As Congress and President Donald Trump negotiate over immigration reform, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and a border wall, a very simple and powerful piece of immigration reform can take place immediately: ban the mandate that requires states to educate illegal aliens.

In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled on Plyler v. Doe, one of the most controversial and poorly written decisions in SCOTUS history. In it, the justices claimed that non-legal residents have the rights of legal residents without justification or reason. Based on a horrible misreading of the Fourteenth Amendment, they declared that states had no right to provide different groups of people with different privileges. Before we explain why this was such a poor argument, there is a solution: the Gallegly Amendment.

A Change to Federal Law

In 1996, former Congressman Elton Gallegly (R-CA) proposed a tiny amendment that would allow states to either deny or charge non-residents to attend their public schools. It was defeated by a Congress persuaded by the fringe-pro-illegal lobby at the time that claimed it would destroy the Republican Party if passed.

Two decades later, it is clear that such a measure would not only be necessary to protect the country, it would be necessary for the continuation of the Republican Party. Illegal aliens, including minors, are heavily involved in gangs, including MS-13. They represent a substantially higher rate of violent criminals in prisons. They represent a trillion dollar burden on our social welfare net. They also represent a massive bureaucratic burden. They are unemployable and offer no benefit.

By allowing states to deny education to illegals, the states would be free to ensure that people attending their schools actually legally reside in the districts they attend. This would ensure that school districts receive their proper funding, which is a major problem now. It would also remove one of the biggest reasons why illegal aliens come into the country.

If Congress does not act, President Trump can still act. He can order the Department of Education to deny per-pupil funding unless a district can prove that those who are attending the school are legally living within the district. If he does not want to, he can also help others challenge the original court case.

A Poorly Decided Case

In Plyler v. Doe, the court made three clearly inappropriate claims: illegal aliens do not represent a substantial burden, that the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow special privileges between different groups, and that illegal aliens can have actual residency within a state.

Of the first claim, it is more than obvious that roughly 1% of the school-aged population represents a substantial burden to schools. Not only are urban schools flooded with illegal aliens who do not pay taxes to fund the schools, they also require English as a Second Language education and other costly measures to provide them with a basic education. This is in addition to gang violence, drug dealing, and other criminal activities that they have brought into schools. By denying a free education, the states also disincentive their illegal attempts to dwell within their borders, thus reducing overall criminal behavior.

The second claim is also ridiculous based on the reality of law. State laws, even at the time of the ruling, always allowed for special perks and privileges. Of these, driving is a prime example. Not only is a license necessary to drive, so is insurance, and various measures are put in place that create different groups of people. The court could not provide any actual example or justification for its claims. Instead, it gave a clear misreading of the Constitution and its amendments to push a fringe argument that has no basis in an honest judiciary.

The last claim is also the worst failure of the court. A resident of a state is one that has a legal residency. This requires proof of habitation. States are unable to collect income tax from individuals who are not legal residents of the state even if they are temporarily there. This is due to a lack of qualifying as a resident.

By redefining residency into a way that had no basis in law or reason, the court argued that even tourists on vacation had a legal presence within a state and could demand to be educated. This is obviously absurd, but the court’s decision was made without consideration to logic.

Under long standing jurisprudence, no one has the right to benefit from a crime. No child of an illegal has the right to benefit from their lawbreaking, even if they were too young to participate. This is just like no one has the right to keep any of the money they stole after robbing a bank.

One benefit of the case is that the justices limited their statements to powers of the states. This allowed for the Federal Government to grant states the ability to get around the court’s ruling.

Based on these three flaws, President Trump should order his Department of Education to allow states to deny illegal aliens an education. If his order is challenged, he could take the matter to the Supreme Court to have the original case thrown out.

Ending An Grave Abuse

With all the discussion over how to handle illegal aliens, ending their abuse of the public education system should be a priority. The Federal Government can act now to stop this severe drain on tax dollars and end the corrupt.

Schools do not need to waste billions on babysitting criminals instead of using those funds to educate the children of those who are paying for the school system. We live in a nation of laws, and we cannot tolerate such wide-spread illegal behavior any longer. Now is the time to clean up our education system and our immigration system, and we can have both at the same time.