Printer-friendly versionU.S. public schools are not branch offices of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That’s the message the Obama administration sent out in a letter to the nation’s school districts last week. According to NPR:
“The letter comes amid reports that schools may be checking the immigration status of students trying to enroll, and reminds districts they are federally prohibited from barring elementary or secondary students on the basis of citizenship status.
"Moreover, districts may not request information with the purpose or result of denying access to public schools on the basis of race, color or national origin," said the letter, which was signed by officials from the [Department of Education’s] Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Justice.
"We put this letter out now because we know school districts are in the process of planning for the next school year, and wanted to make sure they had this in hand," said Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton. "We were concerned about the number of reports that we've received and heard about, and felt it was necessary to make it clear that this has been the law of the land since Ronald Reagan was president."
The DOE’s Office of Civil Rights is investigating three complaints against three school districts. It’s also evaluating another complaint filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) against the Durham County, N.C., school district. That complaint states one girl enrolling at a Durham high school was asked for her passport and visa. She was told that if she didn't have one, she must be an “illegal alien.”
It’s bad enough that some teachers and administrators show hostility toward immigrants through bigoted comments or lessons. But as last week’s letter makes plain, efforts to deny those students enrollment “contravene Federal law.” One in five U.S. students are the children of at least one immigrant parent. And immigrants, no matter what their status, are paying the taxes that fund schools. So it benefits no one to keep these children ignorant or deny them services.
There is something perverse about educators trying to deprive any student of an education. Schools can and should be places where teachers help all students—including immigrants—as much as possible. And schools should be places where teachers work to debunk myths about immigration, not promote them.
Some helpful Teaching Tolerance resources on immigration can be found here and here.
Price is managing editor of Teaching Tolerance.
Comments
Did I read that right? School
Did I read that right? School districts are "federally prohibited from barring elementary or secondary students on the basis of citizenship status"? If this is true (and I very much hope it's not), WHY? Why would it be against federal law to bar a child who is not a US citizen and is illegally in the country from consuming the tax resources of those who ARE citizens? This is hardly a form of punishing the student; at such young ages, they aren't to blame. But recognizing that it's not their fault should not be synonymous with "they get a free education, courtesy of American citizen taxpayers." It may be true that those who are breaking federal law simply by being in this country are paying taxes but if you break into a convenience store, does the fact that you paid for all the things you took redeem you? Does the fact that you did so entitle you to the purchases you made, seeing as how you broke the law to be in a position to make them? The fair and logical answer to both questions is "no"; thus it is with illegal immigrants and public services. That they pay for these services in no way changes the fact that the services were obtained through an illegal act, namely, breaking US immigration laws. To argue that those illegally here are entitled to the services they pay for just rewards lawbreaking; if you are immune from the consequences (i.e. being barred from making use of public services), there is no reason to obey the law. Is this REALLY what Mr. Price is arguing for?
Your argument is with the
Your argument is with the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision,
the majority said:
"Sheer incapability or lax enforcement of the laws barring entry into this
country, coupled with the failure to establish an effective bar to the
employment of undocumented aliens, has resulted in the creation of a
substantial 'shadow population' of illegal migrants -- numbering in the
millions -- within our borders. This situation raises the specter of a
permanent caste of undocumented resident aliens, encouraged by some to
remain here as a source of cheap labor, but nevertheless denied the benefits
that our society makes available to citizens and lawful residents. The
existence of such an underclass presents most difficult problems for a
Nation that prides itself on adherence to principles of equality under law.
"The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this
underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold
its beneficience from those whose very presence within the United States is
the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply with
the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor
children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter
our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to
bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the
children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their
'parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms,' and
presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction;
but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases 'can affect neither their
parents' conduct nor their own status.' Even if the State found it
expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children,
legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children
does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice."
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/plyler.html
That is incorrect; if one can
That is incorrect; if one can honestly say that I have an argument against a line of reasoning of which I was unaware, the argument is with four justice of the Supreme Court, not the entirely or even the majority; the fifth justice of the majority, as made clear by the text of the decision, concurs only in the result but not the justification. That said, my argument is with romantic notions that no matter what laws the parents break, they have a legal right to have their children educated at taxpayer expensive. It's worth emphasizing that to deny a child access to the public schools is not to deny them access to education entirely; it simply means that their parents must take upon themselves the expense of educating their child. In fact, all statistical measurements indicate that a child who is educated in an alternative establishment (like Catholic schools, private schools, home schooling, etc) enjoys an advantage over their peers.
If parents lack the means to do this through choices that they have made, that is highly unfortunate, but by choosing to break the law, they have chosen not to fulfill one of their responsibilities as parents and are undeserving of the taxpayers riding to the rescue, saving them from the consequences of their choices. Children are ill-served by this, to be sure, but that is not the fault of the state and the state has no responsibility to make it right; children are wards of their parents and have a claim on their parents' time, resources, and love. Only if the parents refuse this claim or have no ability to fulfill it do children become wards of the state; parents who came to America illegally and have the option of rectifying their illegal actions cannot be said to be incapable of fulfilling the claim and if they refuse, then they have chosen to surrender their child to the whims of the unfeeling and mechanical bureaucracy that constitutes the state. This rejection of their fundamental responsibilities is squarely on their head but if they would retain rights to their children, they must do what is required to raise and provide for those children. If this means going back the grinding poverty they came to American illegally to escape, well, such is their obligation. But I, as a taxpayer, should not be legally compelled to donate even a penny to mitigate the consequences of their actions. I may, out of basic human decency, choose to do so but if I so choose, that is my business and the state has no right to appropriate my labor to relieve some parents that are unknown to me of the burden of their responsibilities to their child.
Your attempt to distinquish
Your attempt to distinquish between the Supreme Court as an institution and the justices who voted for the decision is disigenuine at best. The Court speaks through its majority decisions. That would be the same as saying any particular law is not the law of this country but only of the majority who voted in favor of it and the president/governor/other executive who signed it.
You also fail to recognize that the parents of those students also pay taxes. So they are not getting anything for free.
Finally, your apparent lack of compasion for the plight of families who merely seek to be able to provide for themselves belies your claim of "basic human decency."
If we follow the line of
If we follow the line of reasoning that compares breaking into a convenience store to pay for goods with breaking immigration laws to work, pay taxes, and benefit from public education as a result, then it stands to reason that the "criminal" can only be held accountable for the actual "crime": breaking into the convenience store or breaking immigration law. The owner of the convenience store, as a private business owner reporting only to him or herself (or the manager following corporate policy) can certainly deny the person who broke in access to the store again, but the schools can't deny children access to the publication because they (or their parents, most likely) have broken immigration law. The students are not "breaking into" the schools, and the schools are required to follow established federal laws, which are clearly outlined in the letter quoted in the article. Unfortunately, your "reasoning" is dependent upon a logical fallacy: the false comparison, which you have used to advanced your personal opinion about illegal immigrants and their access to public services rather than make a reasonable argument against the policy itself. No child should be punished for trying to get an education. If people object to the policy that allows illegal immigrants access to public education, then that is another matter that requires a different course of action than telling kids they have to go home until they can produce citizenship documents.
The comparison is entirely
The comparison is entirely apt, Ms. Swafford: in both cases, a law was broken to put the law-breaker in a position to obtain the desired good; that one of the desired goods is a pack of gum and the other desired good is taxpayer-subsidized education does not invalidate the comparison at all. As I pointed out in my reply to Mr. Price, a parent who wishes to give their child an education is not shorn of every possible option by the fact that they have no inherent right to access subsidized education. Again, the convenience store comparison is very apt: in both cases, there are many options for someone to follow to obtain that good that do not involve a crime and as everyone knows, there is rarely only a single convenience store in a town. In their push to argue that the state cannot possibly deny children an education, people fall into the fallacy of assuming that it's impossible to be educated if the state does not do it. They also fallaciously assume that depriving parents of one of many options for educating their children is a policy aimed at the children. A child's "right" to an education is really a child's right to have an education provided to them by their guardians and it is the guardians, in the case of public education, that are seeking to use public resources to fulfill the right that their child has to have an education provided to them. A child is not being "punished"; the parent is.
I believe I came across this
I believe I came across this particular video clip in another Teaching Tolerance article. I think it's appropriate to share again here...
http://vimeo.com/11155073
After reading the comments on
After reading the comments on this page and on some of the links I find it interesting/confusing/strange that so many people intolerant of immigrants into this country are even on this site. It makes question their motives. What are you "Teaching Tolerance" about?
Well said...Teaching
Well said...Teaching Tolerance isn't a website to place bigoted opinion on. It's the law! If you wish to change the law, contact your lawmakers. Don't subject the rest of us who do not wish to hear a diatribe to your intolerant opinion.
With respect, Kat, since
With respect, Kat, since every post that appears on this blog is subjected to moderation and must be specifically approved by those that run the blog, it seems that your complaint is really with the blog administrators who permit so much "bigoted" and "intolerant" commentary. Also, with all due respect, is it not intolerant to refuse to listen to those that disagree with you?
Her point was why spend time
Her point was why spend time here if you don't agree with the view point which is clearly going to be expresed here. That you have a right to express your opinion is clear. She didn't indicate that you didn't. The issue is what motivates someone to go to a blog about which they clearly are going to find disagreement and spend time challenging it.
Fellow Citizens, Keeping
Fellow Citizens,
Keeping children in school and educated is not an economic problem as you might suggest. The economic problem is keeping our immigration laws so strict that good hard-working people are unable to pay taxes like everyone else. Let's not forget that our entire country is made up of immigrants - with the exception of Native American Indians. Our system is spending millions - maybe trillions of dollars to keep out people - mostly from Mexico who are trying to get to the USA to work. Now that we have so many illegals our government - which is broke by the way - is now spending money on trying to arrest people for human trafficking. Again - we are spending money on something that could be seriously reduced if our immigration laws were different. If we know who is entering the country and document the workers we would be collecting money from each one of them to help support the children we are already educating. And why would we want a bunch of uneducated children in our streets? That translates into thugs and gangs. The whole thing is backwards thinking -