johnwk
08-13-2014, 06:32 PM
.
.
SEE: Feds to schools: You must accept children of undocumented immigrants (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-to-schools-you-must-accept-children-of-undocumented-immigrants/)
”The Justice and Education Departments are teaming up to remind public schools that they are required to provide all children with equal access to education at the elementary and secondary level regardless of their parents' or guardians' citizenship or immigration status.”
Of course, Eric Holder, is relying upon a 1982 Supreme Court opinion, Plyler vs. Doe, in which the court intentionally misrepresented both the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment declares:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
When the Court says "the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens” as distinguished from “persons”, it is absolutely correct. The amendment declares “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. But the amendment then goes on to extend a specific protection to “any person” as distinguished from “citizens” and forbids “any person” from being deprive of life, liberty, or property without due process being extended. Due process must be extended before “any person” may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, which is a very reasonable requirement and not in dispute. What is in dispute is Eric Holder’s assertion that a State’s public schools must enroll a foreigner who is not a citizen of the United States or of the State in which enrollment is applied for.
Getting back to the 14th Amendment, we come the wording which commands that “any person” within a State’s jurisdiction may not be denied “the equal protection of the laws” which have been established by a State. Note that these words do not even remotely suggest to negate the power of a State to create “privileges and immunities” for her “citizens” which are not afforded to “persons” who are not citizens. But the words do forbid a state to deny the equal protection of the laws, e.g., if a State decides to issue a driver’s learner’s permit to citizens of their state at the age of 16, then it may not refuse such a permit to any person who is a citizen based upon race or color to be in compliance with the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. But denying the equal protection of the laws within the context of the 14th Amendment was not intended to, or does it, prohibit a State from making distinctions based upon citizenship with reference to “privileges and immunities” created by a States. A State’s public school system is within the category of “privileges” which a State may offer her citizens, and under the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent that privilege may not be denied to a State’s citizens based upon race or color. But it can be denied to those who are not citizens of the united States or of the state in question!
In fact, the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was eloquently summarized by one of its supporters as follows:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=334)
The bottom line is, there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States which prohibits a State from exercising its reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment and refuse to enroll a foreigner in its public school system who has entered the United States illegally and is not a citizen. Each State would do well to tell Eric Holder to go fly a kite and refuse to enroll any child whose parents are unable to show their child is a Citizen of the United States and of the State in which they reside and wish to enroll that child in its public school system.
JWK
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment
.
SEE: Feds to schools: You must accept children of undocumented immigrants (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-to-schools-you-must-accept-children-of-undocumented-immigrants/)
”The Justice and Education Departments are teaming up to remind public schools that they are required to provide all children with equal access to education at the elementary and secondary level regardless of their parents' or guardians' citizenship or immigration status.”
Of course, Eric Holder, is relying upon a 1982 Supreme Court opinion, Plyler vs. Doe, in which the court intentionally misrepresented both the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment declares:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
When the Court says "the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens” as distinguished from “persons”, it is absolutely correct. The amendment declares “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. But the amendment then goes on to extend a specific protection to “any person” as distinguished from “citizens” and forbids “any person” from being deprive of life, liberty, or property without due process being extended. Due process must be extended before “any person” may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, which is a very reasonable requirement and not in dispute. What is in dispute is Eric Holder’s assertion that a State’s public schools must enroll a foreigner who is not a citizen of the United States or of the State in which enrollment is applied for.
Getting back to the 14th Amendment, we come the wording which commands that “any person” within a State’s jurisdiction may not be denied “the equal protection of the laws” which have been established by a State. Note that these words do not even remotely suggest to negate the power of a State to create “privileges and immunities” for her “citizens” which are not afforded to “persons” who are not citizens. But the words do forbid a state to deny the equal protection of the laws, e.g., if a State decides to issue a driver’s learner’s permit to citizens of their state at the age of 16, then it may not refuse such a permit to any person who is a citizen based upon race or color to be in compliance with the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. But denying the equal protection of the laws within the context of the 14th Amendment was not intended to, or does it, prohibit a State from making distinctions based upon citizenship with reference to “privileges and immunities” created by a States. A State’s public school system is within the category of “privileges” which a State may offer her citizens, and under the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent that privilege may not be denied to a State’s citizens based upon race or color. But it can be denied to those who are not citizens of the united States or of the state in question!
In fact, the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was eloquently summarized by one of its supporters as follows:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=334)
The bottom line is, there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States which prohibits a State from exercising its reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment and refuse to enroll a foreigner in its public school system who has entered the United States illegally and is not a citizen. Each State would do well to tell Eric Holder to go fly a kite and refuse to enroll any child whose parents are unable to show their child is a Citizen of the United States and of the State in which they reside and wish to enroll that child in its public school system.
JWK
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment