Weak Republicans may derail Tennessee’s bold move against illegal immigration



We either make illegal immigration illegal — or we stop pretending.

For years, we’ve claimed to oppose illegal immigration while offering taxpayer-funded benefits to those here unlawfully. If life in the United States became less accommodating, many would choose to leave on their own. A logical first step: Stop offering free public education to those who entered the country illegally. That policy has flooded our schools with linguistic chaos, cultural fragmentation, and administrative strain.

Denying free education to those in the country illegally is not a punishment — it’s a refusal to provide benefits to people who have no legal claim to them.

Tennessee is the first state in recent memory to move in the direction of sanity.

Last Thursday, the Tennessee Senate passed SB 836, sponsored by state Sen. Bo Watson (R). The original bill would have required school districts to verify legal residency before enrolling any student. The amended version gives school districts the option to deny enrollment to illegal immigrants or charge a base tuition of $7,000 per student.

The bill passed 19-13 but not before seven Republicans joined all six Democrats in voting to continue free tuition for illegal aliens.

A companion bill, HB 793, is making its way through the House. That version is tougher. It gives districts the authority to deny admission outright and requires them to report undocumented students to the state. Both bills allow families to stay enrolled while appealing a denial. But critically, both also include an opt-out provision — meaning districts with large illegal populations, like Memphis and Nashville, will likely choose not to enforce the law at all.

Target: Plyler v. Doe

This should be an easy one. It’s a disgrace that we continue offering free tuition to the children of illegal immigrants — all because of a flawed 43-year-old Supreme Court ruling. The public would have demanded action decades ago if not for the court’s intervention. Texas, in fact, did act — until Justice William Brennan invented a constitutional right to taxpayer-funded education for illegal aliens in the 1982 decision Plyler v. Doe.

That ruling flatly contradicts a long line of Supreme Court precedents dating back to the 1880s. For more than a century, the court consistently held that illegal aliens stand outside our legal boundaries until they are granted lawful status. In other words, they are not entitled to constitutional protections reserved for citizens or legal residents.

Even if we accept the dubious logic of judicial supremacy, states have every reason to mount a fresh challenge. The Supreme Court has shifted rightward since the days of Brennan’s activist bench. It’s time to put Plyler back on the chopping block.

If Republicans truly believe illegal immigration must end, they should act accordingly. That means removing the incentives to stay here unlawfully. Cutting off free benefits should be the first step, not the last.

Yet, too many Republicans still treat education as a separate, sacred category. Senate Speaker Pro Tem Ferrell Haile, a Republican from Gallatin, voted against the Tennessee bill and tried to justify his position by misapplying Ezekiel 18:19: “The child will not share the guilt of the parent nor the parent share the guilt of the child.” He said, “I believe that we are punishing children for the wrongdoing of their parents.”

Haile’s reasoning is flawed. Denying free education to those in the country illegally is not a punishment — it’s a refusal to provide benefits to people who have no legal claim to them. If the goal is deportation, why should we subsidize their continued presence? No one is proposing to imprison children for their parents’ actions. We’re proposing to send them home.

Republicans claim to support President Trump’s immigration agenda. But if we intend to remove illegal aliens from the country, it makes no sense to pack public schools with hundreds of thousands of noncitizens who require costly language and academic support. The only children being punished under this system are the children of American citizens — the ones to whom our elected officials owe their allegiance.

An uncertain fate

If Haile and other lukewarm Republicans in red states feel so strongly about educating illegal aliens, they are free to open schools overseas and fund them privately. But they have no right to do it at the expense of American families.

So far this year, only Texas, Indiana, Idaho, and Ohio have introduced similar legislation. None of those bills appear likely to pass. Other red states, like Florida, face constitutional hurdles that make it difficult to deny public school admission to anyone living in the state — regardless of legal status.

Even in its watered-down form, the Tennessee bill’s fate remains uncertain. Gov. Bill Lee (R) has yet to signal whether he’ll sign it. Like many Republican governors, Lee often talks tough but governs soft. He’s not known for favoring strong immigration enforcement.

If he vetoes the bill, conservatives likely won’t have the two-thirds majority needed to override him, thanks to multiple GOP defections. He has remained silent while the legislative session barrels toward its end next week. Time is running out for the House to pass its version and reconcile it with the Senate’s.

With federal mass deportation efforts stalled, red states need standing deterrents. The next time a Democrat takes the White House and unleashes a fresh wave of illegal immigration, we need policies in place to keep that flood away from inundating states that still value sovereignty.

That starts with ending incentives — especially taxpayer-funded benefits like public education. Letting illegal aliens tap into the same resources as citizens sends exactly the wrong message.

Leftists Use Dishonest Language To Ram Through Ballot Measures. SCOTUS Has A Chance To Stop It

Activists often use deceptive language to trick the public on meaning of ballot initiatives, a RITE spokesman said.

Top UK court deals devastating blow to cross-dressing activists



Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the legal definition of "woman" excludes male transvestites.

Conservatives and feminists such as J.K. Rowling celebrated the court's affirmation of reality. Meanwhile, gender ideologues and LGBT activists who recently suffered other monumental defeats in the isles — namely Britain's ban of puberty blockers and the landmark Cass Review's confirmation that so-called gender science is bunk — melted down, characterizing the ruling as potentially harmful.

The court was tasked with sorting out the "correct interpretation" of the 2010 Equality Act, specifically the terms "woman" and "sex." The act provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various immutable characteristics.

The case found its way to the U.K.'s highest court on account of a legal dispute between the feminist organization For Women Scotland and the leftist Scottish government.

The feminist organization For Women Scotland kicked things off in 2018 by challenging Scottish legislation that would include male transvestites in quotas for women. The Scottish government maintained that men who secured gender recognition certificates identifying them as female were women where the law was concerned, reported the BBC. The case snowballed from there.

"This examination of the language of the EA 2010, its context and purpose, demonstrate that the words 'sex,' 'woman' and 'man' in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man," the court noted in its 88-page ruling.

'Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.'

"Interpreting 'sex' as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of 'man' and 'woman' and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way. It would create heterogeneous groupings," stated the court. "As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination, and especially those relating to pregnancy and maternity, and to protection from risks specifically affecting women, can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.

Just in case there was any remaining doubt, the court clarified that a female posing as a man and carrying a GRC is a woman where the law is concerned and a male posing as a woman and carrying a GRC is a man.

The court evidently did not buy the suggestion that admitting that men are not women under the law would cause disadvantage to transvestites, noting they were still protected from discrimination under the Equality Act.

Judge Patrick Hodge, deputy president of the U.K. Supreme Court, stated that the ruling should not be read as "a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another."

Contrary to Hodge's suggestion, the ruling amounted to a major victory for those Britons keen on keeping opportunistic men out of women's spaces. After all, the court ruled that male transvestites with GRCs can be excluded from single-sex spaces such as women's bathrooms, changing rooms, and hostels.

"If sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female-only nature of the service would ... permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status," said the court. "Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination."

"Absolutely jubilant here, tears!" For Women Scotland tweeted upon learning of the ruling.

Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch noted, "Saying 'trans women are women' was never true in fact and now isn't true in law, either."

Badenoch characterized the ruling as a "victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex."

J.K. Rowling noted, "It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK."

The three women Rowling referred to are Trina Budge, Marion Calder, and Susan Smith, the directors of For Women Scotland.

The leftist Scottish government vowed to remain an inclusive country after its defeat Wednesday, reported the Telegraph.

A spokesman for the government said, "We want to reassure everyone that the Scottish government is fully committed to protecting everyone's rights, to ensure that Scotland remains an inclusive country."

"This judgment further reinforces that the Equality Act does not, and never has, allowed for the self-identification of sex under the Act," the Edinburgh-based policy analysis group Murray Blackburn MacKenzie noted in a statement.

"Nonetheless, policies based on self-identification remain in place across the U.K., in hospitals, police forces, schools, and prisons. The U.K. and devolved governments, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, need to take responsibility for their role in this, take urgent steps to clear up the confusion, and ensure the ruling has effect on the ground," added the policy group.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

SCOTUS’ Timidity Triggers Constitutional Crisis

The Supreme Court’s continuing failure to define lower courts' authority is wreaking havoc on the reputation of the courts — and our constitutional order.

This Supreme Court Is Woefully Weak On The Second Amendment

When firearms are involved, originalism is ignored and basic principles of statutory interpretation are overlooked.

U.S. Center For SafeSport Shows The Dangers Of Delegating Power To Private Entities

The U.S. Center for SafeSport was empowered to protect youth athletes. It sets and enforce its own rules without government review.

Trump Asks Supreme Court To Allow Him To Fire Agency Leaders

'Constitutional question of profound importance'

SCOTUS Ruling In Deportation Case Is Too Little Too Late

The court could've reigned in the judicial supremacy sooner -- but Roberts, Barrett, and three other justices squandered it.