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.
Recent Comments