About this blog: A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court does 
not necessarily mean the end of battles over a disputed issue. The wars over abortion still rage despite the 
landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. So, too, with the Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, which allowed undocumented children to enroll in Texas public schools and marked a turning point in immigration rights. But the battles over undocumented school children continue, as Michael A. Olivas shows in his book “No Undocumented Child Left Behind: Plyler v. Doe and the Education of Undocumented Schoolchildren,” recently released by New York University Press. Here, Olivas, a law professor at the University of Houston, explores where the law and the nation stand today.
--------------------------
On June 15, we will celebrate the 30th birthday of the Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe. This landmark ruling handed down in 1982 has made it possible for undocumented children to enroll in the nation’s public schools, and it has been widely acknowledged as a success story.
When President Reagan and Congress enacted comprehensive immigration reform in 1986, it was possible for many of these children to become citizens. Even early opponents such as James Plyler, the Tyler, Texas superintendent, later indicated that he was happy the case turned out as it did, inasmuch as these children were permitted to stay and get an education.
The case continues to require vigilance because some states still attempt to enact their own laws on the schooling of undocumented children, as Alabama did when it passed a statute requiring registration of its schoolchildren. The legislators just wanted to put the fear of God (and La Migra – the immigration authorities) into the hearts of the parents, who were lured to Alabama to do the backbreaking work that others don’t do.
The courts enjoined the provisions, although the desired damage had been done: frightened parents removed their children from the schools.
In another recent incident a Texas schoolteacher admonished a child that he should “go back to Mexico.” These kinds of events are newsworthy because they are relatively rare. But the fact is many of the targeted children excel in their academic and personal endeavors and win competitions and awards.
The ongoing debates in the Republican primaries over the DREAM Act — which would provide conditional citizenship to certain undocumented college students — have revealed a great divide on what to do about these children when they reach college age.
Note how Gov. Perry’s immigrant tuition policies, allowing undocumented Texas college students to pay in-state tuition, ran afoul of his opponents in the GOP primary. Herman Cain, in contrast, foolishly advocated for an electrified fence.
State laws do not wisely address the issues — they violate federal law and overreact. They have also shown the interconnectedness and globalization of migrant and farm labor in a way no other means could have. Only federal comprehensive immigration reform can work — we cannot have 50 state immigration policies, any more than we can have 50 foreign policies or forms of currency.
In the end, Plyler is an example of our better angels. Re-reading the case today draws attention to the important issues of incorporation of outsiders into our communities, the strains in the U.S. polity, and the unrelenting meanness of the restrictionists who are still fighting this battle more than 30 years later.
Most educators are drawn to the story’s narrative arc: innocent children brought to a new country where their families live in the shadows. The decision was the best our country has to offer: compassion, a fierce belief in reducing inequality, and political and personal courage.
In our society, then as now, we do not punish our children for the transgressions of their parents.
----------------------------------------------
Follow Steven Levingston on Twitter @SteveLevingston
By Michael A. Olivas | 11:56 AM ET, 03/14/2012
