In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court held (in a 5-to-4 decision) that a Texas state law that sought to deny funds for the education of children who were not legally admitted to the United States violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court concluded that the undocumented status of these children did not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the state provides to other residents.The court went on to say that the state statute imposes a lifetime of hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. Furthermore, these children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status. The court did recognize that the deprivation of public education is not like the deprivation of some other government benefits that, presumably, do not rise to the level of public education and, therefore, could be denied to illegal immigrants.
However, in regard to public education the court concluded that it has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage. Thus, deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual and psychological well-being of the individual, and is an obstacle to individual achievement.
It is not my purpose to criticize the Plyler case; rather it is to explore its possible application in regard to other government programs. For example, it is likely that some form of health care reform legislation soon will be enacted.
Should illegal immigrants be entitled to receive such benefits to the same extent as other people? Would the denial of health care take an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual and psychological well-being of illegal immigrants?
Those who support health care benefits for illegal immigrants would be quick to point out that so-called universal health care would be illusory if some 12 million illegal immigrants were excluded from coverage, especially as they currently have access to treatment in emergency rooms and many clinics.
If the Supreme Court were to determine that the denial of health care to illegal immigrants cannot be sustained under the Constitution, it could simply hold unconstitutional any provision in health care reform legislation denying such coverage.
Or, would the court distinguish health care from public education and conclude that at least adults who are here illegally are solely responsible -- unlike their children -- for their undocumented status and should not benefit from their illegal status by being afforded access to our health care system?
Another area for the possible application of the Plyler decision is in the taking of the Census. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that an "enumeration" of "persons" be made to determine the apportionment of representatives among the states.
The stakes are quite high. In the past the Census has counted all people regardless of immigration status, which resulted in some states gaining congressional seats (California) while others lose seats (Indiana, Michigan and Mississippi).
Could the reasoning in Plyler, which recognized that not all government benefits must be extended to illegal immigrants, be used by those opposed to counting illegal immigrants (e.g., states that have lost seats) to argue that they should not be allowed to participate in the constitutionally mandated process for determining how states are afforded congressional seats? In other words, their illegal status should not be given (as now) equal weight with that of other persons when determining congressional representation.
|
