Restrictionist Lawyer Reveals Long-Term Assault on Immigrant Children

Today, the head of the legal arm of one of the most notorious restrictionist groups in the nation boldly admitted his work on Alabama’s new anti-immigrant law aims to end public education for the children of immigrants. Michael Hethmon of the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), an offshoot of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), made no bones about being the author of the education provision in HB 56—which on its face requires public schools to determine the immigration status of enrolling students and their parents, but in reality chips away at children’s ability to get an education.

In fact, FAIR’s long-term vision to erode any and all rights afforded to the children of immigrants becomes increasingly clear with each new FAIR initiative—from attempts to repeal access to birth certificates at the state level through their state legislative arm (State Legislators for Legal Immigration) to IRLI’s litigation strategies in the courts that attempt to turn U.S. policy against immigrant children.

In defense of the education provision, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange assured a judge that the provision would require nothing more than data collection and that “no child will be denied an education based on unlawful status.” However in the same New York Times article, Hethmon of IRLI admitted that HB 56’s education provision is just a first step:

The man who wrote the schools provision … that it is not meant as a deterrent — at least not yet. It is, however, a first step in a larger and long-considered strategy to topple a 29-year-old Supreme Court ruling that all children in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, are guaranteed a public education.

Hethmon then goes on to explain why this data collection provision is an important part of bigger plans and why they were careful no to go too far in HB 56:

Mr. Hethmon said the problem with these challenges is that they have not taken the trouble to gather the evidence the court found missing in Plyler.

“The toughest question has been obtaining reliable — and I mean reliable for peer-reviewed research purposes — censuses of the number of illegal alien students enrolled in school districts,” he said. “That information could be compared with other sorts of performance or resource allocation issues.

That information is then passed on to the State Board of Education not only to prepare an annual report with the data but also to “contract with reputable scholars and research institutions” to determine the costs, fiscal and otherwise, of educating illegal immigrants.

Because no one is actually barred from attending school and the data is not passed on to law enforcement, the provision passes constitutional muster, Mr. Hethmon said.

But it also potentially enables a fresh challenge to Plyler v. Doe, and the idea that schools are obligated to provide a free education to illegal immigrants.”

There is no doubt the “reputable scholars and research institutions” Hethmon refers to include FAIR’s research arm and sister group, the Center for Immigration Studies. If the Alabama Department of Education continues to collect data on the immigration status of immigrant children and makes it public, it won’t be long before FAIR and CIS produce data on the “fiscal costs of educating the children of immigrants in Alabama.”

While the New York Times article also quotes well-respected legal scholars who feel the chances of a repeal of Plyer V. Doe are highly unlikely, the damage that would be done by allowing these anti-immigrant groups access to private student data is undoubted. FAIR will exploit this information in order to wage a public relations campaign against the children of immigrants.

FAIR and company, also known as the Tanton Network, are continuing to build an elaborate infrastructure and execute a long term plan that systematically chips away at the rights of immigrant children.  It’s time Americans, beginning with Alabamians, put their collective foot down against this.

Photo by cybrarian77.

email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed

6 Reader Comments

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1. Victoria Sethunya says:

    Wendy,
    Do you know whether or not someone is reaching out to these children in terms of treatment or intervention for potential harm underlying the children’s fears?
    Thanks for the response.

  2. Harry Allison says:

    This is appalling. We should focus our attention on these public admissions. If they cannot be used in any way in legal proceedings against Alabama, then they should become public knowledge.

    We aren’t going to discriminate against you. We just want to know how many of you there are so that when we do discriminate against you, we can claim that your numbers are indeed placing a large burden on our system and our future prejudice and institutionalized racism will be justified.

    I am hoping these kinds of statements will become important in future litigation against FAIR and others that will hopefully bankrupt them.
    Thank you for all your hard work. Please continue to keep the light on these folks. They represent the worst of our nature.

  3. Mike Hethmon says:

    Thank you for the very helpful publicity about the thinking behind Alabama’s HB 56 section 28. The tone is regretably hysterical, the consipiratorial mindset silly, but it should have a similarly positive motivating impact on the American electorate as the May Day amnesty demonstrations, by the useful idiot wing of the open borders movement, had in the years leading up to 2008.

    The actual reporting in the New York Times was considerably less paranoid than the II blog, and more informative for the general concerned reader who may have less background on the 1982 Pyler v Doe case: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/us/alabama-immigration-laws-critics-question-target.html?_r=2

    • Victoria Sethunya says:

      Hi Mike,
      Please bear with me, but could you put the reference to ” May Day” in context? Looking forward to reading from you. Cjao!

  4. Wendy Sefsaf says:

    So glad you responded Mike but could you be more specific? What exactly about the post did you find particularly hysterical or silly? Did I misconstrue your intentions in the NY Times Article? Would love to hear more of a response and so would our readers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 + = nine

Top