An Easter Message from Texas: Happy Easter Undocumented Immigrant Parents!

From today’s Austin Statesman (here):  As campuses across the country tighten security, many Central Texas schools have incorporated computer software that checks visitors’ criminal records to see whether they are registered sex offenders. Del Valle is one of the latest districts to adopt the protocol, which entails running a Texas- or U.S.-issued ID or driver’s license through a sex offender database. Then the computer prints a badge with the visitor’s name, photograph and destination within the school. A visitor who is a registered sex offender must stay in the office. Some school districts accept other forms of identification or make allowances for parents who do not have one, but Del Valle accepts only a Texas- or U.S.-issued photo identification. That has some parents crying foul, saying the district is discriminating against immigrants by effectively barring them from school day activities and volunteering.

***

Although safety is critically important, a system has to be fashioned so that ALL parents can participate in their childrens’ school activities.  Like it or not, the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982) struck down a Texas law barring undocumented children from the public elementary and secondary schools.  For many, perhaps a majority of, school districts, the problem is insufficient parental involvement.  This makes the new policy in some Texas school districts difficult to comprehend. 

Of course, the ID issue affects many aspects of U.S. social life, which explains why the driver’s license controversy has been so heated.  In some places, undocumented immigrants cannot obtain marriage licenses (here), which has to be unlawful.  In February, in PADRON v. PADRON, 281 Ga. 646; 641 S.E.2d 542; 2007 Ga. LEXIS 161 (February 26, 2007), the Georgia Supreme Court had to intervene because a lower court refused to allow an undocumented immigrant to divorce:  “It is error to rule that a person is not a resident of Georgia for purposes of filing a complaint for divorce based solely on the plaintiff’s immigration status. The trial court’s dismissal of a complaint for divorce was error.”

KJ