The Arguments of the Appellants Attorneys representing the Tyler Independent School District, the appellants in this case, answered "no" to both of the constitutional questions. To support their position, the appellants offered the following arguments:

The children in this case are not "persons" within the state's jurisdiction. They are unlawfully living in the state and are subject to deportation. Undocumented immigrants should not be protected under the equal protection clause to the same degree as citizens and others living legally in the country. By denying free public schooling to children of undocumented immigrants, the Texas law serves a "substantial state interest," which justifies an exception to the equal protection clause. The "substantial state interest" in this case is based on the following: a. It will cost Texas over $62 million per year to educate the estimated 20,000 children of undocumented immigrants now living in the state. This money could better be spent on the children of legal residents. b. A free public education for the children in this case will encourage the continued influx of undocumented immigrants into Texas. c. The children of undocumented aliens place "special burdens" on the Texas education system such as the hiring of additional bilingual teachers. The U.S. Supreme Court has earlier held that a free public education is not a "fundamental right" under the Constitution. [San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)] Requiring free public schooling for these children will lead to other cases in which those who have entered the country illegally will demand equal access to such public benefits as food stamps, unemployment insurance, and a free college education. Congress and the federal government should be held responsible for the education of illegal immigrant children since this is a national, not a state problem. The Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to strike down state laws simply because they may be unwise. The Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to create rights when they do not exist in the Constitution. The Supreme Court should not attempt to solve social problems. This is the job of Congress and the state legislatures. It is not fair for Texas taxpayers to be held responsible for educating the children of the world.

The Arguments of the Respondents The attorneys representing the undocumented immigrant children, the respondents in this case, answered "yes" to both of the constitutional questions. To support their position, the respondents offered the following arguments: The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies not only to citizens but to "any person" including aliens [Yick Wo v. Hopkins,118 U.S. 356 (1886)]. The children in this case are "persons" living within the "jurisdiction" of the state since they reside in Texas and are subject to its laws. Discrimination against the school-age children in this case is not justified by any "substantial state interest": a. The children in this case represent only 1 percent of the school-age population in Texas. Spending some state funds by educating these children will not reduce the quality of schooling of the other children. b. There is little evidence that undocumented immigrants come to Texas seeking educational benefits for their children. Most come looking for jobs. c. Most of the state funds used for bilingual education and related special needs are spent on pupils who are legal residents. While education may not be a "fundamental right" under the Constitution, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires that when a state establishes a public school system (as in Texas), no child living in that state may be denied equal access to schooling. Failure to educate these children will lead to higher future social costs related to unemployment, welfare, and crime. Children should not be penalized for the illegal acts of their parents. Undocumented immigrant children could later become legal residents or even citizens as a result of marriage or changes in the law. Denying a free public education to the children of undocumented immigrants now will keep them forever in the lowest socio-economic class. Some children of undocumented immigrant parents were born in this country. These children are already full citizens of the United States and are entitled to an education. their brothers and sisters born in Mexico, however, are still in the U.S. illegally. Is it fair for some children in a family to have

access to public education while others are denied? The Texas law presents the danger of creating a permanent class of undocumented immigrants encouraged to stay as cheap labor but denied any benefits of society. Texas will be better off having these children in school rather than roaming the streets

1. Do you agree with the "The Arguments of the Appellants" or the "The Arguments of the Respondents"? and Why?

2. What do you think will be the decision of the theU.S. Supreme Courtwill be