How to Get Congress
to Foot the Bill for Illegal Immigration, and
Fast
By Susan Shelley
Does the U.S. Constitution require state taxpayers
to provide a free public education to the children of illegal
immigrants?
The U.S. Supreme Court said it does. In the 1982 case
of Plyler v. Doe, the Court ruled that the equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from denying school enrollment
to children who were not "legally admitted" to the United States.
As a matter of history, the equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment did nothing of the kind, but that's another subject.
(Read about
it here.)
The Supreme Court's decision in the Plyler v. Doe
case was not unanimous. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote a dissenting
opinion--joined by Justices Byron White, William Rehnquist and Sandra Day
O'Connor--in which he argued that while it was an admirable and useful thing
to educate the children of illegal aliens, it was beyond the power of the
U.S. Supreme Court to order the states to pay for it.
Voters have repeatedly expressed concerns about the
cost of illegal immigration. California's Proposition 187, the 1994 ballot
initiative that would have cut off public education and other services for
illegal aliens, was approved by fifty-nine percent of the voters before a
federal judge struck it down as unconstitutional. Arizona voters currently
are signing petitions for a ballot initiative that would require proof of
citizenship to vote or obtain welfare benefits. A recent poll placed support
for the measure at seventy percent.
The federal government's lax enforcement of immigration
laws is sustained by a coalition of interests, including businesses that
welcome cheap labor, foreign governments dependent on the stream of cash
sent home by migrants (estimated at $12 billion in 2003 to Mexico alone),
and members of Congress who owe their newly-redistricted seats to population
growth from illegal immigration.
Against these powerful interests, the states have been
unable to move the federal government to strictly enforce U.S. immigration
laws or reimburse taxpayers for the cost of providing public services to
illegal immigrants. And as long as the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the
Constitution to give illegal immigrants a right to those services, there
is nothing the states can do about it.
Or is there?
The U.S. Constitution gives the people of the United
States the power to amend the Constitution. An amendment becomes effective
when it has been ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states.
It goes out to the states for consideration after it has been proposed in
one of two ways: either by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate,
or by a Constitutional Convention called by two-thirds of the state
legislatures.
In other words, it is possible to amend the Constitution
even if the entire U.S. Congress, all fifty state governors, the nine justices
of the U.S. Supreme Court and the President of the United States all oppose
the idea. They have no role in the process.
And if you think they'd be unhappy about that, imagine
what they'd think of an amendment that looked like this:
1. Persons who have entered or remained in the United
States in violation of U.S. immigration law shall be deemed to be residing
in the United States illegally.
2. Persons residing in the United States illegally
shall not be counted in the Census for purposes of congressional
representation.
3. Neither the United States nor any State shall be
required to provide education, non-emergency health care services, or public
assistance to persons who are residing in the United States illegally.
4. Children born to persons residing in the United
States illegally are not citizens of the United States, but shall be deemed
citizens of their mother's country of legal residence.
If two-thirds of the states called a Constitutional
Convention to discuss an amendment of this kind, the federal government would
have no means to block it. State legislatures would be in possession of something
completely unfamiliar to them:
Leverage.
If the states with substantial illegal immigrant
populations are added to the states that have just lost congressional seats
to the states with substantial illegal immigrant populations, the two-thirds
hurdle begins to look surmountable.
And if the barriers to a constitutional amendment begin
to look surmountable, the states may find that when they call on Congress
to pick up the tab for providing services to illegal immigrants, their calls
are returned a lot more quickly.
Just the discussion may be enough to get the check
in the mail.
December 6, 2003
© Copyright 2003 by Susan
Shelley
Source Notes:
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
History of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal
protection clause: See "How the First Amendment Came to Protect Topless
Dancing: A History of the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Into the Fourteenth
Amendment, Why It's a Problem, and How to Fix It" at:
Arizona poll numbers: Poll by Phoenix's
KAET-TV Channel 8 and the Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School
of Journalism, as reported in the Kingman Daily Miner, November 28, 2003,
"Poll: Support for Protect Arizona Now," by Caleb Soptelean.
Cash remittances sent to Mexico: Mexican
President Vicente Fox told reporters in New York City that remittances "are
our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign
investment. The 20 million Mexicans in the United States generate a gross
product that is slightly higher than the $600 billion generated by Mexicans
in Mexico. If we could add up the two products, Mexico would be the third
or fourth [largest] economy in the world." Associated Press, September 24,
2003, "Fox Says U.S.-Mexico Remittances Hit High" by Luis Alonso
Lugo.
Effect of illegal immigration on
redistricting: The Center for Immigration Studies released a report asserting
that California gained three Congressional seats and North Carolina gained
one, while Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi and Montana each lost one, due
to illegal immigrants counted in the 2000 Census. Charlotte Observer, October
25, 2003, "Group: N.C. Shouldn't Have New Seat; Illegal immigrants raised
count, leading to 13th district, study says" by Cristina Breen
Bolling.
Amendment procedures: U.S. Constitution,
Article V. Read it online at:
|
----------------------
