U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-12-2013, 02:40 PM
 
Location: texas
9,138 posts, read 6,481,610 times
Reputation: 2372

Advertisements

Jutice Blackmun
Quote:
No. 80-1538 Argued: December 1, 1981 --- Decided: June 15, 1982 [*]JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring.I join the opinion and judgment of the Court.Like JUSTICE POWELL, I believe that the children involved in this litigation "should not be left on the streets uneducated." Post at 238. I write separately, however, because, in my view, the nature of the interest at stake is crucial to the proper resolution of these cases.
Quote:
In my view, when the State provides an education to some and denies it to others, it immediately and inevitably creates class distinctions of a type fundamentally inconsistent with those purposes, mentioned above, of the Equal Protection Clause. Children denied an education are placed at a permanent and insurmountable competitive disadvantage, for an uneducated child is denied even the opportunity to achieve. And when those children are members of an identifiable group, that group -- through the State's action -- will have been converted into a discrete underclass.
JUSTICE POWELL, concurring.

Quote:
These children thus have been [p239] singled out for a lifelong penalty and stigma. A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents cannot be reconciled with one of the fundamental purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In these unique circumstances, the Court properly may require that the State's interests be substantial and that the means bear a "fair and substantial relation" to these interests.
Quote:
In reaching this conclusion, I am not unmindful of what must be the exasperation of responsible citizens and government authorities in Texas and other States similarly situated. Their responsibility, if any, for the influx of aliens is slight compared to that imposed by the Constitution on the Federal Government. [n6] So long as the ease of entry remains inviting, [p241] and the power to deport is exercised infrequently by the Federal Government, the additional expense of admitting these children to public schools might fairly be shared by the Federal and State Governments. But it hardly can be argued rationally that anyone benefits from the creation within our borders of a subclass of illiterate persons, many of whom will remain in the State, adding to the problems and costs of both State and National Governments attendant upon unemployment, welfare, and crime.
JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Quote:
Finally, the court noted that, under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," [n4] and that, without an education, these undocumented [p208] children,
[a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class.
Quote:
Public education is not a "right" granted to individuals by the Constitution. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973). But neither is it merely some governmental "benefit" indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child mark the distinction. The "American people have always regarded education and [the] acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance." 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973). But neither is it merely some governmental "benefit" indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child mark the distinction. The "American people have always regarded education and [the] acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923). We have recognized "the public schools as a most vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of government," 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923). We have recognized "the public schools as a most vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of government," Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 230 (1963) (BRENNAN, J., concurring), and as the primary vehicle for transmitting "the values on which our society rests." 374 U.S. 203, 230 (1963) (BRENNAN, J., concurring), and as the primary vehicle for transmitting "the values on which our society rests." Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76 (1979).
[A]s . . . pointed out early in our history, . . . 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.

Last edited by Yac; 03-13-2013 at 02:06 AM.. Reason: 3 posts in a row merged
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2013, 04:04 PM
 
31,471 posts, read 14,559,147 times
Reputation: 8350
So these illegal immigrant parents bring their kids here illegally with them and they become a fiscal burden to our education sytem....Nice, (and that's just for starters not to mention the burden the whole family is to our country in so many other ways). How any American can defend these people is beyond me. How our politicians or judges in the past could argue for them is even more unfathonable. It's as if border security, removing the incentives to come here and deportation weren't even on the table. American citizens have never counted apparently and apparently our Constitution wasn't written for our benefit either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 06:10 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
You do realize that SCOTUS is telling the state that by denying children of illegals an education they are creating an underclass that may become citizens by chance. This does not translate into that it is far better for society to have an educated populace. SCOTUS told the states that they can not deny them based on their status. Again, this case is directed at the State not the child, nor the populace. SCOTUS left the possibility open to later deny illegal children an education provided the State can show that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here.

As I have said, you haven't a clue of understanding SCOTUS ruling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 06:28 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by marigolds6 View Post
Public education is not a federal right.
All 50 state constitutions grant a state right to a free public education. (The case you are citing actually precedes, and even prompted, the push to add the right to free public education to every state constitution.)
State constitutions have provisions in them, they are not rights granted by the state. Actually the case cited didn't prompt what you claim, these state constitutional provisions have been in place since each state became a state, some even before the state became a state. States require children to attend school up to a certain age, nothing more. School is not a "right", not even by the state constitution. Public primary schools are free and access to them can not be denied on the grounds of status. This is what Plyler vs Doe actually implies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 04:31 AM
 
Location: texas
9,138 posts, read 6,481,610 times
Reputation: 2372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
You do realize that SCOTUS is telling the state that by denying children of illegals an education they are creating an underclass that may become citizens by chance. This does not translate into that it is far better for society to have an educated populace. SCOTUS told the states that they can not deny them based on their status. Again, this case is directed at the State not the child, nor the populace. SCOTUS left the possibility open to later deny illegal children an education provided the State can show that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here.

As I have said, you haven't a clue of understanding SCOTUS ruling.
I have no understanding of Plyler. but which interpretation is comming to futition...educating the populace or YOURS...SC or National legislation will ban IA students an education?

If you believe that SC upheld the lower courts decisions because Texas failed to prove a State's intrest which over rides the 14th amendment, and... but for a ligitimate compelling state's intrest, Texas would have prevailed...then I do not have a understanding.

If from reading the majority oppinions, you believe Plyler is going to be overturned, then again, I do not have a understanding of plyler.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 10:12 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
I have no understanding of Plyler. but which interpretation is comming to futition...educating the populace or YOURS...SC or National legislation will ban IA students an education?

If you believe that SC upheld the lower courts decisions because Texas failed to prove a State's intrest which over rides the 14th amendment, and... but for a ligitimate compelling state's intrest, Texas would have prevailed...then I do not have a understanding.

If from reading the majority oppinions, you believe Plyler is going to be overturned, then again, I do not have a understanding of plyler.
Plyler will not be overturned. All Plyler did was tell the State that they can not deny a free public education based on the class status of a child. This is an EPC case not a case giving rights to children of illegals or making education a right. SCOTUS left the possibility open to later deny illegal children an education provided the State can show that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here. The question now becomes will the state ever be able to show a state interest to deny these children the free public education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
405 posts, read 358,117 times
Reputation: 315
Finally, the court noted that, under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," [n4] and that, without an education, these undocumented [p208] children,
[a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class.

Justice Brennen would probably cry like a little baby bottle blonde if he could see the quality of these schools these illegals are going to. They're sequestered into crappy neighborhoods which schools so bad, they'd probably be better off without them. They will have to be given vouchers to go to any public school they choose to fulfill this lofty and very liberal ideal. I wonder what the reaction of liberal America would be to THAT? I'd almost pay to see it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 02:36 PM
 
Location: texas
9,138 posts, read 6,481,610 times
Reputation: 2372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicket View Post
Finally, the court noted that, under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," [n4] and that, without an education, these undocumented [p208] children,
[a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class.

Justice Brennen would probably cry like a little baby bottle blonde if he could see the quality of these schools these illegals are going to. They're sequestered into crappy neighborhoods which schools so bad, they'd probably be better off without them. They will have to be given vouchers to go to any public school they choose to fulfill this lofty and very liberal ideal. I wonder what the reaction of liberal America would be to THAT? I'd almost pay to see it
Seems to me if you try to move undetected in the society, bringing attention to one or family is the last thing wanted. What may seem to you as "crappy" and "bad" may be worth enduring.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2013, 12:08 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,690,207 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicket View Post
Finally, the court noted that, under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," [n4] and that, without an education, these undocumented [p208] children,
[a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class.

Justice Brennen would probably cry like a little baby bottle blonde if he could see the quality of these schools these illegals are going to. They're sequestered into crappy neighborhoods which schools so bad, they'd probably be better off without them. They will have to be given vouchers to go to any public school they choose to fulfill this lofty and very liberal ideal. I wonder what the reaction of liberal America would be to THAT? I'd almost pay to see it
Illegals have no way to judge the quality of the schools they put their children in. These aren't people who were doing anything to improve the schools in their own country, most often they rarely attended school, if they had, they wouldn't be impoverished and have to leave their own country, they'd be educated and hmiddle class there.

The important thing is that schools in the USA offer two free meals to their kids which saves a lot on food stamps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 08:12 AM
 
Location: CHicago, United States
6,936 posts, read 6,989,487 times
Reputation: 3487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
No one in their right mind would support that. It would be akin to committing national suicide. A country without borders ceases to be a country. My experience on internet blogs, forums, etc. is quite the opposite. Most Americans are vehemently opposed to open borders, want our immigration laws enforced and not reward those who break them.
I suspect the focus group was comprised of anarchists. No other explanation I can think of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top