The Next Outrage

If you think SB1070, the law that makes a state crime being undocumented in the State of Arizona and seeks "attrition through enforcement", among other things is bad enough, wait to you read about what Russell Pearce is setting the stage for on next Legislative sessions. This proposals will target immigrant children as young as 5 years old:

SB2382

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2382h.pdf

Summary

Dept. of Education will collect data of students enrolled in public schools and charter schools whose parents cannot provide lawful legal status.

Each Dec 15 will submit reports. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall withhold school district's appointment of state aid if a school district does not comply. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall withhold the salary, bonus or both of any employee or school district that fails to comply.

SB2182

For the purpose of determining state aid to school districts and charter schools, the determination of Average daily attendance shall exclude children whose parents are unable to provide child's lawful presence in the United States.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2182p.htm

The bills are technically dead but there is always the possibility of bringing them back in the next legislature (with different numbers). This is the tactic employed for parts and pieces of SB1070.

Those bills will try to challenge a Supreme Court Decision known as Plyler vs Doe.

Here is from Wikipedia:

Plyler v. Doe, 457 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants and simultaneously struck down a municipal school district's attempt to charge illegal immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented student to compensate for the lost state funding^[1]. The Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people (specifically children) based on their status as aliens, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial goal of the State.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

Plyler vs Doe is a supreme court decision that establishes:

If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here.

According to the following piece, collecting data on the students and producing reports where the cost for the state is established, would be used to justify state interest.

Anti-immigrant former Congressman Tom Tancredo writes in an article called "The Next Arizona Earthquake" the arguments anti-immigrant activist will employ to challenge Plyler vs. Doe:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=151021

"While it is true that the 1982 Plyler decision did forbid schools from denying a public education to children who are illegal aliens, the court did not say such a denial is unconstitutional. The court merely said Texas had not proved its case that providing that education placed an undue hardship on the public treasury.

That may have been true in Texas in 1982, but is it true in Arizona in 2010? Is it true anywhere in Texas, Arizona, California, Nevada, Colorado,Oklahoma, Utah or Georgia in 2010?

The only way to know the answer to that question is to first ask it. But to answer it requires asking for the school enrollment data. That's why Russell Pearce's SB1097 is so refreshingly revolutionary.

The Plyler decision did not forbid schools from collecting enrollment data. That is another myth promoted by the "immigrant rights" lobbyists."

Is this really going to happen??? Not for sure. It's a possibly scenario that we must be prepared to confront.