NAACP battles Latinos over push to open public schools for non-English speakers

NAACP battles Latino groups over push to open public schools for non-English speakers

By Barnini Chakraborty
Published March 11, 2015 FoxNews.com

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncsta....jpg?ve=1&tl=1An empty classroom is shown in this 2008 file photo.

WASHINGTON – A plan that would dedicate two public high schools in suburban Washington to immigrants and students struggling with English is pitting black and Hispanic communities -– usually allies -- against one another.

The Prince George’s County, Md., chapter of the NAACP is strongly opposing the plan -- which would take effect next school year, and cover about 800 students having English language difficulties -- claiming it will pull resources from other students and unfairly redistribute them to Hispanic students. Some critics go so far as to compare the plan to segregation.

“It’s a slap in the face,” Bob Ross, president of the Prince George’s County branch of the NAACP, told FoxNews.com.

Ross believes the proposal to open two new schools violates the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that ruled separate schools for black and white students violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“It risks turning Prince George’s County into a segregated school system,” Ross said, adding that he realizes the need for better education in the county but believes it should not come at the cost of existing students.

Latino advocacy group CASA de Maryland sees it differently. The group, which has pushed for the schools, argues that it’s not a violation of the Constitution because the schools are not mandatory and are being built to provide options to immigrants
“If we are saying all [English-language-learning] students must go to these schools, that’s one thing. But we are not,” Tehani Collazo, senior director of schools and community engagement at CASA, told FoxNews.com.

Collazo said Ross’ comments that the schools would take away opportunities from some students and reward others doesn’t add up.
“We see these students as Prince George’s County students,” she said. “They are eligible for an education. The charge that funds are being taken away is a false charge because they are all of our students. They deserve access – full access – to a quality education.”

Kevin Maxwell, CEO of Prince George’s County Public Schools which are moving ahead with the school plans later this year, agrees.
“Like the many that already exist across the country, the International Schools are schools of choice,” he said in a written statement to FoxNews.com. “They are built on an innovative and proven model that will help support the needs of our most struggling group of learners – English Language Learners.”

He added that the schools focus “on providing opportunity for all of our students no matter their country of origin, race, creed or status.”
The schools are expected to open with 100 9^th graders and make room for another 100 students each year until the schools hit their capacity of 400 students each. The CASA International School at Largo High will operate as a school within a school. The Langley Park school, about a 20-minute drive from Largo, will likely operate as a standalone.

The schools will be funded in part by a $3 million Carnegie Corporation grant. The rest will come from the state and local funding.

Despite the intense controversy, the facilities are not unprecedented.

The schools themselves will be fashioned like other CASA-Internationals Community Schools currently operating in New York and California.

In New York, 64 percent of students at the CASA schools graduated in four years, compared with 45 percent of similar students with language barriers in other city schools, the organization said.
The move highlights tensions in Prince George’s County between the community’s black and Hispanic populations. According to the most recent U.S. Census data, blacks make up 65.1 percent of the county’s population while Hispanics make up 16.2 percent.

A recent study by CASA – used in their pitch for the two new high schools -- found that 82 percent of students living in the Langley Park school district are at risk of dropping out of high school. The Latino and immigrant advocacy group says there are “serious challenges” with education in the area and argues that opening these schools would help lower attrition rates.

Ross said his organization was initially notified after an angry parent of a public school student brought it to his attention. He also believes that if the schools are allowed to operate it will create an even bigger rift in the community between the two groups and blames CASA for fueling the tension.

“We don’t want to fight,” Ross said. “You’re causing a black-brown fight in the community and the fact is, we need programs to be inclusive for all our children.”

Despite the pushback, both schools are on schedule to open their doors in a few months. Ross says he’s not giving up.

“Everybody has dreams. You are living the American dream,” Ross said of the CASA organization. “What’s wrong with pushing to secure it for everyone?”

The next step for the NAACP is a March 26 meeting with Prince George’s County Executive Rushern L. Baker III. Calls to Baker’s office for comment were not returned.

Ross also says the chapter will “go into community action mode” which he describes as organizing rallies and demonstrations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...cmp=latestnews

Here is a raw idea. Everything has minimum qualifications to meet before participation is allowed. To be eligible for public primary school, you must pass a first grade English exam, prior to age 12. After age 12 it is parents responsibility and duty to tutor or provide tutoring adequate to pass age appropriate grade entry, prior to entry to public schools. Can that be refined to work? I see no reason it cannot.

Children adapt quickly. The only need here is for parents to be told that their children must expect to work a little harder, in exchange for a free education. Every immigrant group prior to the Hispanic one, has done. this. Those groups all succeeded. Unless there is something about being Hispanic which makes it impossible to learn and function in English, there in no need to foster multi-culturalism. E pluribus Unum, folks.
************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

There's that tricky little Supreme Court ruling that says that ALL students must be educated by the state they reside in.

Plyler v. Doe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plyler v. Doe
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Court.svg.png Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 1, 1981 Decided June 15, 1982
Full case name	James Plyler, Superintendent,Tyler Independent School District, et al. v. John Doe, et al.
Citations	457 U.S. 202 (more)102 S. Ct. 2382; 72 L. Ed. 2d 786; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 124; 50 U.S.L.W. 4650
Prior history	Judgment for plaintiffs, 458 F. Supp. 569 (E.D. Tex. 1978 ); affirmed, 628 F.2d 448 (5th Cir. 1980)
Subsequent history	Rehearing denied, 458 U.S. 1131 (1982)
Holding
A Texas statute denying free public education to illegal immigrants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because discrimination on the basis of illegal immigration status did not further a substantial state interest. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. · William Rehnquist John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
Majority	Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
Concurrence	Marshall
Concurrence	Blackmun
Concurrence	Powell, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Stevens
Dissent	Burger, joined by White, Rehnquist, O'Connor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.031

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to unauthorized immigrant children and simultaneously struck down a municipal school district's attempt to charge unauthorized immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented immigrant student to compensate for the lost state funding.^[1] The Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people (specifically children) based on their status as immigrants, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a compelling state interest.


The application of Plyler v. Doe has been limited to K-12 schooling. Other court cases and legislation such as Toll v. Moreno 441U.S. 458 (1979) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996^[2] have allowed some states to pass statutes that deny illegal students eligibility for in-state tuition, scholarships, or even bar them from enrollment at public colleges and universities.^[3][4][5]

Contents

[hide]

• 1 Summary
• 2 See also
• 3 References
• 4 Further reading
• 5 External links

Summary[edit]

Revisions to education laws in Texas in 1975 withheld state funds for educating children who had not been legally admitted to the United States and authorized local school districts to deny enrollment to such students. A 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court found that this policy was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as unauthorized immigrant children are people "in any ordinary sense of the term," and therefore had protection from discrimination unless a substantial state interest could be shown to justify it.


The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents.

The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law.


Texas officials had argued that unauthorized immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." The dissenting opinion also rejected this claim, agreeing with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state." The dissent simply concluded that the distinction the statute drew should survive an equal protection attack.


The dissent agreed in principle that it was unwise for unauthorized immigrant children to be denied a public education, but the four dissenting justices argued that the Texas law was not so objectionable as to be unconstitutional; that this issue ought to be dealt with through the legislative process; that "[t]he Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem"; and that the majority was overstepping its bounds by seeking "to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction".

This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Children.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

Now would be a great time for the NAACP to challenge on the basis of actual 14th Amendment discrimination, the whole Plyler vs. Doe Supreme Court Ruling, and I encourage them to do so, the data will support their claim, this is the very type of school action that the 14th Amendment exists to prevent. The Constitution also says that the federal government may prohibit immigration after 1808, and provides it no authorization whatsoever to admit even 1 alien, let alone an illegal alien, and give them permission to be here. Nope, the Constitution provides no such authority whatsoever. Immigration under the US Constitution is a States Rights issue up to the point where Congress decides to prohibit it. So the Supreme Court not only got it wrong, it got it really wrong, because a federal court has no authority over what states do with non-citizens in their state who are prohibited by federal law from being in that state to begin with. The only authority the federal government and federal courts have over the matter of illegal aliens is to remove them in accordance with their Constitutional authority to do so.

Well, if feds and Supremes do not want to cut some slack, maybe TX and those other states suing should consider a secession re-organization plan. Then we could deport all those aliens to the states left. I wonder if they can afford all those people. I bet even housing would be inadequate to meet the demand. Trash collection may get to be such a problem the former feds would get a new idea. Yes, sometimes even the Supremes get as goofy as a political party!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

Well, if feds and Supremes do not want to cut some slack, maybe TX and those other states suing should consider a secession re-organization plan. Then we could deport all those aliens to the states left. I wonder if they can afford all those people. I bet even housing would be inadequate to meet the demand. Trash collection may get to be such a problem the former feds would get a new idea. Yes, sometimes even the Supremes get as goofy as a political party!

---

In order to secede a state needs the permission of The U.S. Congress, according to many sources, and that is not going to happen.

And then there is the problem that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that secession is unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional,

---

Texas v. White

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas v. White
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Court.svg.png Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 5, 1869 Decided April 12, 1869
Full case name	Texas v. White, et al.
Citations	74 U.S. 700 (more)74 U.S.(7 Wall.) 700; 19 L. Ed. 227; 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1056; 1868 WL 11083
Holding
Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War, because a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States. Treasury bond sales by Texas during the war were invalid, and the bonds were therefore still owned by the post-war state.
Court membership
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase Associate Justices Samuel Nelson · Robert C. Grier Nathan Clifford · Noah H. Swayne Samuel F. Miller · David Davis Stephen J. Field
Case opinions
Majority	Chase, joined by Nelson
Concurrence	Clifford, Davis, Field
Concur/dissent	Swayne, joined by Miller
Dissent	Grier
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. IV

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869.^[1]

The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.

In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case.

In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".^[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Texas secession from Mexico[edit]

The Republic of Texas successfully seceded from Mexico in 1836 (this, however took the form of outright rebellion against Mexico, and claimed no warrant under the Mexican Constitution to do so).

Mexico refused to recognize her revolted province as an independent country, but the major nations of the world did recognize it.

In 1845, Congress admitted Texas as a state. The documents governing Texas' accession to the United States of America do not mention any right of secession—although they did raise the possibility of dividing Texas into multiple states inside the Union.

Mexico warned that annexation meant war and the Mexican–American War followed in 1846.^[63]

So Obama gets away with avoiding and offending the Constitution. Fifty-seven Senators(89% of the majority party in the Senate) , with some questions yet undetermined, offend a law on the books for 216 years. Senator Lindsey Graham says today in N.H. that if elected President he , as commander-in chief. will order the military to hold Congress in Washington until they fund the military and intel sufficiently in his mind. Constitutional scholars call that a self coup. All that would be law breaking going on in Washington but you think I should still respect SCOTUS. Now what is unfair about that theory?

I don't think some people understand how secession works. It's about actions, not paper rulings.