living indefinitely within its borders.

This lesson focuses on the Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. It is not unreasonable to think that this encourages the political branches to pass their problems to the Judiciary. Justice Harlan, for example, warned that. The Court first suggests that these illegal alien children, although not a suspect class, are entitled to special solicitude under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack “control” over or “responsibility” for their unlawful entry into this country. The Equal Protection Clause guarantees similar treatment of similarly situated persons, but it does not mandate a constitutional hierarchy of governmental services.

By contrast, access to the public schools is made available to the children of lawful residents without regard to the temporary Page U. VI If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest.

plyler v doe essay

The court is overstepping dow bounds in finding a non-fundamental right, and a non-suspect class, to require special judicial scrutiny. In the United States, every child, no matter his or her immigration status, has the right to attend a U. No such showing was made here. If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest.

Each of the plaintiff children in that case was represented by a parent or guardian. It blinks reality to maintain that the availability of governmental services such as dpe plays no role in an alien family’s decision to enter, or remain in, this country; certainly, the availability of a free bilingual public education might well influence an alien to bring his children, rather than travel alone for better job opportunities. The Equal Protection Clause was intended as a restriction on state legislative action inconsistent with elemental constitutional premises.


Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v.

Plyler v. Doe | CourseNotes

In the process that led to the case, a school district official told the aunt that she needed to obtain legal guardianship in an American court and that the child could not be admitted to the school if the child’s mother was not a legal resident of the United States.

A defense witness, Rolan Heston, District Director of the Houston District of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, testified that “undocumented children can and do live in the United States for years, and adjust their status through marriage to a citizen or permanent resident. The inability to read and write will handicap the individual deprived of a basic education each and every day of his life.

The court therefore concluded that there was no preemptive conflict between state and federal law. Classifications infringing substantive constitutional rights necessarily will be invalid, if not by force of the Equal Protection Clause, then through operation of other provisions of the Constitution.

By contrast, access to the public schools is made available to the children of lawful residents without regard to the temporary.

Even assuming that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy is wssay, 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.

Almost immediately after Plylerthe Supreme Court heard Martinez v.

Plyler v. Doe :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

The second strand of the Court’s analysis rests on the premise that, although public education is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, “neither is it merely some governmental benefit’ indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. However, this is a choice for the legislature. Because the State does not afford noncitizens the right to vote, and may bar noncitizens from participating in activities at the heart of its political community, appellants argue that denial of a basic education to these children is of less significance than the denial to some other group.


Others have noted that strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause is unnecessary when classifications infringing enumerated constitutional rights are involved, for. Appellants conceded that, if, for example, a Virginian or a legally admitted Mexican citizen entered Tyler with his school-age children, intending to remain only six months, those children would be viewed as residents entitled to attend Tyler schools.

Inthe U. It also states that schools cannot require a social security number by the children or force them to obtain one. The State did not need to concern itself with an alien’s current or future deportability.

Educating About Immigration

The failure of enforcement of the immigration laws over more than a decade and the inherent difficulty and expense of sealing our vast borders have combined to create a grave socioeconomic dilemma. It does not follow, however, that a state eseay bear the costs of educating children whose illegal presence in this country results from the default of the political branches of the Federal Government. The original Plyler case has proven quite resilient, fending off litigation and federal and state legislative efforts to overturn it, and nurturing efforts to extend its reach to college students.

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. Mexican immigrants made up about 59 percent of the state’s immigrants in and about 62 percent in The tendency of a common and easy resort to this great function, now lamentably too common, is to dwarf the political capacity of the people, and to deaden plgler sense of moral responsibility.

Yet we have held repeatedly that the importance of a governmental service does not elevate it to the status of a “fundamental right” for purposes of equal protection analysis. RodriguezU. Texas Ob server, July 12, The solution to this seemingly intractable problem is to defer to the political processes, unpalatable as that may be to some.

A Lesson in Equal Protection:

plyler v doe essay

Author: admin