Ariz Challenge to Supreme Court On K-12 Educ For Illegals

[TheChancellors]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Plyler v. Doe
From: John Karls
Date: Tue, June 1, 2010 4:14 am
To: Tom Chancellor; Denise Chancellor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Tom and Denise,

Thank you again for your e-mail.

I have now read the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

It looks like the media are 180-degrees wrong again!!!

Media reports (and the Pew Research Poll) imply that Arizona’s new immigration law engages in unlawful racial profiling. In fact, Arizona Governor Janice Brewer at the same time she signed the new law also signed an Executive Order requiring Arizona law-enforcement officers to undergo training on “racial profiling” using the same voluntary restraints (since the courts have said precious little on the subject) that are contained in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Guidelines for Federal Law Enforcement Officers with regard to Non-Immigration and Non-National Security matters. (With regard to the latter, DOJ’s Guidelines provide that “anything goes” so long as it is constitutional which, since the courts have said precious little, probably means literally “anything goes.”)

On the other hand, it appears that the media have missed Plyler v. Doe.

However, there are several troubling aspects to Plyler v. Doe.

First, the decision was 5-4 and occurred in 1982.

Second, even by its own terms, the decision states that if a state wants to deny undocumented school-children, the free public education offered to other children, the denial needs to be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest in addition to merely showing that the children are present illegally.

The signing statement of Arizona Governor Janice Brewer (posted on our bulletin board) indicates, inter alia, that the new legislation was aimed at trying to restrain the spill over of the Mexican drug-gang warfare into Arizona.

As previously noted, the new Arizona immigration bill does appear to prohibit providing benefits to illegal aliens, including K-12 schooling.

It would appear that Arizona is set to challenge Plyler v. Doe on the Supreme Court’s own terms.

I’m surprised that the media have missed this!!! Though I’m not surprised that it didn’t get by you!!!

Your friend,

John K.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: Attendance Confirmation Request
From: John Karls
Date: Mon, May 31, 2010 8:54 pm
To: Thomas Chancellor; Denise Chancellor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Tom and Denise,

Thank you for the "heads up" re Plyler v. Doe. I was certainly not aware
of the decision. However, the new Arizona law is in direct conflict with
it (though why are we surprised???)!!!

See you on the 9th.

Your friend,

John K.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Attendance Confirmation Request
From: Thomas Chancellor
Date: Mon, May 31, 2010 3:47 pm
To: John Karls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

Denise and I plan to attend the June 9 session of Reading Liberally.

In your email to Bill Lee, you indicate that the children of illegals are denied public schooling.

Were you aware that in 1982 the Supreme Court held in Plyler v. Doe that such children, even though illegal, were entitle to a free public education under the equal protection clause? The case arose in Texas.

See you on the 9th,
Thomas C

[TheChancellors]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Plyler v. Doe
From: Tom Chancellor
Date: Tue, June 1, 2010 10:05 am
To: John Karls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

Thanks for your email.

One additional point occurred to me as I read your email. It is not
obvious to me that the text of section 1-502 of the Arizona act will apply
to public K-12 education: (1) the provision applies to "any state or local
public benefit" which does not seem to be defined in the act (although
"federal public benefit" is defined) [does it seem clear to you that public
K-12 education should be considered a "benefit" within the meaning ot the
section?]; and, separately, (2) the section only applies to "the extent
permitted by federal law" and I would think that Plyler v. Doe would
constitute "federal law" that does not permit. Of course, as you point out,
they could be planning to relitigate the equal protection issue claiming
they have a greater state interest in not educating illegals than Texas did.
However, Arizona would risk a preliminary injunction on this issue pending
outcome of the litigation.

Wilth respect to Sections 1-501 and 1-502, it would be very helpful to
understand what are the kinds of benefits that require registration with
state and local officials. For example, if the Medicade,CHIP and foodstamp
programs are administered by the states, then such programs would seem to be
covered by section1-501. Are illegals covered by any of these programs? I
have no idea.

Interesting stuff,

Thomas


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: Plyler v. Doe
From: John Karls
Date: Tue, June 1, 2010 2:07 pm
To: Tom Chancellor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Tom,

I would have thought it obvious that K-12 education is a "state or local
benefit"!!! Are you implying that it is a "detriment"???

Agreed that Plyler v. Doe is "federal law" but by its own terms it
contains the "wiggle room" already discussed and the Arizona Governor's
signing statement appears intent on attacking Plyler on its own terms.

I'd be willing to bet you that Arizona does intend to take on Plyler
judicially on its own terms!!! And I don't thing they would be very
concerned about a preliminary injunction -- just more free publicity and,
even if they lose, they're only out the time of a few attorneys in their
AG's Office.

On a tangential issue, have you taken a look at the materials on our
bulletin board concerning Arizona's new ethnic-studies ban??? HB 2281
bans schools from teaching classes that are designed for students of a
particular ethnic group, promote resentment or advocate ethnic solidarity
over treating pupils as individuals. The bill was written to target the
Chicano, or Mexican American, studies program in the Tucson school system,
said state Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Horne.

Your friend,

John K.

[TheChancellors]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: Plyler v. Doe
From: Tom Chancellor
Date: Tue, June 1, 2010 4:35 pm
To: John Karls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

As to whether public education is a detriment rather than a benefit, all those parents who home school their children seem to think it is more likely to be the former than the latter.

On a more serious note, I see that you are more sympathetic to the "plain meaning rule" for statutory interpretation than I am. Your view is certainly reasonable. All I am saying is that, if you look up "benefit" in a regular dictionary or in Black's Law dictionary, the word has many meanings [e.g., Arizona's winter climate is a state benefit (meaning: advantage of living in Arizona)]. Still, I can imagine that one could think that the word as used in section 1-502 should be limited to something that provides the applicant a direct pecuniary public benefit. Thus, for me, when the parents show up at the local school to enroll the kid, it is not obvious that the child is "applying for a local public benefit" in the same way as signing up for local welfare. I could perhaps be persuaded to that view but the plain/obvious meaning of "benefit" does not do it for me.

I have always thought that being a judge would often be very difficult.

Your friend,

Thomas

P.S. Yes, I saw the material on banning ethnic studies. It is a terrible/stupid message bill. Yet it does show how many people in Arizona (particularly southern Arizona) feel their way of life seriously threatened by the illegal immigration, smuggling and drug wars.