1. These children are entitled to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, under both the due process clause and the equal protection clause. The language of the Amendment itself, as well as its history, support the conclusion that the plaintiffs are "persons" and are "within the jurisdiction" of the state. If they are subject to the state's criminal and labor statutes, for example, they should also be entitled to protection under other laws.

2. The statute does not serve its stated purpose of preserving educational opportunities for children lawfully in the U.S. and discouraging illegal migration into Texas. Mexican immigrants contribute significantly to the Texas economy, and the state benefits from the cheap labor they provide. Therefore, they should, in turn, be entitled to benefit from what the state provides.

3. The Texas statute totally excludes these children from participation in the educational system and the lifelong opportunities it provides, and runs counter to this country's adherence to principles of equality. For this reason, the statute should be closely scrutinized.

1. Illegal aliens are within the scope of the due process clause, but are not within the scope of the equal protection clause. This issue is not for the courts to decide but should be left to the political branches of government.

2. The Texas statute was designed to preserve the state's resources for the education of its lawful residents and to avoid inducement for illegal immigration -- purposes that the statute clearly serves. If the statute were not upheld, illegal immigrants would burden school systems and cost the state significant resources. Holding that the statute is unconstitutional will in effect require the state to promote permanent, unlawful immigration.

3. Education is not a fundamental right of illegal aliens. This statute does not need to be closely scrutinized because the state has no duty to provide these children with an education in the first place.