Ensuring Every Child's Right to Education - Research Paper

Introduction

Education is a fundamental right for every child regardless of their social background citizenship and even religious Affiliation. There have been challenges with the law every time children of the illegal immigrants seeks education in the foreign country such led to the famous Plyler vs. Doe case. This research paper is evidence of why the supreme court was correct in its decision and why every state should comply.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Plyler vs. Doe is a case of 1982 where the Supreme Court refused and struck down the statutory statue which outlined that the children of undocumented immigrants in the United States where not entitled to educational funds (Calabresi & Barsky,2017). The Supreme Court in the ruling also struck down a municipal school district's plea to start charging USD 10,000 from the undocumented immigrants as a compensation for the lost government funding.

Reasons for Supporting the Ruling

First, the Supreme Court was right in striking down the statues in its landmark ruling because the children are human beings and are entitled to protection by the fourteenth amendment of human and civil rights. The fourteenth amendment on equal protection recognizes education as one fundamental way of personal liberation from a miserable life, through economic means (Calabresi & Barsky, 2017). They are entitled to good education and instruction. By imposing such statues on them, the Texas officials violated the constitution, which was not right. The commitment of the constitution to protect the citizens equally applies universally. This issue was raised by the Officials of Texas, claiming that the undocumented immigrants were not under the jurisdiction of the state. The term jurisdiction is limited by the fact that the immigrants' whether lawful or not, was already in the United States physically and was entitled to the services, by just being present physically. The hidden motive of the statues was most likely to reduce the increased enrollment of students in Texas school during admission. The large turnout might have prompted the officials to think of a way to save the money.

The Supreme Court was right in its judgment because the authorities of the state were biased in their decision of taking a fine of USD 10,000 from the children as compensation (Eyles, 2018). The bias comes from the fact that children are still innocent and never anticipated the migration of their parent. Most of these undocumented immigrants are from war-torn countries and are jobless. The additional fine is a burden to them as they try to settle and find a new life away. Holding the children accountable for the mistakes of their parents was not compatible with justice hence not right as the parents would remain, illegal immigrants, whether their children stayed at home or got the education.

If the supreme court could have allowed the statues to be implemented further, the children of the undocumented immigrants would have stayed behind, ending up as illiterates in a society with illiterates. The subclass of illiterate people would be jobless and would start anti-social behaviors such as organized crimes, violence and even drug abuse. This would be costly to the state as it will have to spend money on rehabilitating them (Eyles, 2018). Educating the children would save future lives of potential victims of robbery and even death. Education gives the children a chance to change their lives and transform the state positively.

Finally, the claims by the Texas officials that the statue was a protection of the state from the influx of people migrating into the USA illegally were not valid because, even before the case, there had been a large number of immigrants coming to the country. The rate of immigration has escalated over time, but there has been any evidence linking the migration with the need for them to have a free education. Although the state has an interest in protecting its budget on education from being over-burdened (Kooragayala, 2019), it always considers its ability to provide quality education all the time. The state had been providing quality education despite the presence of the undocumented children, and Texas could not claim to change its quality education by merely excluding the children.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the judgment was fair in that the children of the immigrants who had not yet been documented received an education. The statues were selfish and protecting the state since it would not keep the immigrants away from the country, but rather save money. Although the Plyler vs. Doe is being applied only in the K-12 grade, it is useful in the transformation of a person, who can make right decisions and apply for scholarships through rightful ways (Wells, 2017). The statues would have had a severe impact on the wellbeing of the society which is being held together by education. The children denied enrolment to schools would turn into illegal activities such as crime and drug abuse in future; harming the society. There should be further attempts to ensure that education is provided freely to all grades irrespective of status and social classes.

References

Calabresi, S. G., & Barsky, L. M. (2017). An Originalist Defense of Plyler v. Doe. BYU L. Rev., 225.

Eyles, R. (2018). To what extent is Plyler v. Doe effective protection for the right to education for irregular migrant children in the contemporary US. Studies in law, politics, and society, 1-24.

Lockett, L. (2016). Book Review: No undocumented child left behind: Plyer v. Doe and the education of undocumented schoolchildren.

Kooragayala, S. (2019). Preschool for All: Plyler V. Doe in The Context of Early Childhood Education. Nw. JL & Soc. Pol' y, 15, 98.

Wells, K. (2017). What does a republican government with Donald Trump as President of the USA mean for children, youth and families?. Children's Geographies, 15(4), 491-497.