14th Amendment In Schools Case Study

These expenditures are bad enough, but the situation quickly turns from workable to hopeless when considering the budget cuts that Texas schools must make over the next two years. Sean Cavanagh reveals the state’s pending cuts in the following quote: “State officials, facing a-two-year budget shortfall of anywhere between $15 billion and $27 billion, have proposed deep reductions in school spending” (Cavanagh). If Texas’ school budget gets cut $7.5 to $14 billion dollars a year (the $15 and $27 billion figures are based on two-year budgets), and more than a quarter of illegal immigrants live in Texas while the national calculated cost of educating said illegal students is $44.5 billion dollars, then it appears as if the illegal immigrants cost more than the budget cuts. This means that if illegal aliens were sent back home, Texas would not only be able to forget about budget setbacks, but would also be able to put a few billion dollars back into the struggling education system. Lest one forgets what most of these cuts will be made, Cavanagh estimates that “Texas school systems would be forced to cut between 80,000 and 100,000 jobs if the spending cuts took effect” (Cavanagh). What will happen to the education system if all the teachers are laid off?

The fourteenth amendment is also known as equal protection clause. Under the fourteenth amendment, the U.S. Constitution prohibits the states from denying a person that lives in the state the equal rights of the law (LII, 2017). The fourteenth amendment applies to education, especially those that are English language learners (ELL), this means that these students cannot be denied the same rights as non-English language learners. In the Supreme Court case of Lau v Nichols in 1974, this case involved a Chinese American student that attended the San Francisco Unified School District, this student was placed into a general education classroom despite the lack of being proficient in English (Wright, 2010). The school in which this student attended was found in violation, the school was giving ELL students the same material as all other students who speak proficient English and expected the Chinese American student to be able to comprehend the information that is being taught. School districts need to provide the same material, but in a modified form where the student’s will be able to access the information to learn it in the same manner as those non-English language learners.

For centuries, the success of a democratic society has been measured by its commitment to equality, a resounding principle central to our nation’s founding. The Enlightenment-inspired language of the Declaration of Independence, namely the age-old axiom that “all men are created equal,” pervades our perception of the American creed. However, nearly a century passed before the Lockean principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence began to bear the force of law. Entitling American citizens to due process and equal protection of the law, the Fourteenth Amendment, perhaps the most transformative Amendment of all, has inspired the steady progression of American society. Nonetheless, while the Amendment serves as the chief legal force behind the democratic goal of equality, questions regarding its achievement of that goal

The purpose of the Texas D.R.E.A.M. Act is to give students who are undocumented (immigrants) a chance to claim residency of the state so they can not only pay in-state tuition but to also qualify for financial aid. Positive outcomes this law was enacted to accomplish includes giving the over 2 million children and young adults a chance to go to college, begin working, or join the military. The act would help universities by gaining more students, which in terms means more money for the schools. It would help military recruiting by allowing not only strong, brave but also smart young men and women to enlist for their country. It would also provide more taxable income, save taxpayers money, would allow legalized immigrants to invest in the U.S. economy. (American Immigration Council)

The fourteenth Amendment clearly states that 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 where they reside. This amendment enables pregnant woman to come into the United States , either legally or illegally, long enough to have a baby born in the United States granting them with full rights of citizenship and return home. People have come to question and assume that this section of the fourteenth amendment has become a problem, believing that these pregnant women have arrived to only bring disgrace and in justice to our Country. Those people who question these pregnants women's thoughts and actions, are wrong. These Women are not a problem to the United States for not all of their intentions are wrong, and most of their hearts are in the right place.

The 14th amendment was established after the American Civil War. It addresses the equal protection and rights for everyone. In addition to equal protection under the law to all citizens, the amendment also prohibits citizens from being deprived of life, liberty, and property. Although our laws guarantee equal treatment for all citizens, we often judge people based on their color, religion, and gender.

Stanford in 1857. The 14th amendment restrained power of states to prevent restrictions on the rights of the citizens by declaring Black Codes void. Not only this, the Radical Republicans enforced a reduction of state representatives if Southern states denied freedmen’s political power in addition to banning former Confederates from serving in Congress due to the fear that their culture would give birth to new Confederate states. Despite the controversy between the Confederate influences in congressional seats, the 14th Amendment served as the foundation of several historic landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that altered history and society: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) ; Brown v. Board of Education (1954); Gitlow v. New York (1925) ; Mapp v. Ohio (1961) (NCC staff).

My initial thought is in the context of which the 14th amendment was made. It safeguards individual liberties for all citizens; not just for adults, white males, those living in a specific state and promises equality. In this description alone, does the Constitution not delegate the equality of Joshua and Randy as individual citizens? To some, that is a broad interpretation; as precedents and law support parental sovereignty, but the statement is blatant to me. The first step is to establish Joshua’s rights as independent from his father’s, and therefore the act of child abuse, and the neglect of the DSS deprived Joshua of his right to life and liberty. His rights were abridged by his father; not because Randy’s abuse voided his right to parent

The first state to adopt a law allowing undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at public universities was Texas. This law is so-called “The Dream Act.” To qualify for this act an immigrant student must have graduated high school or received a GED in Texas, must live in the state for three years, and sign an affidavit confirming that they are seeking legal residency. According to the Education Commission of the States, since 2001, Washington, Utah, Oklahoma, New York, New Mexico, Kansas, Illinois, and California have adopted similar laws. Some conservative Texas legislators have filed to repeal The Dream Act. Their opinion is that it is unfair to legal U.S. citizens from other states that are required to pay out-of-state tuition. This act also requires taxpayers to pay higher education costs for undocumented immigrants. Others argue that many come to America through no choice because their parents illegally came to the country. They believe it is unfair to punish the students for their parents’ decisions. Bills that have tried to take away the Texas Dream Act have failed thus far. ("Tribpedia: Dream Act | The Texas Tribune." The Texas Tribune. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 July 2015.)1

The Texas Senate Bill 1819 would repeal a 2001 HB 1403 that allows illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. The Bill was proposed by Texas State Sen. Donna Campbell, who feels, “We need to direct our resources first and foremost to the legal residents of Texas.” The current law allows illegal alien students who have lived in Texas for at least three years that pledge to apply for legal status, to pay in-state tuition rates. Bill 1819 would terminate this law and let universities establish a policy to, “verify to the satisfaction of the institution” that a student is a legal resident or citizen. It would affect all illegal immigrant students applying to Texas Colleges and Universities.

The amendments ensure equality for people and suppress anti-federalism. In addition James Madison wrote "that as they[aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitle in return, to their constitutional protection and advantages" (Contreras 2017). However, Republicans mentioned that when the fourteenth amendment was written at a time were there was no illegal immigrants, people could walk from one country to the next. On the other hand, in article 1, section 8 clause 4 of The Constitution grants congress the exclusive power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization meaning "any alien being a free white person … of good character[,] who had reside in the country for at least two years to become a U.S. citizen by swearing an oath to support the constitution (Association 2017). Meaning that immigration was a problem when the amendment was written, but the search to make the country prosperous became more important and have its own laws.

Most minors are placed under the care of the Department of Health and Human Services which offers education rights. After a while the child will be released into the United States with a family member or other “Guardian,” the child will still have education rights. So why wouldn 't they be allowed to attend school? They have the right to go, why not use it? Americans are just lazy, but complain when illegals come here and get a job. There are so many American people that depend on the system, and live off it that are perfectly fine to work. Those are the first to complain about the immigrants and the children getting an education, saying they can’t get a job because of the illegals ,and the undocumented children are taking his/her child’s education away. All children are entitled to a public education.

Supreme Court decided in Plyler v. Doe that the equal protection provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment requires public schools to admit illegal alien children, on the presumption that denial of public education to children whose parents brought them illegally to the United States is not a rational response to states' concerns about illegal immigration. 1 The opinion, however, was based on specific circumstances that could change and it did not apply to education beyond mandatory public schooling (qtd. in Stewart, par. 8).

My answer is yes. I am sure that education is a fundamental right of each person who lives in their own or in other countries. Nowadays there are many countries who don’t have such problems which was described in the case of Plyler v.Doe which happened in May 1975. It is fact that the Texas governing body reconsidered its instruction laws to withhold starting with neighborhood one school areas any state subsidizes for the instruction about children who were not legitimately admitted under the United States. There are many reasons were hold in the article. But here is the question, whether, reliable for those equivalent insurance statement of the fourteenth Amendment, Texas might deny to undocumented school-age children those allowed government

So far, attempts to bar undocumented children from public schools have failed. In the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. In a 5-4 decision, it overturned a Texas law that allowed schools to deny education to illegal immigrants. Martha McCarthy reports that Texas had justified its law as a means of "preserving financial resources, protecting the state from an influx of illegal immigrants, and maintaining high quality education for resident children" (128). The Court considered these issues but concluded that in the long run the costs of educating immigrant children would pale in comparison to the costs--both to the children and to society--of not educating them.