When Rick Perry gets battered for the Texas practice of providing in-state tuition breaks for the children of illegals, his response? If you disagree, "you don't have a heart"
The base of Perry's party finds that answer offensive and insulting...because it is. This self inflicted wound is the part of the political dance of the historically and Constitutionally illiterate.
Taxpayers and property owners don't need to be lectured upon how to be irritated by squatters claiming property rights ...a situation made worse by bureaucrats siding with the squatters. Then, the political class sermonize about the lack of compassion on the part of taxpayers who complain about the theft.
Both sides in this case have forgotten how this happened.
In the early 80's Texans woke up to the fact that the children of illegals were showing up at public schools expecting a free public education. When taxpayers complained, Texas legislators tried to put a stop to it by passing a law against it. They got sued. It went all the way to the Supreme Court in 1981. In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a baffling 5-4 decision, that the children of illegals were covered somehow by the language of the 14th Amendment and to deny them access to a free public education violated their 14th Amendment rights. It was argued that discrimination on the basis of immigration status did not further a substantial state interest. It did however involve bazillions of dollars of OPM, a condition which has spread country wide.
In fact, here in Iowa, the Iowa Department of Education has on their website:
"Plyler is still controlling law today for all states...Schools may not question immigrant students as to their "legal" status and may not demand their "documentation." Pursuant to Plyler v. Doe, public school districts shall provide these students, assuming they meet residency requirements, with tuition-free educations."
However, Plyler is just a court opinion, not the law of the land. Plus, it's a bad decision on it's face. Why? Non-citizens are not under our contract. (Constitution) Why? The Preamble explains whom the contract covers. "We the People of the United States..." We the people could decide to cover the children of illegals, but we haven't. Courts can't do that in our place by judicial fiat...unless we let them.
Educrats latched onto it though, making it the bureaucratic law of the land by practice. . Why? They get access to OPM, federal money, which goes to educate non-English speaking students. Educrats get to expand their missions, budgets and jurisdiction with the drop of a judicial hammer.
The practical effect on the political economy is that irresponsible business and corporate employers import cheap, often illegal labor and dump the social costs on taxpayers who are called "heartless" if they complain. This cost shifting destroys the tax base of the community and erodes the academic potential of the schools which try to absorb the social impact of dozens of new language groups.
Then, if locals catch on to this scam and demand schools tighten up on admissions, activists step up and drop the other bomb.
"The children of illegals who are born here are automatic citizens under the Constitution, and we cannot discriminate against them."
This claim has been repeated so often and by so many that people on both sides of the aisle are convinced its true, to the extent that some even suggest a constitutional amendment as a remedy.
Here's the short history. The 14th Amendment (never legally ratified... thank you Professor Thomas Woods) was written to grant citizenship to former slaves whom by state practice and court case (Dredd Scott) were denied their rights.
The Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment has been distorted to include the kids of illegals by misinterpreting the "under the jurisdiction thereof" clause.
It's author, Senator Jacob Howard, during Senate debate explained who it would cover and not cover. "...This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers....etc."
The original intent of the amendment's author was clear. Birthright citizenship of foreigners was explicitly excluded. Plus, there is nothing in the Constitution which requires taxpayers to fund the kids of illegals. Therefore no amendment fix is required to address a nonexistent problem.
A simple bill would do it. "Nothing in the Constitution shall be interpreted to grant the benefits of citizenship to non-citizens. This act is removed from judicial review". Fixed and door shut.
Rick Perry and the previous Texas governors since 1981, Mark White, Bill Clements, Ann Richards and George Bush have out of ignorance or malicious compliance, allowed a ridiculous court opinion to rob a generation of taxpayers of untold wealth. Governor Perry can recover his candidacy only if he can recover the history. If he won't, he doesn't have a brain.
© 2012
