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. Of course, a school district may require that illegal alien children, like any other children, actually reside in the school district before admitting them to the schools. Representative Bingham's views are also reflected in his comments on the Civil Rights Bill of 1866.

Respecting defendants' further claim that § 21.031 was simply a financial measure designed to avoid a drain on the State's fisc, the court recognized that the increases in population resulting from the immigration of Mexican nationals into the United States had created problems for the public schools of the State, and that these problems were exacerbated by the special educational needs of immigrant Mexican children. Whatever meaning or relevance this opaque observation might have in some other context [Footnote 4/8] it simply has no bearing on the issues at hand. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." . Synopsis of Rule of Law. In that case, the Court held, as a matter of statutory construction, that an alien paroled into the United States pursuant to 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. The State notes that, while other aliens are admitted "on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under nondiscriminatory laws," Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U. S. 410, 334 U. S. 420 (1948), the asserted right of these children to an education can claim no implicit congressional imprimatur. Plyler v. Doe. Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life and liberty and property?". San Antonio Independent School Dist. 1182(d)(5) (1952 ed. 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.". 80-1934, Texas et al. Appellants argue that the classification at issue furthers an interest in the "preservation of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful residents." And, after reviewing the State's school financing mechanism, the District Court in No. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. . It is thus difficult to conceive of a rational justification for penalizing these children for their presence within the United States. I emphasize the Court's conclusion that strict scrutiny is not appropriately applied to this classification. (a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Thus, the District Court in the Alien Children Education case found as a factual matter that a significant number of illegal aliens will remain in this country permanently, 501 F. Supp.

IV). However, it is not the function of the Judiciary to provide "effective leadership" simply because the political branches of government fail to do so. See Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, supra, at 334 U. S. 420 (the Federal Government has admitted resident aliens to the country "on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under nondiscriminatory laws," and the States may not alter the terms of this admission). Rather, funding for education varied across the State because of the tradition of local control. See 426 U.S. at 426 U. S. 84-86. Moreover, the analogies to Virginians or legally admitted Mexican citizens entering Texas, ibid., are spurious. In addition, we have recognized that certain forms of legislative classification, while not facially invidious, nonetheless give rise to recurring constitutional difficulties; in these limited circumstances, we have sought the assurance that the classification reflects a reasoned judgment consistent with the ideal of equal protection by inquiring whether it may fairly be viewed as furthering a. substantial interest of the State. In re Alien Children Education Litigation, 501 F. Supp.

at 576, funding from both the State and Federal Governments was based primarily on the number of children enrolled.

at 424 U. S. 361. Nor is undocumented status an absolutely immutable characteristic, since it is the product of conscious, indeed unlawful, action. If the constitutional guarantee of equal protection was available only to those upon whom Congress affirmatively granted its benefit, the State's argument would be virtually unanswerable. Apart from compassionate considerations, the long-range costs of excluding any children from the public schools may well outweigh the costs of educating them. And, as JUSTICE POWELL notes, the structure of the immigration statutes makes it impossible for the State to determine which aliens are entitled to residence, and which eventually will be deported.

. v. Certain Named and Unnamed Undocumented Alien Children et al., also on appeal from the same court. at 22 (quoting J. Thayer, John Marshall 106-107 (1901)). Their responsibility, if any, for the influx of aliens is slight compared to that imposed by the Constitution on the Federal Government. But more directly, "education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society."

But that is not the issue; the fact. It is not unreasonable to think that this encourages the political branches to pass their problems to the Judiciary.

basic minimal skills. In terms of educational cost and need, however, undocumented children are "basically indistinguishable" from legally resident alien children. 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. See also Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U. S. 647, 435 U. S. 663-668 (1978). The State did not need to concern itself with an alien's current or future deportability. But the Equal Protection Clause operates of its own force to protect anyone "within [the State's] jurisdiction" from the State's arbitrary action.

4.

Indeed, entry into the class is itself a crime. at 573; and that "[m]any of the undocumented children are not deportable. Neither is there any merit to the claim that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence within the United States renders them less likely than other children to remain within the State's boundaries and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State. ", Id. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.

Section 21.031 imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. Cf. and Supp. This law also authorized local school districts to deny entry … See Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U. S. 1 (1977).

"In expounding the Constitution, the Court's role is to discern 'principles sufficiently absolute to give them roots throughout the community and continuity over significant periods of time, and to lift them above the level of the pragmatic political judgments of a particular time and place.'". The Federal District Courts, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, held that the Texas law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. '", Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 394 U. S. 661 (1969) (dissenting opinion). More importantly, the classification reflected in § 21.031 does not operate harmoniously within the federal program. [Footnote 15] With respect to such classifications, it is appropriate to enforce the mandate of equal protection by requiring the State to demonstrate that its classification has been precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. The law was challenged on constitutional grounds in federal court. San Antonio Independent School Dist. assess the "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." .


The importance of education is beyond dispute.

. [Footnote 25] As the District Court in No. See, e.g., Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 (1941). . However, Texas has classified appellees on the basis of their own illegal status, not that of their parents. By granting limited legal status to the productive and law-abiding members of this shadow population, we will recognize reality and devote our enforcement resources to deterring future illegal arrivals.".

But the record in no way supports the claim that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. Missouri ex rel. 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. It therefore squarely rejected the notion that "an ad hoc determination as to the social or economic importance" of a given interest is relevant to the level of scrutiny accorded classifications involving that interest, id. Perhaps that is correct, but it is not dispositive; the Equal Protection Clause does not mandate that a state choose either the most effective and all-encompassing means of addressing a problem or none at all. By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation. Thus, the Court's decisions long have accorded strict scrutiny to classifications bearing on the right to vote in state elections, and Rodriguez confirmed the "constitutional underpinnings of the right to equal treatment in the voting process."
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. Id. See McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 379 U. S. 192 (1964); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 100 (1943). Plyler v. Doe. The court wrote that procuring this law would further create a “sub-class” of citizens, who would ultimately become the burden of the state even further because of their non-educational status. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. I assume no Member of the Court would challenge Texas' right to charge tuition to students residing across the border in Louisiana who seek to attend the nearest school in Texas. In such circumstances, the voting decisions suggest that the State must offer something more than a rational basis for its classification. Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U. S. 68, 441 U. S. 76 (1979). No. Id. Id. [Footnote 6] With respect to. 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. 33-34, is whether there is some legitimate basis for a legislative distinction between different classes of persons. Art. That obligation is imposed by the Constitution upon the States severally as governmental entities, each responsible for its own laws establishing the rights and duties of persons within its borders.". 458 F. Supp. IV). Yes, the law violates the fourteenth amendment and is therefore invalid.