Plyler v. Doe: The Root of All Evil

Creating the Ultimate Magnet School.
Plyler v. Doe: The Root of All Evil.
By N. Beaujon
February 17, 2005

If there was ever a single event that has contributed to the explosion of illegal immigration in our country it was the 1982 Supreme court decision that made it mandatory for every state in the union to educate every single child of criminally illegal immigrants no matter the cost, conditions of their entry, justification or the resources necessary to accomplish this indignation by judicial fiat.

In September 1977 a class action suit was filed on behalf of school-aged children of illegal Mexican immigrants who were residing in Smith County, Texas. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 206 (1982) The action complained of the “exclusion” of the plaintiff children from the public schools of the Tyler Independent School District. 457 U.S. at 206. [1]

Here's the upshot: The reason that these children were "excluded" is because they were in this country illegally. It was a no-brainer. The supposedly sovereign State of Texas was no longer going to foot the bill for the ultimate “magnet" school concept: free public education for illegal aliens. So the Texas legislature, speaking on behalf of the People of the State of Texas, passed a law saying just that. And the Supreme court reversed.

Reversing Texas: Hasta La Vista, Rationale

The Court, finding it impossible to be constrained by the rigors of common sense, fiscal necessity or Constitutional integrity overturned the Texas statute and turned the 14th Amendment on its head. In this case the Justices, as it their habit, again took the Equal protection clause out of context and and wrote in affirmation of the plaintiffs: “The Fourteenth Amendment provides that [n]o State shall . . .
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.” [Emphasis in the original.]

Unfortunately, that isn't what the Fourteenth Amendment says.

What it does say and mean, in full, is:

“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.” [Emphasis supplied.]

The major flaw in the courts reasoning, of course, is that illegal aliens are not, by definition, citizens of the United States. No matter how you parse it, the equal protection clause just does not apply to people who are in this county illegally. They aren't Americans.

The second "issue" is that the court tried to fashion some sort of fundamental right or "property interest" in a public school education, even though this defied all legal precedent. See San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973), which states: “Public education is not a 'right' granted to individuals by the Constitution." The Supreme Court has never deemed an education to be a fundamental right for our own citizens. None-the-less,the court reasoned that:

“The 'American people have always regarded education and [the] acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance." 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973)... Therefore [education] is not “merely some governmental ‘benefit’ indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation.” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 222.

Okay, we get it. By polling American Neilson families the Court proved it was "important" so the Justices determined that it was a fundamental right bestowed by our Constitution. I'm certain the Founding Fathers were really up on the free education for illegal's thing.

Muchos Gracias, American Sucker Plyer goes onto justify its Orwellian decision by discussing the social ills that will result from a “sub class” of illiterate illegal immigrants whose only option in life will be to turn to crime and poor self esteem:

“In sum…. [w]e cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests. …[B]y depriving the children of any disfavored group of an education, we foreclose the means by which that group might raise the level of esteem in which it is held by the majority. But more directly…. Illiteracy is an enduring disability." 457 U.S. at 223. [Emphasis supplied.]

So let's get this straight: By depriving illegal aliens of a free public school education the court "reasoned"- if you can call it that- that you are denying them their constitutionally protected right to self esteem? By denying a "select group" (e.g. criminals) an education you are denying them the means to absorb the values on which our social order rests? Talk about putting the cart before the proverbial horse. I think what our Founding Fathers really had in mind was that you don't reward criminal behavior with State-subsidized handouts, although I can't really prove it. Unless, of course, you consider the 10th Amendment! "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."

The court goes onto quote even worse judicial precedent and from Brown vs. Board of Education we get the following (empahsis definately supplied]:

“What we said 28 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), still holds true: 'Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments... the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. ...[I]t is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms'." Id. at 493. (Plyler, 457 U.S. at 223.)

So, let's get this straight: the cultural values and "foundation of good citizenship" that we are trying to foster can be found in rewarding a non-citizen for breaking the law. These people are illegal aliens and we're concerned about awakening their cultural values? Which cultural values might that be, Mr. Brennan, the one that tells us that America is a vast "melting pot" or the other that insists on cultural diversity and maintains that we are "a nation within a nation". See Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund's (MALDEF) stated goal.[2]

With all due respect these people are criminals who are in this country illegally The people who really should have been “stopped at the border” were the majority at the Burger court. The same court, by the way, that gave us such awful decisions as Roe v. Wade (abortions of convenience, legal on demand), Regents of University of California vs. Bakke (race-based quotas in college admissions, affirmed) and the original Furman v. Georgia (capital punishment unconstitutional, later reversed).

In probably one of the most ironic and inexplicable passages the court then goes on to opine:

“[Education is] the primary vehicle for transmitting “the values on which our society rests." 374 U.S. 203, 230 (1963) (BRENNAN, J., concurring), and… [as such] some degree of education is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system if we are to preserve freedom and independence. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 221 (1972). … [T]hese historic perceptions of the public schools as inculcating fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system have been confirmed by the observations of social scientists. [3] Ambach v. Norwick, supra, at 77.

How much can Americans really be expected to stand? You overturn a patently Constitutional state statute to do violence to both the Constitution and states rights, all in the name of "transmitting "the values on which our society rests."

The Final Word The upshot of Plyler is that the Court made no attempt to even disguise the fact that it was ignoring that small “Separation of Powers” thing which, unlike the “Separation of Church and State” fantasy, really is in our constitution. Indeed, this Court is unabashed in its decision to legislate from the bench.

In the now precient words of the dissent:

“The Court makes no attempt to disguise that it is acting to make up for Congress' lack of "effective leadership" …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.” Dissent, 401 U.S. at Chief Justice Burger, with whom Justice White, Justice Rhenquist, and Justice O'Connor join [Emphasis supplied.]

The Texas case was an outrage but 30 years later no one dares speak its name. That’s because few people outside of the legal community even know of its existence and the rest of the citizenry don’t even know at whom or what to be outraged. Well, this is the target and if you want to bring the entire house of cards of illegal immigration down, my suggestion is that you work to completely overturn Plyler v. Doe, not " in our lifetime" but now.

In the words of the dissent:

"The Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem.. . Moreover, when this Court rushes in to remedy what it perceives to be the failings of the political processes, it deprives those processes of an opportunity to function. When the political institutions are not forced to exercise constitutionally allocated powers and responsibilities, those powers, like muscles not used, tend to atrophy. Today's cases, I regret to say, present yet another example of unwarranted judicial action which in the long run tends to contribute to the weakening of our political processes." Dissent, 457 U.S. at 254.

photos link http://www.teamamericapac.org/ta-tapr-041130-cochise.shtml fashion

[1] A Note on the Back Story behind Plyler:The Real Plaintiffs.

If Americans knew who the real plaintiffs were behind Plyler v. Doe and the various other "immigration rights victories" We have been forced to endure it would make their head spin.

Supporters and Amici to the case were:

MALDEF, (the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund), a group of immigration lawyers cum Marxist-Leninist front group funded, in part by the uber liberal Ford Foundation.

MALDEF is also responsible for Lau v. Nichols, 414, U.S. 563 (1974), the case that brought us bi-lingual education and various other gut-wrenching affronts to our Constitution and national sovereignty, all in the name of "diversity".[1]The Social Contract Press, "Funding hate, Foundations and the Radical Hispanic Lobby, Part III, The Social Contract (Fall 2000)." http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=912&terms=>.

[2]"There is no more un-American organization in the nation than MALDEF. Here is a group that openly advocates for, assists, enables and encourages illegal aliens and the ongoing invasion of our country. They are having a celebration to honor the criminals who do the best job of assisting illegal aliens. We are going to greet them as they arrive. Join us!"[2]the American Resistance, "June 16, 2004 protest at MALDEF annual awards banquet in Washington, D.C." http://www.theamericanresistance.com/thousand_words/pics_maldef_protest_2004jun16.html

"What is MALDEF's goal? According to Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF, 'California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who does not like it should leave.' In 1998, Obledo was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Clinton."

[3] Funding Hate - Foundations and the Radical Hispanic Lobby- Part III The Social Contract (Fall 2000). http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=912&terms=

[4] A Word on The Burger Court

The Burger court loved to quote social scientists of all stripes. In fact, they did so with scientists of every kind. They did it a lot in Roe v. Wade, et al when they concluded that:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer". " Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 160 (1973).
In other words, "Why quibble?"

Note

Also a part of Plyler were "The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law", the National Immigration Project, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Of the later it's been said:

“Its extremism [is] so offensive that even liberals like Robert F. Kennedy and Americans for Democratic Action have denounced it”.
- American Renaissance, “The Open Borders Conspiracy”, Robert Locke, FrontPageMagazine.com, Jul. 15 http://www.amren.com/news/news04/01/28/openborders.html http://www.amren.com/news/news04/01/28/openborders.html

Letters to the Editor