Students told to prove Texas residency or leave

[ZeroZen]

DEL RIO, Texas - Students living in northern Mexico have skirted residency requirements to attend U.S. public schools for generations, but when the superintendent in one Texas border town got word that about 400 school-age children were crossing the international bridge each day with backpacks but no student visas, he figured he had to do something.

The community is connected by a bridge to Ciudad Acuna, Mexico, and like most border cities, the towns operate in tandem, with U.S. citizens and legal residents living, working and shopping on both sides. All of it is legal, but public school attendance by children living in Mexico is another issue.

"We had several van loads (with Mexican license plates) pulling up at the schools and kids getting out. It's like 'C'mon, it's obvious what's going on,'" said Kelt Cooper, superintendent of the San Felipe Del Rio Consolidated Independent School District.

Complaints from civil rights groups
He directed district officials to stake out the bridge and warn students they could face expulsion if they don't prove they live in the district — a move that's brought complaints from civil rights groups and support from anti-immigrant proponents.

"We have a law. We have a policy. We follow it," said Cooper, whose spent most of his life near the border and is uncomfortable with attempts to make him a cause celebre for either side of the immigration debate. "I'm just doing my job."

Like parents elsewhere who send their children to a better school across town, some parents living in northern Mexico send their children to American public schools believing they are safer and offer better education. Many also hope a U.S. education will provide better access to American colleges and universities.

Immigration status isn't an issue in these cases. A decades-old Supreme Court ruling prevents school officials from even asking about citizenship. Regardless, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, students who use the bridge enter the U.S. legally because they are U.S. citizens, permanent residents with green cards or Mexicans with student visas. Those visas are used by Mexican students who pay tuition, primarily at parochial schools.

But for tuition-free public school attendance, state law requires students to live in the district — a rule that many officials don't rigidly enforce. Some are uncomfortable with following the letter of the law because doing so could deny U.S. citizen children access to public schools. Also, turning away students cost the districts money.

Schools get funding per student
Texas schools get funding for each student. Statewide, it works out to about $9,400 per student, primarily from local property taxes and state supplements designed to balance rich and poor school districts. Additional grants from the federal government for low-income and special education students account for about $920 per student. Cooper estimates his district of 10,000 students would lose $2.7 million if 400 students were expelled.

At the start of this school year, Cooper's district asked that Border Patrol agents count students crossing the bridge one weekday. Agency spokesman Rick Pauza said 550 students crossed, about 150 of them had student visas. The rest, Cooper said, are probably attending one of his schools.

School officials staking out the bridge handed out letters that warned parents they would be required to show proof they lived in the district. Within a few days, most parents offered documentation, meaning their children won't be expelled.

Cesar Casillas, who was picking up his 9-year-old nephew at Lamar Elementary School last week, said some parents were scrambling to find apartments in Del Rio, about 130 miles (210 kilometers) west of San Antonio. He disagrees with what the district is doing.

"These kids have all the rights to an American school," said Casillas, a 49-year-old who grew up in Del Rio.

It's a common argument, though legally, it has little weight.

"Citizenship doesn't give you the right to attend school. Residency does," said Elena Castro, assistant superintendent at California's Calexico Unified School District.

Several years ago, her district strictly enforced requirements that every student annually document residency. The district tried posting a photographer to snap students at the crossing but has since stopped that because it was difficult to identify the students, Castro said.

‘Cheating the system’
David Hinojosa, an attorney for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said he's concerned about students being singled out because they were on an international bridge before school.

Cooper, who conducted similar port-of-entry checks several years ago when he led the district in Nogales, Arizona, said no Del Rio students have been expelled so far.

Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said Cooper's bridge stakeout prevented parents from taking advantage of a "duty-free education."

"It's very obvious the parents are cheating the system. The kids are getting quality education without contributing," he said.

Texas Education Agency officials know that most border communities have some students surreptitiously commuting from homes in Mexico, but there's been no recent effort to count them, said spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe.

"It does cost us to educate these children, but we also get a benefit because we know they are likely to impact our economy in some way," said Ratcliffe, noting that many will work in the U.S. as adults.

‘I'm not going now’
One of Texas' largest school districts, which is in El Paso, checks residency when students enroll, but spokeswoman Berenice Zubia said officials don't look for students at the international crossings that come from nearby Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

Some parents in Del Rio say they're not taking any chances their children could be expelled.

Minerva Garcia, 50, hoped to move to her family's home in Ciudad Acuna to save money.

"If the students are willing to get up early to get across, it shouldn't be held against them," said Garcia, as she waited to pick up her 5-year-old and 8-year-old from school. "But I'm not going now."
Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32958239/ns/us_news-education//)


This man is right, we have to draw the line and enforce it. We getting cheated on taxes...I know we can't take away education from this kids but for panchos sake do the mexican have the guts to fix their own education...?

[Ordie]

Most school districts requires proof of residency within the school boundaries. Usually a utility bill from the home address.

[Tokamak]

"These kids have all the rights to an American school,"

No they don't. If they pay fees for it and get a visa then that's a different matter.

[toki]

DEL RIO, Texas - Students living in northern Mexico have skirted residency requirements to attend U.S. public schools for generations, but when the superintendent in one Texas border town got word that about 400 school-age children were crossing the international bridge each day with backpacks but no student visas, he figured he had to do something.

How is it possible to cross a border unchecked in the first place?
We're not talking about Schengen here. I really don't understand the US-Mexican border.
And how doesn't a school know of the addresses of the students?

[Stormz_STA]

How is it possible to cross a border unchecked in the first place?
We're not talking about Schengen here. I really don't understand the US-Mexican border.
And how doesn't a school know of the addresses of the students?

Only in America ;)

But seriously, if 400 children can pass the border unchecked then all sorts of drug traffickers, arms traffickers and every other type of scum can enter the US without any problems.

[BK9824]

Living in Houston, this hits quite close to home...

This guy is doing the right thing, I don't care who you are or what you say against the policy. I pay taxes to the state of TX and I refuse to pay for somebody else who ISN'T a citizen or legal alien. I understand that the U.S. is the melting pot of the world, etc but there comes a point when enough is enough.

These kids (as sweet and innocent as they may be) are draining resources out of programs that are designed for the children of tax paying and law abiding citizens of Texas and the U.S.

There's no reason why a school's billboard should be in both English and Spanish (which I see on a daily basis). We already have enough Spanish billboards throughout Houston, we don't need a runoff as to what language should be spoken here...

[toki]

Living in Houston, this hits quite close to home...

This guy is doing the right thing, I don't care who you are or what you say against the policy. I pay taxes to the state of TX and I refuse to pay for somebody else who ISN'T a citizen or legal alien. I understand that the U.S. is the melting pot of the world, etc but there comes a point when enough is enough.

These kids (as sweet and innocent as they may be) are draining resources out of programs that are designed for the children of tax paying and law abiding citizens of Texas and the U.S.

There's no reason why a school's billboard should be in both English and Spanish (which I see on a daily basis). We already have enough Spanish billboards throughout Houston, we don't need a runoff as to what language should be spoken here...
I don't even think we need to discuss this. You simply don't walk into another country to go to school. Unless you're in tribal border area of... Rwanda or something like that.

Why not simply closing the borders?!?! It's not outrageous, every country checks people at the border unless you live in a happy intra EU neighbourhood.

Maybe the border needs to be open, to have cheap labor coming over.

It's easier for them to walk in than European tourists who leave dollars and go back after 3 weeks. p-)

[BK9824]

Why not simply closing the borders?!?! It's not outrageous, every country checks people at the border unless you live in a happy intra EU neighbourhood.

Why? Because so much of our commerce goes back to NAFTA and all the cr@p that came with it...

It's a joke when the so called "fence" that's being erected along the state lines is so short and cheaply built that all you need is a blow torch and a makeshift ladder to get over... Actually I take that back - in a lot of places you don't even need that.:|

We have our former Governors, Congressmen, & Senators to thank for the sh!tstorm we're in now.

[Ordie]

For many communities along the border, the border is just an arbitrary line. There's a lot of movement going back and forth. It's not uncommon for green card holders and US Citizens to work in the USA and live in Mexico because of the cost of living.

There are about 50,000 daily commuters going through San Isidro legally every day. People work in San Diego and live in Mexico. Its a win win because San Diego gets labor without the need to expand its housing, the workers can earn a living without dealing with the high costs of living.

From an outsider's perspective, it may seem nutty, but the closer you are at the border, the more rational you become.

[Zarak]

I don't even think we need to discuss this. You simply don't walk into another country to go to school. Unless you're in tribal border area of... Rwanda or something like that.

You'd think it would be common sense, yes. But in America, no, its not. We have 'civil rights groups' which apparently trump both common sense and the law.

[toki]

You'd think it would be common sense, yes. But in America, no, its not. We have 'civil rights groups' which apparently trump both common sense and the law.

And i the European tourist leaving around 2k $ in a holiday need to apply some days before online, fill a tourist visa waiver, leave fingerprints, scan face, and then get taken out of the line for not so nice interrrogation *custody* at JFK - open end "we have time" (happened to me). Common sense. :-)

[MichaelF]

NOTE: This applies to US Citizens, as well. If you don't live in the District, you don't have any claim on tuition-free schooling. Citizen or not.

[jupiter]

NOTE: This applies to US Citizens, as well. If you don't live in the District, you don't have any claim on tuition-free schooling. Citizen or not.
Indeed. So why are de so called human rights poeple complaining.?

[Universal_Soldier]

Mexicans think America is their country and somebody needs to let them know that's not the case. Besides, they treat Illegals immigrants like **** in their country but they want rights in America. Illegal immigrants in Mexico are usually from Central America, and when they are caught, they are jailed and deported without questions. In America, Mexican illegals should be treated like they treat others in their country. That's why these this kinds of story pisses me off.

[Chulo]

Good idea, i think i would write or call to show support

[West Texican]

Mexicans think America is their country and somebody needs to let them know that's not the case. Besides, they treat Illegals immigrants like **** in their country but they want rights in America. Illegal immigrants in Mexico are usually from Central America, and when they are caught, they are jailed and deported without questions. In America, Mexican illegals should be treated like they treat others in their country. That's why these this kinds of story pisses me off.

I agree. I fell bad about agreeing but I do. I happen to like Mexicans and their country but you are correct.

[JJC]

SCOTUS has struck down past attempts by Texas to prevent illegal aliens from receiving public education.

Plyler v. Doe 1982 one part reads " Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZO.html
I'm not sure how they can go around this decision.

[hank]

Read the whole article please.


Regardless, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, students who use the bridge enter the U.S. legally because they are U.S. citizens, permanent residents with green cards or Mexicans with student visas. Those visas are used by Mexican students who pay tuition, primarily at parochial schools.

The issue here is that these kids who live in Mexico and are US citizens are coming across the border to go to school in Texas. They have the right to enter the US but not the right to attend public school for free unless they reside in the district. As JJC's links point out the right to attend free public school in the US is based on residency (where you live) and not citizenship (country of which you are a citizen).

Thus if these kids were illegal immigrants living in the district they have a right to go to public school free. But, if they are citizens that don't live in the district they have no right to go to school even though they are citizens.

Its pretty clear in the article if you read the whole thing. But by all means don't let reality get in the way of a bunch of immigrant bashing.

hank

[Ordie]

In America, Mexican illegals should be treated like they treat others in their country.

Nope you can't do that.
They are subject to the 14th amendment.

[BK9824]

Read the whole article please.



The issue here is that these kids who live in Mexico and are US citizens are coming across the border to go to school in Texas. They have the right to enter the US but not the right to attend public school for free unless they reside in the district. As JJC's links point out the right to attend free public school in the US is based on residency (where you live) and not citizenship (country of which you are a citizen).

Thus if these kids were illegal immigrants living in the district they have a right to go to public school free. But, if they are citizens that don't live in the district they have no right to go to school even though they are citizens.

Its pretty clear in the article if you read the whole thing. But by all means don't let reality get in the way of a bunch of immigrant bashing.

hank

And why again are illegal immigrants afforded the same rights and liberties of citizens/permanent residents?!:cantbeli:

I'm not bashing illegal immigrants... I'm bashing the fact that an ILLEGAL immigrant can get a FREE education on MY dime!

edit - after rereading my first post I realize that I missed the point about the kids being U.S. citizens living across the border. my views remain the same re illegal immigrants receiving a free education

[brainplay]

And why again are illegal immigrants afforded the same rights and liberties of citizens/permanent residents?!:cantbeli:

I'm not bashing illegal immigrants... I'm bashing the fact that an ILLEGAL immigrant can get a FREE education on MY dime!

edit - after rereading my first post I realize that I missed the point about the kids being U.S. citizens living across the border. my views remain the same re illegal immigrants receiving a free education

Answer to your question about how illegals (not those children mentioned in this article who are in fact legal) get a free education:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents.

It was a close decision 5-4, and changed the sovereignty issue into one of discrimination. Like many I also disagree with it but the court has ruled and we have to obey.

[BK9824]

Answer to your question about how illegals (not those children mentioned in this article who are in fact legal) get a free education:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents.

It was a close decision 5-4, and changed the sovereignty issue into one of discrimination. Like many I also disagree with it but the court has ruled and we have to obey.

And that decision is absolutely ludicrous! Let me play the role of an INS Officer (even though I am clearly not one).

1. An illegal alien child registers for school by their parent taking them there and filling out paperwork which typically involves some sort of living address. If the child is an illegal immigrant that was brought over with the parents, they aren't afforded the "birth rights" of normal citizens... they're illegal just the same.
2. Said INS Officer traces the "address" of this family, picks them up and DEPORTS them back to their home country!

Why is it so F-ing hard for people to wrap their brains around the fact these people have broken the law by entering the country illegally and should therefore be deported?!

[Zarak]

Why is it so F-ing hard for people to wrap their brains around the fact these people have broken the law by entering the country illegally and should therefore be deported?!

Most people understand that. I think even the apologists understand that. But apparently breaking the law isn't too big of a deal and if the government actually started, you know, enforcing the laws that they put in place people would cry.

[jupiter]

Answer to your question about how illegals (not those children mentioned in this article who are in fact legal) get a free education:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents.

It was a close decision 5-4, and changed the sovereignty issue into one of discrimination. Like many I also disagree with it but the court has ruled and we have to obey.
Thus, charge the parents with the cost of the education, plain and simple.

[hank]

You guys are really onto something. If the Supreme Court had seen the display of logic and intellect in this thread when they wrongly decided that case i'm sure they would have ruled the other way. Stupid-ass liberals must have really screwed that one up.

Maybe you should nominate somebody to write a letter to Justice Roberts so he'll know how wrong that decision is. I bet Brainplay would do a bang-up job with that. What say you, Brainplay? You up for it?

Let me know if you need any help with the big words.

hank

[BK9824]

Most people understand that. I think even the apologists understand that. But apparently breaking the law isn't too big of a deal and if the government actually started, you know, enforcing the laws that they put in place people would cry.


Oh yeah... forgot about that.

How about my dad cries over the fact that he's worked his a$$ off his entire life, has paid his taxes and has to wait in line BEHIND a mofo who hasn't paid a cent into the system when he's having a heart attack.

[BK9824]

You guys are really onto something. If the Supreme Court had seen the display of logic and intellect in this thread when they wrongly decided that case i'm sure they would have ruled the other way. Stupid-ass liberals must have really screwed that one up.

Maybe you should nominate somebody to write a letter to Justice Roberts so he'll know how wrong that decision is. I bet Brainplay would do a bang-up job with that. What say you, Brainplay? You up for it?

Let me know if you need any help with the big words.

hank

hank,

I don't hold a J.D. and I don't need one to have an opinion on who should be allowed access to the public school system I help pay for.

So what's your stance hank? What are your thoughts on how to fix the problem since you seem to have us all pegged as crazy right-wing numbnuts?

ben

[brainplay]

You guys are really onto something. If the Supreme Court had seen the display of logic and intellect in this thread when they wrongly decided that case i'm sure they would have ruled the other way. Stupid-ass liberals must have really screwed that one up.

Maybe you should nominate somebody to write a letter to Justice Roberts so he'll know how wrong that decision is. I bet Brainplay would do a bang-up job with that. What say you, Brainplay? You up for it?

Let me know if you need any help with the big words.

hank

I don't really get the hostility. I noted that the children mentioned in the article were in fact legal to be there.

However, it was Brennan not Roberts, but I don't think the case would hold up as well today. The vote went pretty much down the lines on ideology with a fairly strong dissent as listed below. I highlighted some of the better quotes for you but had to abbreviate it a bit due to its size. A link is provided with full draft below.

Yes hank, my free public education despite its slowly deteriorating curriculum somehow instilled in me the ability to read and research, with a substantial degree of efficacy, court documents of which some arguments I propose are based. Notwithstanding, a letter of dissent of my person will have little to no standing with the Supreme Court and in all probability will be read by a lowly clerk who shall not even it the preponderance to forward my letter to the authorities mentioned.

Oh an ur a poopie head.



CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, with whom JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, dissenting.
Were it our business to set the Nation's social policy, I would agree without hesitation that it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children -- including illegal aliens -- of an elementary education. I fully agree that it would be folly -- and wrong -- to tolerate creation of a segment of society made up of illiterate persons, many having a limited or no command of our language.


However, the Constitution does not constitute us as "Platonic Guardians," nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, "wisdom," or "common sense." See TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/437/153/case.html), 437 U. S. 194 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/437/153/case.html#194)-195 (1978). We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role as the Court does today. The Court makes no attempt to disguise that it is acting to make up for Congress' lack of "effective leadership" in dealing with the serious national problems caused by the influx of uncountable millions of illegal aliens across our borders.



See ante at 457 U. S. 237 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#237)-238 (POWELL, J., concurring). 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 is a dilemma that has not yet even been fully assessed, let alone addressed. However, it is not the function of the Judiciary to provide "effective leadership" simply because the political branches of government fail to do so.
The Court's holding today manifests the justly criticized judicial tendency to attempt speedy and wholesale formulation of "remedies" for the failures -- or simply the laggard pace -- of the political processes of our system of government. The Court employs, and, in my view, abuses, the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to become an omnipotent and omniscient problem solver. That the motives for doing so are noble and compassionate does not alter the fact that the Court distorts our constitutional function to make amends for the defaults of others.
I

In a sense, the Court's opinion rests on such a unique confluence of theories and rationales that it will likely stand for little beyond the results in these particular cases. Yet the extent to which the Court departs from principled constitutional adjudication is nonetheless disturbing.
I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically "within the jurisdiction" of a state. However, as the Court concedes, this "only begins the inquiry." Ante at 457 U. S. 215 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#215). The Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of different categories of persons. Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/406/535/case.html), 406 U. S. 549 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/406/535/case.html#549) (1972); Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/404/71/case.html), 404 U. S. 75 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/404/71/case.html#75) (1971); Tigner v. Texas, 310 U. S. 141 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/310/141/case.html), 310 U. S. 147 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/310/141/case.html#147)-148 (1940).
The dispositive issue in these cases, simply put, is whether, for purposes of allocating its finite resources, a state has a legitimate reason to differentiate between persons who are lawfully within the state and those who are unlawfully there. The distinction the State of Texas has drawn -- based not only upon its own legitimate interests but on classifications established by the Federal Government in its immigration laws and policies -- is not unconstitutional.
A
The Court acknowledges that, except in those cases when state classifications disadvantage a "suspect class" or impinge upon a "fundamental right," the Equal Protection Clause permits a state "substantial latitude" in distinguishing between different groups of persons. Ante at 457 U. S. 216 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#216)-217. Moreover, the Court expressly -- and correctly -- rejects any suggestion that illegal aliens are a suspect class, ante at 457 U. S. 219 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#219), n.19, or that education is a fundamental right, ante at 457 U. S. 221 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#221), 457 U. S. 223 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#223). Yet by patching together bits and pieces of what might be termed quasi-suspect-class and quasi-fundamental-rights analysis, the Court spins out a theory custom-tailored to the facts of these cases. In the end, we are told little more than that the level of scrutiny employed to strike down the Texas law applies only when illegal alien children are deprived of a public education, see ante at 457 U. S. 223 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#223)-224.



If ever a court was guilty of an unabashedly result-oriented approach, this case is a prime example.
(1)
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. Ante at 457 U. S. 220 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#220), 457 U. S. 223 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#223)-224. Similarly, the Court appears to take the position that § 21.031 is presumptively "irrational" because it has the effect of imposing "penalties" on "innocent" children. Ibid. See also ante at 457 U. S. 238 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#238)-239 (POWELL, J., concurring).



However, the Equal Protection Clause does not preclude legislators from classifying among persons on the basis of factors and characteristics over which individuals may be said to lack "control." Indeed, in some circumstances, persons generally, and children in particular, may have little control over or responsibility for such things as their ill health, need for public assistance, or place of residence. Yet a state legislature is not barred from considering, for example, relevant differences between the mentally healthy and the mentally ill, or between the residents of different counties simply because these may be factors unrelated to individual choice or to any "wrongdoing." The Equal Protection Clause protects against arbitrary and irrational classifications, and against invidious discrimination stemming from prejudice and hostility; it is not an all-encompassing "equalizer" designed to eradicate every distinction for which persons are not "responsible."


The Court does not presume to suggest that appellees' purported lack of culpability for their illegal status prevents them from being deported or otherwise "penalized" under federal law. Yet would deportation be any less a "penalty" than denial of privileges provided to legal residents? Illegality of presence in the United States does not -- and need not -- depend on some amorphous concept of "guilt" or "innocence" concerning an alien's entry. Similarly, a state's use of federal immigration status as a basis for legislative classification is not necessarily rendered suspect for its failure to take such factors into account.
The Court's analogy to cases involving discrimination against illegitimate children -- see ante at 457 U. S. 220 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#220); ante at 457 U. S. 238 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#238)-239 (POWELL, J., concurring) -- is grossly misleading. The State has not thrust any disabilities upon appellees due to their "status of birth." Cf. Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/406/164/case.html), 406 U. S. 176 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/406/164/case.html#176) (1972). Rather, appellees' status is predicated upon the circumstances of their concededly illegal presence in this country, and is a direct result of Congress' obviously valid exercise of its "broad constitutional powers" in the field of immigration and naturalization. U.S.Const., Art. I, § 8, Cl. 4; see Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U. S. 410 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/410/case.html), 334 U. S. 419 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/410/case.html#419) (1948). This Court has recognized that, in allocating governmental benefits to a given class of aliens, one "may take into account the character of the relationship between the alien and this country." Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/426/67/case.html), 426 U. S. 80 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/426/67/case.html#80) (1976). When that "relationship" is a federally prohibited one, there can, of course, be no presumption that a state has a constitutional duty to include illegal aliens among the recipients of its governmental benefits.



(2)
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." Ante at 457 U. S. 221 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#221). Whatever meaning or relevance this opaque observation might have in some other context [Footnote 4/8 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#F4/8)] it simply has no bearing on the issues at hand. Indeed, it is never made clear what the Court's opinion means on this score.
The importance of education is beyond dispute. 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. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/411/1/case.html), 411 U. S. 301 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/411/279/case.html#301) (1973); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U. S. 56 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/56/case.html), 405 U. S. 73 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/405/56/case.html#73)-74 (1972). In San Antonio Independent School Dist., supra, JUSTICE POWELL, speaking for the Court, expressly rejected the proposition that state laws dealing with public education are subject to special scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Moreover, the Court points to no meaningful way to distinguish between education and other governmental benefits


in this context. Is the Court suggesting that education is more "fundamental" than food, shelter, or medical care?
The Equal Protection Clause guarantees similar treatment of similarly situated persons, but it does not mandate a constitutional hierarchy of governmental services. JUSTICE POWELL, speaking for the Court in San Antonio Independent School Dist., supra, at 411 U. S. 31 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/411/1/case.html#31), put it well in stating that, to the extent this Court raises or lowers the degree of "judicial scrutiny" in equal protection cases according to a transient Court majority's view of the societal importance of the interest affected, we "assum[e] a legislative role, and one for which the Court lacks both authority and competence." Yet that is precisely what the Court does today. See also Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/394/618/case.html), 394 U. S. 655 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/394/618/case.html#655)-661 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting).
The central question in these cases, as in every equal protection case not involving truly fundamental rights "explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution," San Antonio Independent School Dist., supra, at 411 U. S. 33 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/411/1/case.html#33)-34, is whether there is some legitimate basis for a legislative distinction between different classes of persons. The fact that the distinction is drawn in legislation affecting access to public education -- as opposed to legislation allocating other important governmental benefits, such as public assistance, health care, or housing -- cannot make a difference in the level of scrutiny applied.
B
Once it is conceded -- as the Court does -- that illegal aliens are not a suspect class, and that education is not a fundamental right, our inquiry should focus on and be limited to whether the legislative classification at issue bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/440/93/case.html), 440 U. S. 97 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/440/93/case.html#97) (1979); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/397/471/case.html), 397 U. S. 486 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/397/471/case.html#486)-487 (1970); see ante at 457 U. S. 216 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#216).


The State contends primarily that § 21.031 serves to prevent undue depletion of its limited revenues available for education, and to preserve the fiscal integrity of the State's school-financing system against an ever-increasing flood of illegal aliens -- aliens over whose entry or continued presence it has no control. Of course such fiscal concerns alone could not justify discrimination against a suspect class or an arbitrary and irrational denial of benefits to a particular group of persons. Yet I assume no Member of this Court would argue that prudent conservation of finite state revenues is, per se, an illegitimate goal. Indeed, the numerous classifications this Court has sustained in social welfare legislation were invariably related to the limited amount of revenues available to spend on any given program or set of programs. See, e.g., Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. at 406 U. S. 549 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/406/535/case.html#549)-551; Dandridge v. Williams, supra, at 397 U. S. 487 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/397/471/case.html#487). The significant question here is whether the requirement of tuition from illegal aliens who attend the public schools -- as well as from residents of other states, for example -- is a rational and reasonable means of furthering the State's legitimate fiscal ends.


Without laboring what will undoubtedly seem obvious to many, it simply is not "irrational" for a state to conclude that it does not have the same responsibility to provide benefits for persons whose very presence in the state and this country is illegal as it does to provide for persons lawfully present. By definition, illegal aliens have no right whatever to be here, and the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expense of those who are lawfully in the state.



In De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/424/351/case.html), 424 U. S. 357 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/424/351/case.html#357) (1976), we held that a State may protect its
"fiscal interests and lawfully resident labor force from the deleterious effects on its economy resulting from the employment of illegal aliens."
And, only recently, this Court made clear that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving the quality of its schools and "the right of its own bona fide residents to attend such institutions on a preferential tuition basis." Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/412/441/case.html), 412 U. S. 453 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/412/441/case.html#453) (1973) (emphasis added). See also Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U. S. 647 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/435/647/case.html), 435 U. S. 663 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/435/647/case.html#663)-668 (1978). The Court has failed to offer even a plausible explanation why illegality of residence

in this country is not a factor that may legitimately bear upon the bona fides of state residence and entitlement to the benefits of lawful residence.



It is significant that the Federal Government has seen fit to exclude illegal aliens from numerous social welfare programs, such as the food stamp program, 7 U.S.C. § 2015(f) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV) and 7 CFR § 273.4 (1981), the old-age assistance, aid to families with dependent children, aid to the blind, aid to the permanently and totally disabled, and supplemental security income programs, 45 CFR § 233.50 (1981), the Medicare hospital insurance benefits program, 42 U.S.C. § 1395i-2 and 42 CFR § 405.205(b) (1981), and the Medicaid hospital insurance benefits for the aged and disabled program, 42 U.S.C. § 1395o and 42 CFR § 405.103(a)(4) (1981). Although these exclusions do not conclusively demonstrate the constitutionality of the State's use of the same classification for comparable purposes, at the very least they tend to support the rationality of excluding illegal alien residents of a state from such programs so as to preserve the state's finite revenues for the benefit of lawful residents. See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. at 426 U. S. 80 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/426/67/case.html#80); see also 457 U. S. (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html) 7, supra.
The Court maintains -- as if this were the issue -- that "barring undocumented children from local schools would not necessarily improve the quality of education provided in those schools." Ante at 457 U. S. 229 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html#229). See 458 F.Supp. 569, 577 (ED Tex.1978).


However, the legitimacy of barring illegal aliens from programs such as Medicare or Medicaid does not depend on a showing that the barrier would "improve the quality" of medical care given to persons lawfully entitled to participate in such programs. Modern education, like medical care, is enormously expensive, and there can be no doubt that very large added costs will fall on the State or its local school districts as a result of the inclusion of illegal aliens in the tuition-free public schools.

Full concurrence and dissent can be found at the following link: http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html

[Ordie]

The solution is to get rid of school districts have a single national educational system regardless of municipal, state, and country boundaries.

That way you don't need to prove local residency for local schools.

[Mastermind]

I say all the costs of tuition, the $9,400.00 per year per student should be paid out of the billions of bucks the US lavishes Mexico with in various "foreign aid" grants.

Every year the elected morons of our country, include a certain amount of dollars for law enforcement, military, drug interdiction...emergency aid for medical treatment for children, water quality, Rio-Grand pollution abatement, and border city pollution controls. Most of that money is never spent on the projects it is intended for...in reality, it is a "diplomatic leverage" to get Mexico to grudgingly cooperate with US consulates on business, legal wrangling (like extraditions), and various international disputes. If that money started to be drained by thousands of Mexican kids hiking across the border to lap up US education, then I think Mexico would start taking action...there is no way, "Senior Rodriguez" big shot border hustler politician is going to let Mexican school kids take yanqui dollars from his personal pocket.

[brainplay]

The solution is to get rid of school districts have a single national educational system regardless of municipal, state, and country boundaries.

That way you don't need to prove local residency for local schools.

That's a solution looking for a problem. Its also another federal intervention into state business. That won't fly with a lot of states. Especially when the rather large tax hikes that will follow to pay for a national program become apparent. Your favorite subject aka "unions" will no doubtedly rail against that as well since it will diminish their footholds and arbitration power. Government unions cannot pull the same kind of shenanigans as say the NY Teachers Union.

[Zarak]

The solution is to get rid of school districts have a single national educational system regardless of municipal, state, and country boundaries.

That way you don't need to prove local residency for local schools.

Boy you sure don't know much about the Constitution do you.

Specifically, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. "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."

Guess what isn't one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government.

[deagle]

education is for citizens.

we can't goto mexico and goto university there w/o permission, student visa or similar.

[Rayber]

education is for citizens.

we can't goto mexico and goto university there w/o permission, student visa or similar.

The thing is , these people hold US Passports , they are not immigrants .