Plyler v. Doe refers to a legal case in which a number of children of undocumented immigrants were unable to attend school, and while many consider it to be a minor case, it actually presents substantial implications for education in the United States. While the case was ongoing, the parents had insisted on the provision of education for their children as the legal fight would take years to resolve. At this point, the opposition in court would disagree with the request based on two dimensions, the economics and the rights of undocumented immigrants. The education of these children would be as costly as educating any other child with the addition of English-focused classes. However, the judge ruled that the cost of not providing these children with education, in the long run, would be burdensome as they would not be qualified to work and pay taxes. Similarly, there was disagreement regarding whether undocumented migrants could fall under the title ‘persons’ that is utilized in the Consitution. Once again, the judge argued that while they were under U.S. jurisdiction, they would fall under the aforementioned category.
Despite these initial discussions, the same rights that are granted in some capacities such as protection from a fire would not be granted to students. Though the case had occurred decades ago, the article’s author, Jill Lepore, displays how issues that occurred then continue to impact current rights to education. In the conclusion of the case, education was regarded as neither a right nor a governmental benefit, and the children of undocumented immigrants “are vulnerable, and laws that discriminate against them, while not subject to strict scrutiny, deserved “heightened scrutiny” (Lepore). Lepore outlines the ruling of Plyler v. Doe is not only an example of the limitation of the right of immigrants in education but largely in all legal matters in which they are often vulnerable.
Work Cited
Lepore, Jill. “Is Education a Fundamental Right?”. The New Yorker. Web.