Thread: Tests unfair to non-English speaking students

Originally Posted by lobo

I agree.
Let's just qualify it one step further: "legal immigrants".

Illegals should not be allowed NEAR the school.

Lobo,
While I know many share this sentiment that is not the issue of this lawsuit as I'm sure you're aware. Furthermore, the supreme court has ruled that this stance is unconstitutional. I'm sure we're all famililar here with Plyer vs. Doe, 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying a free public education to undocumented immigrants. That being said, one can always argue with the validity of a ruling of the Supreme Court, but the law is the law. The suit (I know, it's 45 pages so most won't read it) really just outlines clearly that the state has broken the law, and it has and that's why I still contend that from a totally objective point of view, this lawsuit has merit.

I still contend that from a totally objective point of view, this lawsuit has merit.

Oh, I agree with that.

But I contend that federal statutes covering illegal immigration are NOT being applied, which leaves our children WITHOUT EQUAL PROTECTION.
And not only them, many - many others.

Only legislation benefiting illegal aliens and their offspring is being applied!
Repeatedly and consistently.

Your "totally objective point of view" completely disregards the existing federal statutes - THESE PEOPLE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE!

There are established procedures and points of entry for travel, tourism and immigration purposes. We are living in the 21st century! We are not living in the age of hunters/gatherers, as proposed by Jose Angel Gutierrez: "migrants ... free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas"!
There mere presence within our borders is proof of CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
No encouragement, and no reward for breaking the law!

One of the basic principles of ancient Roman law was "Nemo audiatur propriam turpitudinem allegans" (Lobo's free translation: if you come into my court with a case originating in the fact that YOU broke the law, I'll have the bailiff cane your butt, like in Singapore). No complainant should be listened to, if the whole case started with the complainant breaking the law. No modern legal system rewards a lawbreaker. Except ours ...
Time for a change?

I further contend that this action is the moral equivalent of a burglar taking the homeowner to court, after tripping and falling on the stairs in the dark. Not even burglar, just a sneaky thief, under the cover of darkness.

Legislation ON THE BOOKS should be applied.
We don't even need to reinvent the wheel.
That is all there is to it. This is not rocket science ...

This should be stopped at the border, and that is why I joined the Minutemen.

Originally Posted by Brian503a

Inching ever closer to trying to eliminate English from our schools. If they don't want to speak English they should leave now.

Brian, you are trying to blackmail someone into learning English.
Blackmailing people is not politically correct.

Try this: if they are here illegally, they should be deported..
The ones that are here legally, should pursue the case in court.

Lobo,
I was just about to post praises to you for your ability to argue a topic on the merits and evidence and for the most part I still will. However, you've dissapointed me by rolling off the topic and taking this thread back to every thread on this site. Inteligent men who understand that law know that just because they got here illegal doesn't deny them their civil liberties (you can say we should, but it isn't the way we do). We could change the constitution of the United States to read "All Citizen Men are created equal" but then again that'd be a lot of work. I challenge anyone on this thread to continue to talk about this case on merit. OK, it's obvious that most people don't think they should be here in the first place. However, that's the topic of every other thread here and the fact of the matter is that this lawsuit is about 1.6 million kids in california who are here and they aren't going anywhere. Lets teach them English, fine, great. We don't have the resources and even if we wanted to, big business and industry and textiles and the restaurant businesses wouldn't want to tighten the grasp on immigation laws because of the cheap labor here. That's not really what's at the debate. What I think is interesting is that being realistic that kids are here and we do not have the resources or the political influence to send them 'away', do we indeed give them the 3 years to learn English? I like Lobo for being rational and being able to see this case has merit because as far as I can see, it does when you think about what the law says and the understanding of federal precedence. Any takers?

All right, let's see.

Originally Posted by responsibility05

you've dissapointed me by rolling off the topic

No, that IS the main topic here: putting an end to illegal immigration.
This issue is just one of the results of uncontrolled illegal immigration.

just because they got here illegal doesn't deny them their civil liberties

Neither should it create entitlements.
I would be the first to scream and shout for another human being's civil rights. But, there is a HUGE difference between civil rights, and ENTITLEMENTS. I am not sure how exactly their civil rights entitle them to reach into the pocket of the US taxpayer, for everything from housing subsidy, welfare, food stamps, schooling, etc., etc.

On a side note, illegal immigrants and their supporters (including some of our elected officials) REPEATEDLY interfered with and on several occasions DISRUPTED and STOPPED US citizens from exercising their civil rights.

What does the US taxpayer get for it? Here I'll just limit myself to the issue of schools. The US taxpayer is straddled with overcrowded schools, gang warfare on school property, lack of school books, drug trafficking, and their children's development process slowed down to the level of the 1.6 million, who have a comprehension problem. This isn't even an exhaustive listing, just some of the major issues. Sounds like a bargain, doesn't it?

We could change the constitution of the United States

There is nothing wrong with the Constitution. Existing federal immigration statutes should be enforced. And someone needs to explain the difference between civil liberties and entitlements to the liberal, activist judges.

OK, it's obvious that most people don't think they should be here in the first place

Glad we agree.

this lawsuit is about 1.6 million kids in california who are here and they aren't going anywhere

They aren't? They should. That is part of what we are working on.

big business and industry and textiles and the restaurant businesses wouldn't want to tighten the grasp on immigation laws because of the cheap labor here

That is no argument. The fact that illegal immigration is beneficial to business and industry DOES NOT LEGITIMIZE the illegal act. And US citizens are not going to leave the issue up to them. Roughly 12,000 Minutemen have signed up as of today. Part of the Minutemen project's work is going to be identifyng businesses hiring illegal aliens and taking legal action against them. Also, there is legislation in the works providing for stiff penalties for such employers.

kids are here and we do not have the resources or the political influence to send them 'away'

Not today, but we are working on it. We are just getting started, and politicians are ALREADY listening. You would be surprised!
The tide is turning, and US citizens are starting to get organized.
Just got the e-mail message: today TWO Gulf states joined the Minutemen Project, and are starting interdiction on both land and water. Look for the press release coming up.