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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

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 didn't say that. Feel free to respect or disrespect anything you choose.

Texas has tried to secede more time than any other state,

and yet it is still a state.

Texas secession movements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Texas.svg.png

The flag of Texas

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...scales.svg.png

Texas secession movements principally focus on the secession of Texas during the American Civil War and the activities of organizations which have existed since the 1990s. The idea of state secession is not explicitly addressed in the United States Constitution and the issue was both publicly debated and threatened from after the Revolutionary War up until the Civil War. Texas was a sovereign state prior to negotiation annexation with the United States. This history has affected the state's politics and identity from the 19th century to the present, including its standing in the Confederacy in the Civil War to education and even tourism in the 20th century.

Modern secession efforts have existed in the state at least since the 1990s, focusing first on the Republic of Texas organization founded by Richard Lance McLaren and later on the Texas Nationalist Movement headed by Daniel Miller.

Contents

[hide]

• 1 Idea of secession in the United States
• 2 Republic of Texas (19th century)
• 3 Secession from the US in the 19th century
• 4 Post Civil War to the 1990s
• 5 1990s to present
  
  • 5.1 Republic of Texas organization
  • 5.2 Texas Nationalist Movement
  • 5.3 Other discussions of secession starting in 2012
  
  
• 6 References
• 7 External links

Idea of secession in the United States[edit]

Discussion about the right of U.S. states to secede from the union was brought up by various factions in the country from shortly after the Revolutionary War until the Civil War.

The United States Constitution includes neither specific language providing for a right to secede, nor specific language prohibiting secession. The argument in favor of the right to secede relies on the assertion that each state was independent and sovereign before the ratification of the Constitution and that each state should be able to reclaim that independence. Each of the colonies originated by separate grants from the British Crown and had evolved relatively distinct political and cultural institutions.

One commentator has asserted that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause can be interpreted as weighing against a right of secession, but that the Republican Guarantee Clause can be interpreted to indicate that the federal government has no right to keep a state from leaving as long as it maintains a republican form of government.^[1]

The question remained open in the decades before the Civil War. In 1825 Alexis de Tocqueville observed "If today one of these same states wanted to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be quite difficult to prove that it could not do so. To combat it, the federal government would have no evident support in either force or right." However,Joseph Story wrote in 1830 in Commentaries on the Constitution that the document foreclosed the right of secession.^[1] However, on the eve of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln argued that states were not sovereign before the Constitution but instead they were created by it.^[1]

More recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."^[2]

Republic of Texas (19th century)[edit]

Texas gained its independence from Mexico in 1836, spurred on primarily by American settlers in the former Mexican territory against the government of Santa Anna .^[3]

However, after the final engagement at San Jacinto in 1836, there have been two different visions as to the future of Texas: one as a state of the United States and the other as an independent republic. Sam Houston promoted the first as he felt that the newly independent country, lacking hard currency and still facing threats from Mexico could not survive on its own.^[3][4] The other was promoted by second Texas president Mirabeau B. Lamar, who felt that it was Texas's destiny to be a nation that extended from the Louisianaborder to the Pacific Ocean. For this reason, Lamar is considered to be the father of Texas nationalism.^[4] However, the Republic under Lamar incurred large scale debt, suffered from a poor economy and inadequate defenses which led to the negotiation and annexation of Texas into the United States in 1845.^[3][5]

While the short existence of the Republic of Texas gave the area experience with a national identity which has never left, it never completely solidified.^[4][5][6] However, only sixteen years after annexation, the population of Texas wanted to leave the union.^[3]

Secession from the US in the 19th century[edit]

Main articles: History of Texas, Texas Revolution and Texas in the Civil War

The history of Texas in the Civil War has distinctions from the rest of the South, in part because of its history of being independent previously. Much of Texas's dissatisfaction was not only tied to opposition to Lincoln and his view of state's rights (which they also viewed as a transgression of the annexation agreement), but also because they did not feel that Washington had lived up to promises of inclusion into the country as part of annexation.^[5][6] In 1861, Sam Houston still strongly supported remaining in the United States primarily for economic and military reasons.^[4] However, those promoting secession used not only elements from U.S. history such as the American Revolution and the Constitution, but also the Texas Revolution and elements from the history of the Republic of Texas.^[5]

In 1861, a popular referendum voted to secede, making Texas the seventh and last state of the Lower South to do so.^[4][6][7]

Some wanted to restore the Republic of Texas, but an identity with the Confederacy was embraced. This led to the replacement of Texas themes for the most part with those of the Confederacy, including religious justification given in sermons, often demanded by petitioners.^[5] The transference to the Stars and Bars was in the hope of achieving the inclusion perceived by some to be denied by Washington.^[6]

However, that shift was never complete. Clayton E. Jewett wrote in Texas in the Confederacy: An Experiment in Nation Building that its identity remained somewhat separate from the rest of the Confederacy. James Marten wrote in Texas Divided: Loyalty and Dissent in the Lone Star State, 1856-1874 that it battled between loyalty to the Confederacy and dissent and its ambivalence may have been enough to assure Southern defeat.^[6]

During the war, Texas was spared most of the actual fighting, with only Galveston seeing any military engagement with Union forces. However, the war did take a serious toll in the way of chronic shortages, absence of men at home to run the economy, military setbacks and fear of invasion.^[6] Although Lincoln recognized Texas's history as an independent nation, his definition of the Union meant that Texas forever ceded this to be subject to the Constitution.^[1]

Post Civil War to the 1990s[edit]

After the end of the Civil War, Texans maintained a "rebel" or Confederate identity instead of a completely Texas one as a way of still defying the North.^[5] After the Civil War, it provided a haven for others in the Confederacy leaving devastation.^[8]

From that time to the present, a "Lost Cause" mythology has continued in Texas and other areas of the South.^[9] However, for the most part, overt discussion of the right of states to seceded was ended, replaced by another mythology based on the indivisibility of the territory.^[1] This did not end Texas's identity as at least somewhat different from the rest of the United States. Unlike the other southern states, Texas began emphasizing its cowboy heritage and connection with the U.S. Southwest, even influencing the rest of the U.S. identity in the 20th century.^[10] For many Texans, the history of the Republic of Texas is considered a time of independence and self-determination often in contrast to interference by the federal government in Washington. Texas requires a course in the state's history in the seventh grade where these ideas can also be found.^[11]

In the 1990s, Texas began to use the slogan "Texas. It's Like a Whole Other Country" especially in domestic ads for tourism, and still can be seen today.^[11] However, public imagination remains split on the visions of Texas as state and nation that Houston and Lamar had in the 19th century. The two can appear as a conflict between rural and urban Texans but the Lamar vision can be found in the cities as well.^[4] Texas did not join in festivities for the 150th anniversary of the Civil War as it was thought that the commemoration would have reopened old unhealed wounds.^[8]

1990s to present[edit]

Republic of Texas organization[edit]

There have been efforts to promote Texas secession in the state at least since the 1990s.^[12] At this time, Richard Lance McLaren founded the Republic of Texas organization based on his property called the Davis Mountains Resort in Jeff Davis County, becoming the most active and influential secession group at the time. Essentially the organization claimed that the United States annexed Texas illegally and considered it to be held captive. The organization held itself out as an alternative government, based on the principle of very limited powers.^[3]

McLaren had both supporters and enemies. His supporters generally believed that globalization was a threat to constitutional rights and against Christian principles.^[13]Tactics of the group included filing liens against properties, disavowing state and federal authorities, and opening an "embassy."

McLaren's legal filings were so numerous that the county clerk gave them a separate cabinet.^[13] Members of the Republic of Texas group listed grievances with the U.S. government, such as accusing the government of a corrupt judicial system, paganism, and of creating illegal treaties and illegitimate agencies. Members of the group also stated that the U.S. government had set itself above the people and had exercised its global influences unlawfully against the Constitution. The Republic of Texas members placed a lot of emphasis on the Branch Davidian incident near Waco as an example of all that was wrong with the U.S. government.^[3]

In the summer of 1996, injunctions and other court proceedings against McLaren were well underway. In July of that year, McLaren held a press conference a block away from the state courthouse in Austin stating that he refused to appear because he did not recognize the legitimacy of the court.^[3]

McLaren was jailed for a month by a federal judge for failing to show in court. After his release, McLaren's rhetoric grew stronger.^[13][14][15] In March 1997, he wrote to the federal government to claim 93 trillion dollars in reparations to Texas for the Civil War.^[13] By this time, the Republic of Texas organization had fractured into three factions. When two of McLaren's group were arrested, McLaren took two hostages and holed up with armed supporters on his property, leading to a standoff withTexas Department of Public Safety .^[3][13]

However, the siege ended with McLaren and twelve other giving up without violence.^[13] In November of that year, McLaren was convicted of kidnapping and was sentenced to 99 years in prison.^[3] McLaren was also convicted of federal mail fraud and bank fraud in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas.^[16] He is imprisoned at the William P. Clements Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, near Amarillo, Texas, and is scheduled for release on June 15, 2041.^[17]

As of 2003, there were three groups that claimed to be the Republic of Texas with different web sites, but without McLaren named as a leader.^[3]

Texas Nationalist Movement[edit]

The Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM), headed by Daniel Miller, evolved from one of the factions of the old Republic of Texas in the late 1990s to early 2000s.^[18][19] However, the organization strives to disassociate itself from the Republic of Texas and the tactics of McLaren, instead opting for more political rather than confrontational or violent solution.^[18]Until about 2009, the group was dismissed by most news organizations in Texas and elsewhere, lumped in with other anti-government and anti-income tax protestors. Since that time, the organization's membership has significantly increased as it gained visibility from the prominence of the Tea Party movement and after Texas governor Rick Perry's comments in response to a large crowd chanting "Secede, secede!" Miller reports that membership rose again in 2012, especially a couple of weeks before the November presidential election, increasing 400 percent from then until early 2013, with web traffic up 9000 percent, but did not give specific numbers.^[20] TNM claims over 250,000 Texans have signed a form affirming the organization's goals, but admits that not all these are dues-paying members but include members from former separatist groups exempted from the dues requirement.^[19][21][22] The group has county-level groups in most parts of the state.^[23]

According to its website, the objective of the Texas Nationalist Movement is "the complete, total and unencumbered political, cultural and economic independence of Texas."^[22] Miller believes that all Texans have thought about secession at one point or another, even if they will not admit it.^[18] TNM points to the state constitution of Texas which states that Texans have the right "to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."^[12] Miller has stated that although the media tried to portray them as right-wing, white and Christian, he insists that it is neither left or right wing. He also distinguishes it from the Tea Party in that while the Tea Party demonstrates frustration with Washington, TNM is focused on the "solution" of Texas Independence. TNM believes that the United States is split between "… those that esteem the principles of Karl Marx…" and those that "esteem the principles of Thomas Jefferson…" and that Texas is on the side of Thomas Jefferson.^[24][25]

Unlike its predecessor, TNM works with the current political system, and is an unincorporated association under the laws of the State of Texas.^[19] The Question and Answers section of the web site says that the organization "rejects the initiation of force to achieve our goal of Texas independence. Any change brought about by the initiation of force cannot last."^[19] It is possible to compare its tactics to those of contemporary secessionist movement such as those of the former Soviet Republics.^[9] Miller points to the more than thirty countries which have separated in the 20th century and goes on to note that secession does not have to end in war.^[18]

The TNM organization works to accomplish its goals through three areas: political, cultural and economic. The political strategy is based on finding those who would support Texas independence, including political candidates, pushing for a state-wide referendum and work to keep the current government accountable to the United States Constitution.

Cultural strategies revolve around preservation and education efforts and economic goals including promoting the state economy.^[19] The organization has promoted a draft resolution to be put to a vote in the state congress. The resolution cites what it asserts are federal violations of Texas' state Constitution and the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment as justification for consideration of independence. The resolution calls for a "non-binding and advisory only" vote by citizens at the next regularly-scheduled constitutional amendment election, and suggests that both state and federal officials receive a report of that vote for their consideration. The resolution is necessary because the state constitution does not provide for such an initiative, so the initiative needs to be authorized by the state.^[23] In January 2013, members of the TNM rallied at the state capital in Austin to promote the resolution, resulting in one mention of secession by one lawmaker on the opening day of the legislative session.^[12]

Other discussions of secession starting in 2012[edit]

The rise of membership of the Texas Nationalist Movement came in conjunction with other secession related news events which were not part of that organization's activities. In 2009, during a political rally the possibility of secession was addressed by Rick Perry, sparking a controversy among Texans.^[26] During the rally, many in the crowd began to chant "secede, secede" to which Perry remarked "If Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that."^[18][26]

After Perry's comments received considerable attention and news coverage, Rasmussen Reports issued a poll and found that about 1 in 3 of those surveyed believed that Texas has the right to secede from the United States, although only 18% would support secession and 75% would oppose secession.^[27]
In another poll, 60% of Texans surveyed opposed becoming an independent nation. However, 48% of Texas Republicans surveyed supported it.^[28][29] The reaction from outside the state was also strongly split, including those who wanted to get rid of Texas.^[26]

After the 2012 presidential election, bumper stickers and signs saying "secede" began appearing in Texas.^[20] The election also triggered a wave of petitions on the White House "We the People" website. While the Texas petition was not first to appear, it overtook those of the other states with over 125,000 signatures, well above the 25,000 to trigger a response.^[12][30]

The petition stated that secession would protect the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government" and defend Texans from "blatant abuses to their rights"^[31] The Texas secession petition was followed by one allowing Austin to secede from Texas and stay part of the union.^[31] The White House issued a 476-word response rejecting the idea.^[12]Although the Texas National Movement did not initiate or support the petitions, stating that a state's right to secede is not based on federal action, the organization did comment on the phenomenon.

Organization president Daniel Miller stated that one reason for the popularity of the secession petitions is that the "union has fundamentally changed."^[25]

After the rejection of the petition, the organization also issued a response likening the rejection to actions by dictators and consider it further proof of the need for Texas independence.^[32]

The petition drive also prompted another comment by a Texas government spokesman, who stated that "Gov. Perry believes in the greatness of our union, and nothing should be done to change it, but he also shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government."^[30]

The comments by Rick Perry in 2009 and the petition drive have sparked harsh criticism from both government officials and pundits such as Jeff Macke, Joe Weisental and others.^[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements

I understand Americans in states who want to secede. Things are so unpleasant in our country now. The domestic tranquility has been disturbed. Domestic tranquility is an essential aspect of the liberty and happiness our country was founded to create for our citizens which is why it's specifically stated in the Preamble of our Constitution as one of the primary obligations of our government to insure.

Quote:

---

Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

Our government is doing things that contradict this obligation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

More recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."^[2]

---

Actually what the Civil War established was that might makes right.
********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vistalad

Actually what the Civil War established was that might makes right.
********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

---

And also, actions speak louder than words.