No undocumented child left behind: Plyler v. Doe and the education of undocumented schoolchildren by Michael A. Olivas
- PDF / 61,964 Bytes
- 3 Pages / 535.748 x 697.323 pts Page_size
- 99 Downloads / 171 Views
N o u n d o c u m e n t e d c h i l d l e f t be h i n d : P l y l e r v . D o e a n d th e e d u c a t i o n of un d o c u m e n t e d schoolchildren Michael A. Olivas New York University Press, New York, 2012, 206pp., $35.00, ISBN: 978-0814762448 (hardcover) Latino Studies (2014) 12, 318–320. doi:10.1057/lst.2014.28
Michael Olivas’s No Undocumented Child Left Behind eloquently engages a single topic: the Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982) case. While the outcome of Plyler is relatively common knowledge among migration and Latina/o studies scholars – it prohibits local public school districts from denying enrollment of children not “legally admitted” into the United States, in Kindergarten through the 12th grade – Olivas does more than retell the outcome. He foregrounds two elements not generally addressed by scholars: the historical and law context of the case, and the political and policy legacy of the case to the debate from 2001 to the present regarding DREAMers (children brought to the United States without formal authorization or who may no longer possess valid visas). The journey mapped out by the author is one that engenders a fuller appreciation of the importance of that case, despite its limited precedential status in subsequent federal opinions, and its potential relevance to the issue of state and local laws enacted since the early 1990s that seek to control migration through the regulation of migrants. No Undocumented Child Left Behind can be thought of as a book with something for three
audiences. First, for historically minded scholars of law and Latino migration, the historical context of the case presents a window into the drama and contingency of the case. The enactment in 1975 of a provision in the Texas Education Code (21.031), that on its face gives a sense of neutrality, fostered the adoption of tuition for not “legally admitted alien” children. Shortly after its enactment in 1977, several civil rights attorneys stepped in to challenge the law. Olivas presents a frank interpretation of the tensions among key attorneys, as well as the fact that luck surfaced on the side of the plaintiffs, and that between when the case was argued in the Supreme Court in December 1981 and June 1982, when the opinion was issued, the outcome was not certain. The final 5-4 decision indicates the slim margin in the outcome. Second, for activists and scholars engaged with the debate on an amnesty/path to citizenship for DREAMers, Olivas offers an insightful argument for understanding the legal constraints faced by post-high school graduates in their efforts to continue their education at the state level. Chapters 4 and 5 foreground how the narrow legal principles and focus on equal protection
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1476-3435 Latino Studies www.palgrave-journals.com/lst/
Vol. 12, 2, 318–320
Book Review
adopted by Supreme Court justices restricted the scope of the decision. The adoption of a lowerlevel standard of review (that is, intermediate scrutiny principle) meant that the power of states to regulat
Data Loading...
