Date sent:        Wed, 21 May 1997 16:35:21 -0400 (EDT)
From:             SDRAOUL@aol.com
To:               arthurhu@halcyon.com, matloff@cs.ucdavis.edu, msk@cis.org, pjherz@siu.edu
Copies to:        dchiang@juno.com, zwang@suffolk.lib.ny.us, sdradio@flash.net,
        ezbri@ix.netcom.com, dwblack@ix.netcom.com, kelly.cowan@ebbs.cts.com,
        babutler@adnc.com, zurdo@compuserve.com, cdolim@loop.com,
        cgarcia@unm.edu, 103352.2472@compuserve.com, Zapoteco@aol.com,
        XXXRoberto@aol.com, DRider@aol.com, ken41@sprintmail.com,
        rodriguez@cui.edu, ZERTUCHI@aol.com
Subject:          Illegal alien children in schools


ARE WE A NATION OF LAWS OR MEN?
by
RAOUL LOWERY CONTRERAS
NEW YORK TIMES SYNDICATE NEW AMERICA NEWS SERVICE


  Why the boys thought they could get away with crossing the
border into Mexico and coming back without a problem is beyond logic,
for they were illegal residents in the United States and they knew it.  They
were students in the schools of Vista, California, because they live in
Vista.
  When the press heard of their turning away at the Border by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service it plunged into the story with
gusto.  Their ignorant stories fueled an anti-illegal and anti-immigrant
frenzy.
  Will the Vista schools allow these two kids back into school, if
and when they return, even though the entire world knows they are in the
U.S. illegally?
  Radio talk shows buzzed and bristled with this question. 
School officals said yes; the antis insisted no.  The school people said yes
because they are obligated to follow the law -- all children shall be
educated.  The antis said no because they are illegal residents.
  What's the law?  In Plyler vs. Doe, the United States Supreme
Court said in 1982, that:  "...illegal aliens...may claim the benefit of the
Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment), which provides that no state
shall 'deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of
the
laws'.  Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a
person in any ordinary sense of that term."
  Further, "use of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction' confirms
the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment protection extends to
anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and
reaches into every corner of the State's territory".
  To deny schooling to illegal resident children, the court wrote,
"...imposes a lifetime of hardship on a discrete class of children not
accountable for their disabling status.  These children can neither affect
their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status".
  In a word, the Court struck down a Texas law that would
have deprived "undocumented" (the Court's term) children elementary
schooling because they are in the country illegally.  That decision stands
unchallenged and is the law of the land, purple plain and all.
  The Court did mention that Congress had not provided
guidance on the subject, thus it was left to the Court to make the
determination that children must be educated.  The Congress has yet to
make such a determination.
  The 104th Congress, the first Republican Congress since
1953, turned a deaf ear to a handful of Representatives who tried to take
schooling away from illegal resident children.  These congressmen ran into
a brick wall.  No bill denying education to illegal resident children made it
out of committee.  Why?
  For the simple reason that no court in the land would give a
constitutional pass to any law denying undocumented children schooling. 
No court can, because as long as state laws require children of certain ages
( 5-16, usually) to attend school, no state or congress can carve out any
"discrete class" of children within their jurisdictions.  The 14th
Amendment prohibits such an action.  That's why Congress made no
move towards prohibiting the schooling of children like the Vista students;
that's why California can do nothing about them, as well.
  They live in the District, thus, they legally attend the Vista

schools, the cries of the antis notwithstanding.
  Another tack taken by the antis is to decry their schooling
because it's paid for by "taxpayers".  This is not a valid argument,  for the
"illegals", themselves, are "taxpayers".  They automatically fall under the
jurisdiction of the State of California when they buy a soda, even if they
just crossed the Border illegally.  The minute they pay the sales tax on the
soda, the state automatically assumes jurisdiction over the illegal by
forcibly making him a "taxpayer".  
  When the illegal pays rent or his portion of rent on a house or
apartment, he or she automatically buys into the school system, even if he
or she has no children living with them, for the rent pays the property
taxes on the unit that are used for schools.  This, according to California
state law, is indisputable, though usually ignored by the antis and so-called
"academics".
  Thus, these kids must be taken back by the Vista schools. 
Reason number one, the Supreme Court says so.  Reason two, they are
taxpayers to the State of California.  Reason three, their rent pays for
school taxes.
  Reason number four, California requires all children to
attend school.  Neither California, nor Congress can carve out a class of
children that is discrete by immigration status and, for all practical
purposes, by skin color and ethnicity.
  Why?  Because the United States Constitution says so; in it's
14th Amendment, it says, no State shall "deny to ANY PERSON WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION the equal protection of the laws".  Case closed.###