Talk:Plyler v. Doe

message: 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)
replies: text: Is the distinction between "illegal" and "undocumented" necessary to the meaning of the article?  Or just aesthetics?  --Tim4christ17 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No real distinction in meaning between the two terms — but, to many people, there are political connotations.  As I said, there was a revert war going on over this issue a few weeks ago.  Inspired in part by the Supreme Court's opinion in Plyler v. Doe using both terms more or less interchangeably, I edited the article to use both terms as well.  I'm still worried that upsetting that balance may set off another revert war, but if that happens, I'll probably leave it to someone else to fight it next time.  Richwales 06:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Illegal" vs. "undocumented" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Undocumented (illegal) children" vs. "children of the undocumented (illegal)" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez Redux 

message: In dealing with issues related to this case, our counsel also recommended we read Martinez v. Bynum, , 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)
thread_title:  Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intermediate Scrutiny - Nope! 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-21-college-board-immigrants_N.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715003314/http://www.law.berkeley.edu/2913.htm to http://www.law.berkeley.edu/2913.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image that appears when linked