![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please note that the Supreme Court's opinion in Plyler v. Doe used both "illegal" and "undocumented" when referring to the children in question. It seems pointless to me to have a revert war over the use of one term or the other. I edited the text of the article to use both terms; hopefully that will be acceptable to everyone. Richwales 07:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
TheKaplan has edited Plyler v. Doe to use the term "illegal" throughout — citing the AP Stylebook to support the assertion that this should be the preferred usage. Not sure what others may think. I would again note that the text of the Supreme Court's opinion in this case used both "illegal" and "undocumented" when referring to the children whose eligibility for public education was in dispute. Richwales 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The term "undocumented" is factually incorrect as the people concerned had plenty of documents (showing their Mexican, or other, citizenship and so on), a lack of "documents" was never the issue. The issue was the fact that they were illegal immigrants to the United States (specically to Texas), not some supposed lack of "documents". 94.5.18.94 ( talk) 01:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The children involved in Plyler v. Doe were born outside the United States and immigrated illegally to the U.S. along with their parents. I added a comment clarifying that this case had nothing to do with the " anchor baby" issue (alien parents having a child in the U.S. in hopes of themselves obtaining legal immigration or citizenship status). Richwales 07:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This case says, and this is a direct quote,
Respondent's reliance on Reid, supra, is misplaced, since that case stands only for the proposition that United States citizens stationed abroad could invoke the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Similarly, those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 . Respondent, however, is an alien with no previous significant voluntary connection with the United States, and his legal but involuntary presence here does not indicate any substantial connection with this country. The Court of Appeals' reliance on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, supra, is also misplaced, since that case assumed that, but did not expressly address the question whether, the Fourth Amendment applies to illegal aliens in the United States. Even assuming such aliens - who are in this country voluntarily and presumably have accepted some societal obligations - would be entitled to Fourth Amendment protections, their situation differs from that of respondent, who had no voluntary connection with this country that might place him among "the people." This Court's decisions expressly according differing protection to aliens than to citizens also undermine respondent's claim that treating aliens differently under the Fourth Amendment violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 269-273.
I have highlighted the part relevant to this article.
Are any of the following in dispute?
Because if none of these points are in dispute, than this reference certainly belongs in this article.- 198.97.67.57 ( talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You've provided no sources, however, to support your additional argument (that what the Court said about Plyler is of no merit because Plyler wasn't about extradited prisoners) and, therefore, your claim, at least for now, is original research. To maintain the dispute, reliable sources which support your additional arguement are needed.
The court in Verdugo-Urquidez invoked this concept only in order to counter Mr. Verdugo's claim that, solely by virtue of his having been brought onto US soil as an extradited prisoner Again, another irrelevant point - even if it were true. The Supreme Court does not set law on a case by case basis - that's what precedent is about. I would still say, though, that the significance of the "substantial connections" phrase is unclear in relation to Plyler. Again, the court specifically referenced Plyler. By doing so it made it as clear as humanly possible that its comments were significant about Plyler. This is what I don't understand. If I say "ball A is red" and you reply "but what significance does that have to the color of ball A?" what alternative interpretation of your statement is possible other than that you aren't listening? The court said "Plyler v Doe establishes only that X, Y, and Z" and you are replying "But what significance does that have to whether Plyler v Doe established A, B, and C?" What alternative interpretation of your statement is possible other than that you aren't listening? I'm looking for the key that will help me understand your perspective. - 198.97.67.58 ( talk) 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless we can find some reliable secondary sources for it. Grover cleveland ( talk) 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing that, because something is found in the first sentence, it is relevant context. If that were true, then the case would not apply to a.) gang members who weren't gang leaders b.) people who came from countries other than Mexico c.) gang leaders involved in international sex slavery instead of the international drug trade. just to name a few. I would contend that 'gang leader', 'drug trade', and 'Mexico' aren't relevant context either and they occur in the same breath with 'transported here'. But, again, what you and I believe isn't relevant. What is relevant is reliable sources. You will note that I have not argued for adding to the article any statement saying what is and what is not relevant context - because statements either way require sources.- 75.179.153.110 ( talk) 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
We have a disagreement over whether a comment about Plyler v. Doe in another case ( U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez) does, or does not, belong in this article. This disagreement is also spilling over into the article on birthright citizenship in the United States of America; see that article's talk page as well as this one. I'm posting this RfC in an effort to get additional input from editors with a background in the law, who can clarify for us the criteria for determining the significance and relevance of a case and how far we can go in deciding if a case is or is not relevant without violating WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Richwales ( talk) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's back. I agree that Verdugo has virtually nothing to do with Plyler, as it seemed was the consensus here. Since Verdugo wasn't even about illegal immigration, an "Implication for Illegal Immigration" section in this article seems very out of place. What's the implication? I agree completely with Smith190's "floodgate" comment. "In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court specifically referenced Plyler v. Doe ..." Yes, along with numerous other cases referenced that we could WP:OR shoehorn into dozens of other articles. I won't remove the section right now, but if there's no further comment, I will do so soon. - 75.111.38.114 ( talk) 11:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In dealing with issues related to this case, our counsel also recommended we read Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983), which covers some of the same Texas laws a couple of years following Plyer. The short version is that state residence requirements for participation in public education were upheld. I believe it would be an appropriate addition to the "See Also" or "Further Reading" sections. (Aren't those labels redundant?) TAGregory ( talk) 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Plyler is an exception to the general rule that alienage be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard. In is an anomoly, not the general rule. Thus the claim that "[t]he Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people based on their status as aliens, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial goal of the State" is not entirely accurate. While the Court did not resort to the rational basis test, as indicated above, the case is anomalous, and alienage classifications are subject to the heightened strict scrutiny standard. This is consistent with what is taught in law school and what is contained in BarBri Bar Study course materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.114.72 ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Plyler v. Doe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
So... if you place the url of this wiki page into say, twitter, the avatar type image that gets placed next to it is, diplomatically, something
I cant find it on the wiki page, but maybe im not thorough
Where is this image coming fron and why the heck is it the associated image?
It is a red, stark lookimg, pixelated eagle? And no, its not the generic us doj eagle seal
Anyone know how to get a proper image there? Midwesternest ( talk) 23:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please note that the Supreme Court's opinion in Plyler v. Doe used both "illegal" and "undocumented" when referring to the children in question. It seems pointless to me to have a revert war over the use of one term or the other. I edited the text of the article to use both terms; hopefully that will be acceptable to everyone. Richwales 07:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
TheKaplan has edited Plyler v. Doe to use the term "illegal" throughout — citing the AP Stylebook to support the assertion that this should be the preferred usage. Not sure what others may think. I would again note that the text of the Supreme Court's opinion in this case used both "illegal" and "undocumented" when referring to the children whose eligibility for public education was in dispute. Richwales 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The term "undocumented" is factually incorrect as the people concerned had plenty of documents (showing their Mexican, or other, citizenship and so on), a lack of "documents" was never the issue. The issue was the fact that they were illegal immigrants to the United States (specically to Texas), not some supposed lack of "documents". 94.5.18.94 ( talk) 01:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The children involved in Plyler v. Doe were born outside the United States and immigrated illegally to the U.S. along with their parents. I added a comment clarifying that this case had nothing to do with the " anchor baby" issue (alien parents having a child in the U.S. in hopes of themselves obtaining legal immigration or citizenship status). Richwales 07:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This case says, and this is a direct quote,
Respondent's reliance on Reid, supra, is misplaced, since that case stands only for the proposition that United States citizens stationed abroad could invoke the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Similarly, those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 . Respondent, however, is an alien with no previous significant voluntary connection with the United States, and his legal but involuntary presence here does not indicate any substantial connection with this country. The Court of Appeals' reliance on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, supra, is also misplaced, since that case assumed that, but did not expressly address the question whether, the Fourth Amendment applies to illegal aliens in the United States. Even assuming such aliens - who are in this country voluntarily and presumably have accepted some societal obligations - would be entitled to Fourth Amendment protections, their situation differs from that of respondent, who had no voluntary connection with this country that might place him among "the people." This Court's decisions expressly according differing protection to aliens than to citizens also undermine respondent's claim that treating aliens differently under the Fourth Amendment violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 269-273.
I have highlighted the part relevant to this article.
Are any of the following in dispute?
Because if none of these points are in dispute, than this reference certainly belongs in this article.- 198.97.67.57 ( talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You've provided no sources, however, to support your additional argument (that what the Court said about Plyler is of no merit because Plyler wasn't about extradited prisoners) and, therefore, your claim, at least for now, is original research. To maintain the dispute, reliable sources which support your additional arguement are needed.
The court in Verdugo-Urquidez invoked this concept only in order to counter Mr. Verdugo's claim that, solely by virtue of his having been brought onto US soil as an extradited prisoner Again, another irrelevant point - even if it were true. The Supreme Court does not set law on a case by case basis - that's what precedent is about. I would still say, though, that the significance of the "substantial connections" phrase is unclear in relation to Plyler. Again, the court specifically referenced Plyler. By doing so it made it as clear as humanly possible that its comments were significant about Plyler. This is what I don't understand. If I say "ball A is red" and you reply "but what significance does that have to the color of ball A?" what alternative interpretation of your statement is possible other than that you aren't listening? The court said "Plyler v Doe establishes only that X, Y, and Z" and you are replying "But what significance does that have to whether Plyler v Doe established A, B, and C?" What alternative interpretation of your statement is possible other than that you aren't listening? I'm looking for the key that will help me understand your perspective. - 198.97.67.58 ( talk) 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless we can find some reliable secondary sources for it. Grover cleveland ( talk) 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing that, because something is found in the first sentence, it is relevant context. If that were true, then the case would not apply to a.) gang members who weren't gang leaders b.) people who came from countries other than Mexico c.) gang leaders involved in international sex slavery instead of the international drug trade. just to name a few. I would contend that 'gang leader', 'drug trade', and 'Mexico' aren't relevant context either and they occur in the same breath with 'transported here'. But, again, what you and I believe isn't relevant. What is relevant is reliable sources. You will note that I have not argued for adding to the article any statement saying what is and what is not relevant context - because statements either way require sources.- 75.179.153.110 ( talk) 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
We have a disagreement over whether a comment about Plyler v. Doe in another case ( U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez) does, or does not, belong in this article. This disagreement is also spilling over into the article on birthright citizenship in the United States of America; see that article's talk page as well as this one. I'm posting this RfC in an effort to get additional input from editors with a background in the law, who can clarify for us the criteria for determining the significance and relevance of a case and how far we can go in deciding if a case is or is not relevant without violating WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Richwales ( talk) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's back. I agree that Verdugo has virtually nothing to do with Plyler, as it seemed was the consensus here. Since Verdugo wasn't even about illegal immigration, an "Implication for Illegal Immigration" section in this article seems very out of place. What's the implication? I agree completely with Smith190's "floodgate" comment. "In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court specifically referenced Plyler v. Doe ..." Yes, along with numerous other cases referenced that we could WP:OR shoehorn into dozens of other articles. I won't remove the section right now, but if there's no further comment, I will do so soon. - 75.111.38.114 ( talk) 11:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In dealing with issues related to this case, our counsel also recommended we read Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983), which covers some of the same Texas laws a couple of years following Plyer. The short version is that state residence requirements for participation in public education were upheld. I believe it would be an appropriate addition to the "See Also" or "Further Reading" sections. (Aren't those labels redundant?) TAGregory ( talk) 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Plyler is an exception to the general rule that alienage be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard. In is an anomoly, not the general rule. Thus the claim that "[t]he Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people based on their status as aliens, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial goal of the State" is not entirely accurate. While the Court did not resort to the rational basis test, as indicated above, the case is anomalous, and alienage classifications are subject to the heightened strict scrutiny standard. This is consistent with what is taught in law school and what is contained in BarBri Bar Study course materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.114.72 ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Plyler v. Doe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
So... if you place the url of this wiki page into say, twitter, the avatar type image that gets placed next to it is, diplomatically, something
I cant find it on the wiki page, but maybe im not thorough
Where is this image coming fron and why the heck is it the associated image?
It is a red, stark lookimg, pixelated eagle? And no, its not the generic us doj eagle seal
Anyone know how to get a proper image there? Midwesternest ( talk) 23:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)