You made me... promises, promises... why should I believe?

No, this is not a post about 80's pop music...

I subscribe to all sorts of mailing lists.  It's important to know what everyone is saying -- from all sides of the equation.  So today, I found this in the old in-box:

In this report of the Governor NOT stopping the Carousel's, Remember that Jason Atkinson is not only going to help the Farmers keep their Slave Labor (not the construction or restaurant folks, just Farmers) NOW! we learn that he thinks we should continue to Educate these Illegal Aliens herds of children, while all the other kids suffer. Shame on Jason, typical Politician trying to walk both sides of the aisle. Notice how the paper ONLY quotes Ron, Notice how the big Rally in Portland was only about Ron Saxton. Do you wonder why the invaders are NOT mad at Jason?

Rick Hickey

03/14/06-AP-The Oregonian-Kulongoski's decision to back away from the carousel comes as the immigration issue has returned to Oregon politics for the first time in decades.

Ron Saxton, a Republican gubernatorial candidate, has taken a hard-line approach in his campaign, saying he would withhold state services to illegal immigrants and push for their deportation.

Saxton says it comes down to "illegal is illegal," and undocumented immigrants strain scarce state resources.

At a debate Monday, candidates were asked if Oregon should stop educating children of illegal immigrants. Only Saxton said it should.

Now, don't get me wrong: I support Oregonians for Immigration Reform, and I believe Rick Hickey (even though he has left some inflammatory comments on this blog) has his heart in the right place.  But he is wrong on so many levels when it comes to the Governor's race and the issue of education for illegal aliens.

The biggest gremlin in the way of Ron Saxton and his latest campaign promise is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States: Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).  As an attorney, Ron Saxton really should know about this...

In Plyer, the State of Texas had passed a law prohibiting illegal alien children from using public schools at taxpayer expense.  Justice Brennan wrote a majority opinion declaring such a law unconstitutional as an affront to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  What follows is the text of the syllabus of the case:

A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 210-230.

(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." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

(b) The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State. Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a "suspect class," and although education is not a "fundamental right," so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime 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. [457 U.S. 202, 203] The deprivation of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement. In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered. Pp. 216-224.

(c) The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents. It is true that when faced with an equal protection challenge respecting a State's differential treatment of aliens, the courts must be attentive to congressional policy concerning aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the legislative record, no national policy is perceived that might justify the State in denying these children an elementary education. Pp. 224-226.

(d) Texas' statutory classification cannot be sustained as furthering its interest in the "preservation of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful residents." While the State might have an interest in mitigating potentially harsh economic effects from an influx of illegal immigrants, the Texas statute does not offer an effective method of dealing with the problem. Even assuming that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy is negative, charging tuition to undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration, at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting employment of illegal aliens. Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education. The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. 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. Pp. 227-230.

No. 80-1538, 628 F.2d 448, and No. 80-1934, affirmed.

The Supreme Court has taken this issue out of the hands of any state agency.  In other words, no matter what Ron Saxton promises as far as stopping education for illegal aliens, he can't enforce it as Governor.

Kevin Mannix, another attorney, has probably read Plyer front to back and back to front repeatedly.  After all, it is a landmark case that has been a staple of Constitutional Law classes for over 20 years.  I presume that Mannix, unlike Saxton, knew he would not be able to deny an education to illegal aliens as Governor; as such, it would be foolish for him to make a campaign promise about it.

Furthermore, Jason Atkinson, who is not an attorney, nonetheless has a number of attorneys (and at least one law student) advising him.  The Senator is well aware that he would be unable to enact or enforce any law denying education to any person: citizen, legal resident, or illegal alien.

So why is Ron Saxton making a promise he can't keep?  Here is the bottom line:

Ron Saxton is now making a campaign promise that violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  As an attorney, he should know better.  If he can't get this right as an attorney, what can we expect from him as Governor?

I won't address any of Rick's other misguided rants about Senator Atkinson, other than to say this:

The first candidate from either party to address the high cost of illegal immigration was... Jason Atkinson.  The first candidate to articulate a clear plan to solve the problem was... Jason Atkinson.  The only candidate who has traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with the very Congressmen and Senators who can actually create and change national immigration laws is... Jason Atkinson.  The only candidate to remain consistent with his message on immigration is... Jason Atkinson.

I'd like to highlight one key phrase from the Plyer syllabus above:

The deprivation of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. (emphasis added)

So there are some governmental benefits which have been distinguished from education, and which a state may deprive illegal aliens.  What are they?  How about: driver's licenses, identification cards, voter registration, and welfare benefits.  What has Jason Atkinson said about these?

No driver's licenses for illegal aliens, no identification for illegal aliens, no voter registration for illegal aliens, and no welfare benefits for illegal aliens.

Period.

When it comes to policies that he, as Governor, could enact and enforce (and by the way, amnesty is NOT one them -- amnesty can only come from the federal government), Jason Atkinson has been 100% in the camp of Oregonians for Immigration Reform.

If you want positive change in Oregon's immigration policies, the choice is clear:

Support Senator Jason Atkinson for Governor of Oregon.

I don't know what got into Rick's britches about Atkinson.  I hope it is simple ignorance of the facts, and not something personal.

Comments

[Coyote]

Wow. That post was, in a word, NAILS.

Kudos to you sir Gully on an extremely thoughtfull post.

I'll try to get a link to it tonight when I get home and can actually access my blog.

Yip Yip

[Tammy Brotton]

Hello Gully very good post Ron saxton Makes alot of promises he can not keep.
Because for one nobody can trust Ron saxton who use to work for Katu liberal media.you can not trust liberal media for one.sometimes people forget Ron worked for KATU channel two news then became lawyer of his law firm so who would want a liberal media for Governor.why would anyone trust Ron saxton especially after what he said about president bush is wrong during the debates during election time. and now Ron saxton is running as a republican candidate. isn't Ron saxton alot like cindy sheehan who complains about the war and than does not even put a gravestone by her sons death bed. now who would be the better Governor
Senator Jason Atkinson of course
for Governor of oregon in 06 you can trust and believe what he says.
Senator Jason Atkinson for Governor 06

[Tammy Brotton]

Hello Gully and how many times did we have to hear all of the news stations talk up cindy sheehan and nothing positive about the war in Iraq and nothing positive about our veterans or military how many times did you hear the good things that the vets did like Toys for deployed or anything do we really want Ron or any liberal media as our Governor what Truth would we really get! I remember many times my E-mail box was full because republicans and veterans were so upset that the news media did not talk anything positive of the veterans and all about cindy sheehan. I still wish I had saved some of that E-mail in case I needed it for a debate on this subject.we need a really True Governor for oregon and that is senator Jason Atkinson for Governor 06

[Kristopher]

There is a solution to the 14th amendment problem:

Stop providing education at state expense. Privatize ALL eductaion. No part of the constitution requires states to provide free schools.

[Rick Hickey]

Gully, I am writing on my behalf, not OFIR. OFIR will endorse a candidate after they complete and return our questionaire.

I do not intend to offend anyone, I support any Governor that is finally addressing this all encompassing issue. I do take notice when 1,000 Illegal Aliens march in Portland and only whine about Ron Saxton, not Jason or Kevin. I do notice when the papers talk about Ron Saxton and his hard stance on Illegal's, they are not talking about Jason or Kevin.
I want a Gov. that is not afraid to say what he thinks now, about this issue which is affecting all of us.
When the primary vote is done, I hope we all rally for that winner, I will, if it is Jason.
Right now though, Jason or Kevin are NOT outspoken and playing it to careful for me. p.s. Plus I just love to debate.

[Rick Hickey]

Oh that Supreme court decision 20 plus year ago, needs to be challenged. The anti-abortion folks are going to be back in the Supreme's. Maybe Ron Saxton will deny access to Illegal Aliens and take it back to the court. I wish he would have said that the decision does NOT mandate bi-ligual education.

[Gullyborg]

As far as challenging Plyer goes, there is little chance of the current court overruling it. Kennedy is the new O'Connor swing vote, and he does not have a good history of voting in favor of states rights, especially over the last few years (he is trending towards the liberal side).

I also suspect that Roberts and Alito would put a lot of weight on precedent, and would therefore be hard (not impossible) to convince.

Bottom line though, until Stevens or Kennedy retires and is replaced by a SOLID states rights conservative, any efforts to overrule cases like Plyer or Roe will fail.

[Coyote]

Rick,

Actually Jason was the FIRST candidate to tackle the issue publicly and forcefully. Saxton did not come around until he had polling that said he would lose ground to Atkinson.

The reason the illegal immigrant wackjobs are including Saxton's name in the protests is not because of his stance. It is because Lars is anointing him. It is just their way at getting back at Lars.

The problem with hitching your wagon to Saxton is that once he is through the primary he will shake you off in a heart beat. He thinks he has found his path to the governor's mansion and it leads through the conservative path just before you go hard left.

[Max]

Excellent and well-thought post, Gully!

I have to admit that I was stunned when Saxton made noise about stopping children of illegal aliens from accessing public education.

I mean, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not running for Governor, but even I discussed this concept several weeks ago in my blog:

There are certain steps that a governor can take in order to limit the burden imposed by illegal aliens. Such steps include, but are not limited to: halting agency participation in "Carrusels de informacion", refusing access to driver licenses, welfare, and other services - but he cannot refuse access to education.

As I've mentioned before, there are tradeoffs in some of the steps that might be taken: cutting off access to Oregon Health Plan, for example, is a possible course of action - but would likely have the effect of increasing the flood of illegals into hospital emergency rooms and trauma centers. Obviously, while a governor does have considerable latitude in determining which services shall be afforded to illegals, a cost-benefit analysis needs to be run for each potential scenario.

Again though - great job!

Coyote:

"He thinks he has found his path to the governor's mansion and it leads through the conservative path just before you go hard left."

I just blew Dr. Pepper out my nose. You need to add a warning before you say stuff like that....

[Jericho]

Violates the Constitution? So what! The 16th Amendment violates the 4th Amendment. The 17th Amendment destroyed the Connecticut compromise. Your candidate for Governor wants to execise Oregon's soveignty. Smart guy. Deporting the illegal aliens in Oregon to say California or Washington would be a great idea and would be a whole lot better than the mass killings that will start if a large scale attack originates via the border.

[Gullyborg]

Great, now the Birchers are out...

[Gullyborg]

I received this in an e-mail from an old-school political friend and prominent attorney:

"You are, of course, exactly right. I don't know what has gotten into Saxton. First it was 'fire all the public employees and hire them back under a new retirement system,' now it's 'kick all the kids of illegal immigrants out of school.' You'd think he never went to law school, much less practiced law for twenty-five years.

"Unfortunately, I believe he is betraying a cynical disdain for the intelligence of the average voter. I think he is in for a rude awakening."

I think my friend is right about something very important: the average voter is able to obtain a lot more information today than 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, you could make wild pie-in-the-sky promises, and no one would call you on it. Today, if you promise to get the illegal aliens out of public schools, there are plenty of people (like me) who will point out the central flaw in your promise.

The more Ron Saxton speaks, the more contradictions, flip-flops, and empty promises seem to fall out of his mouth. There are still plenty of ignorant "sheeple" voters who will fall for it, but more and more voters are getting information-savvy. You can no longer win a large-scale election when the information mavens have all concluded you are full of it.

[Daniel]

Lot's of thoughtful debate here, let me step out of character and just say this: I don't give a [petunia] what the law says, we shouldn't educate the kids of illegal aliens.

And if I was a candidate for governor that would be a TV spot! (they would have to bleep me)

[edited because my mother might read this -- Resistance is futile!]

[Heartless Libertarian]

OK, here's how to deny education to minor illegal aliens, without passing a law specifically stating so:

1) Require that parents provide proof of residency in the district/zone for the school they wish to enroll their children at. Make the required proof of residency a voter registration card (citizens only, in theory at least), or a drivers license or state ID card listing address.

2) Enact a law prohibiting the issuing of drivers licenses or state ID card to person who cannot provide proof of citizenship or legal residency.

Another fun thing to do would be to require state employees to report known or suspected illegal aliens to the ICE. Especially whomever handles the state income taxes.

[Dylan]

Great post Gully!

Saxton reminds me of the 6th grader running for class president ... promising no more homework and longer recess. Reality be damned ... I'll tell you want you want to hear!

[Kristopher]

That might work ... deport the parents ... allow the child back in if he has a citizen as a guardian, or if he walks over the border by himself at age 18.

[Rhonda]

Jason supports amnesty.

I know you guys want to let him have it both ways on this, but his position is so contorted he looks like a gumby doll.

Slam Saxton all you want. Jason is pandering on this issue, Lars caught him wanting it both ways, Jason freaked out, revealed his immaturity, and proved to all that he's not ready for prime time.

[Coyote]

Rhonda,

Well actually you are not telling the truth.

The difference between Jason and Lars was their interpretation of the President's postition, which has changed a couple of times. Yet Atkinson's position himself has been incredibly consistent. My blog had his response posted THE DAY of the Lars dust up. Then a few days later Atkinson's site posted a clearer yet consistent position.

Then, again, a few days later at the AgPAC meeting Sen. Atkinson maintained his position in front of the group. Yet it was Ron Saxton that switched positions when he thought he was behind closed doors and no one would hear. And now he is taking yet ANOTHER immigration position in this debate the other night.

So you should know of what you speak before you speak.

Saxton did not know the law when he went on his meandering pandering declaration. One would have thought that an attorney would at least know the law.

One would think.

yip yip

[Gullyborg]

Daniel,

The problem is you can't win an election running on a platform of ignoring the law.

Let's compare this to South Dakota and abortion:

The politicos in South Dakota have passed a new abortion ban. They did this knowing it will be rejected by the federal district court under Roe v. Wade.

The difference?

In South Dakota, the politicians MADE IT CLEAR that they know their new law will be overruled by the court, and that their goal is to take the issue to the Supreme Court, in hopes of reversing Roe v. Wade. This is a very real possibility, because by the time it gets there, there will be one more new person on the court (Stevens is OLD).

Thus, the Supreme Court becomes a campaign issue in pro-life (and to be fair, in pro-abortion) circles as we enter the 2006 and look ahead to the 2008 elections.

Will Bush be able to replace Stevens? If not, who will the next President be? Will the Senate have the power to push through a real conservative who will reverse Roe v. Wade?

These are big questions. The people in South Dakota know all this and are moving ahead with the abortion ban because of this.

Now compare to Ron Saxton:

Does the average primary voter know about the Plyer case?

No. Did you, until you read this?

Is Ron making a pledge to break federal law in order to push a test case before the Supreme Court?

No. He is assuming you and all the other voters are ingnorant and will respond emotionally to the idea of kicking all the damn illegal aliens out.

If Ron was behaving like the leaders of South Dakota, and coming out fighting to change federal law, upfront with the voters that this is a long term fight (that we might not win), it would be one thing.

But Ron ain't doing that. Ron is making empty promises to do things HE CAN'T DO.

That's bad campaigning. Plain and simple.

So I understand the emotion of what you are saying. And I agree that it would be great if we could achieve it. But it is intellectually dishonest to let Ron off the hook here.

Again, we come back to the question:

Which of the three candidates who are capable of beating Kulongoski is the BEST candidate, not the PERFECT candidate. The only Perfect Man in history got nailed to a cross for it, and in the only election of his era, He came in second to Barabbas.

Jason is 95% of what you want on immigration, and is CONSISTENT about it. He makes no promises he can't keep, and where he lets you down, it's all on federal issues where no Governor can govern anyway.

Don't throw your baby out with the bath water. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. I'm out of cliches, so I'll just say:

Have a scotch, put on comfy shoes, take a deep breath, and work for realistic and positive change for Oregon.

[Coyote]

Hey? Didn't I mention the scotch?

I did forget the comfy shoes however.

I really think that Saxton's constant pandering is going to jump up and bite him soon. I mean you just can't go around making all kinds of outlandish comments and expect folks not to notice.

Especially in this day and age of the internet. I mean look at Mannix's 1000 fiends comment of 2001.

[Rhonda]

I am ROTFLMAO at you.

Are you saying that Ron Saxton has an opinion on educating illegal alien children that is not consitutional based on current court decisions?

How awful! We certainly can't have that, can we?

That of course would disqualify a candidate who, say, had an opinion on abortion that was unconstitutional based on currently applicable US Supreme Court decisions that have been around for about three decades.

Oh wait! Jason is pro life. Oops.

[Gullyborg]

One problem, Rhonda:

Jason Atkinson has said again and again that while he is pro-life, he is bound by law and must enforce Roe v. Wade even if he doesn't personally believe in it.

Further, while Roe v. Wade guarantees your so-called "right to choose," the Supreme Court has said, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that States do have the right to regulate abortions to the extent that they do not place an "undue burden" on your right to murder your baby.

In other words, a state can pass laws requiring parental notification, informed consent, and other "due" burdens. Therefore, a pro-life Governor can have a substantial impact on the regulation of abortion.

A Governor cannot, however, blanketly rule out education for the children of illegal immigrants.

Now go back under your rock and get back to murdering babies.

[Rhonda]

Oh, I must have missed Ron Saxton saying he was going to "blanketly rule out education for the children of illegal immigrants."

I thought he just said he was "against" providing them with education.

That is why I am still ROTFLMAO at you.

You take Saxton's statement simply saying he opposed doing something, and then you extrapolate in your own head that he is going to unilaterally act on that opposition when he said nothing of the sort.

Then you go crazy citing chapter and verse in court proceedings to "prove" that he can't do what he hasn't said he would try to do.

All this just to deflect attention from your own candidate's incoherent position on this issue.

And the funniest thing about it is that you probably agree with Saxton's original statement!

Maybe I am wrong about that. Do you think we should be giving away a free education to the children of illegal immigrants?

[Jim in KFalls]

You know this whole Ron making promises thing sounds a whole lot like promising to enact a "Defense of Marriage" act to garner enough votes to get elected, and once elected - forgetting about it.

While the comments he made about Schooling for Illegal Alien children sound good, they are nothing more than "Shock and Awe" and even if he could kick Illegal Aliens off of the school system (Which I would love to see happen) - do you really think he is going to do it? Consider how much federal funding would be lost if a significant number of "students" were suddenly not students anymore - how much pressure is it going to take for Ron to cave in to the teacher's union and what sort of financial damage would be inflicted upon our School systems if that happened the day after Ron became governor? Correct me if I’m wrong but the only practical way to remove illegal alien children from the school system is passively – by removing their parents, cutting off those services that entice their parents to come to Oregon in the first place and making it extremely difficult for illegal aliens to acquire work.

Lars uses the analogy of "Kool-Aid" drinkers who continue to support Jason Atkinson - the same analogy can be applied to those who rabidly support Saxton. Saxton has repeatedly taken the side of popularity when it suits him, usually after someone else has brought the topic up and usually to the point of being inconsistent. Is there any reason to believe he won't take the side of popularity after the primary and if he is elected governor? Then determine who the "side of popularity" is going to be? Is Ron reaching out to the grass roots of Oregon, has he had a history of reaching out to Oregon’s grass roots?
Consider his record on other issues that are important to conservatives in Oregon such as Abortion, Gun Rights, Taxes, Kicker, PERS, etc. - Is there any reason to believe he won't follow the same pattern if elected Governor?

Finally, I’m not saying Ron Saxton is a bad guy, I’m simply saying I feel there at least 2 better candidates running for Governor than Ron Saxton, and one of them seems to be taking the logical approach on the issues rather than using "Shock and Awe" tactics to win support. Remember "Shock and Awe" is the same tactic used by Libs & Dems to smear their opponents – is that the politician you want in office?

[Andy]

Plyer should be challenged based on the following:

-If we can deny the right to work based on immigration status, we can deny the right to education.

-If we can deny in state tuition to illegals, we can deny K-12 education.

-Equal protection does not apply. All persons legally in Texas have the right to the same benefits. Moreover, the constitution says "protections", not "freebies", though it has been minsinterpreted so many times the precendent has been reinforced.

But on those points alone the court should have their face rubbed in their poop. We should not be providing illegals with benefits.

As for the debate, I was told that Mannix was against restricting education to the kids of illegals because those kids are generally citizens. In the past, he has said he wants a moratorium on state benefits granted to anyone without a year of legal residency. So, the kids of noncitizens, who are also noncitizens, would not qualify if they were fencehoppers. If anchor babies, they get the rights of any other citizen.

I asked Mannix about the legality of this position at a candidates forum and he referenced the case in question, and did say he would pass the law and fight for it in the courts, as public opinion has shifted as has the makeup of the court.

[Gullyborg]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court is going to see it your way, even with Alito in place of O'Connor. Children of illegal aliens are unlike their parents in that they have no power of their own to pack up and go home without their parents.

The solution is not kicking kids out of school. The solution is taking away the incentives for their parents to remain here.

No jobs for illegals, no children of illegals in school. No welfare for illegals, no children of illegals in school.

Try as hard as you might, and even though the most ardent of the anti-immigration crowd will eat it up, you will NEVER win an election running on a platform of denying an education to children, illegal or not.