The authors' purpose in this article is to interrogate the mediated and political discourses that emerged alongside the "Flores v. Arizona" case. The authors endeavor to offer another voice, framework and approach that may help sustain a continuous, paramount conversation concerning the educational rights of English language learners and the ways in which the public rationalizes appropriate state provisions for such students. Therein, the manuscript operationalizes the rationalities that appear across pro-"Flore"s data (which consists of public opinion rhetoric positioned in support of the plaintiff and therefore in favor of appropriate state support for English language learners). The analysis of this data lays bare the echoes of the discursive regime surrounding the "Flores" case, a regime which unmasks neo-liberal rationalities for supporting English language learners. For example, the findings indicate that neo-liberal rationalities such as commodification, competition, risk, security, insurance and entrepreneurialism dominate the discursive landscape and eclipse alternative ways of arguing in support of students' rights to equitable and appropriate education, including social justice, pluralism and democracy.