Question to Readers: Can we bring logic and civility to the Immigration Reform discussions? Must there be so much anger and rhetoric in this discussion? Do we really need to build more Walls? Do Children need to stop their education? Do we only enforce the "Rule of Law" on the Mexico border? Isn't there room for judgement where it makes sense to do so?Case Study: For decades upon decades, small, sleepy border towns have led quiet lives. Parents worked. Their kids went to school. Citizens from both the US and Mexico lived on both sides of the border. Americans often bought houses in Mexico, but worked on the US side. The Mexicans, with green cards in hand, worked in the US, but walked across the bridge to go home each evening. This kept both sides of the border prosperous. Such was the case for the small, sleepy town of Del Rio, TX, just across the border from Cuidad Acuna, MX.
Now, times are changing. New enforcement and restrictionist policies are being imposed, primarily due to the surging levels of hate and anger in the immigration debate. Imposing these new enforcement measures, the local school superintendent says, "I'm just doing his job." He estimates 400 of his students do not live in his district and has directed district officials to stake out the Mexico bridge and warn students they could face expulsion if they don't prove they live in the district — a move that's brought complaints from civil rights groups and support from anti-immigrant proponents. The superintendent is violating these students' rights.
Immigration status shouldn't be an issue for these students. A decades-old Supreme Court ruling prevents school officials from even asking about citizenship. Additionally, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, students who use the bridge enter the U.S. legally because they are U.S. citizens, permanent residents with green cards or Mexicans with student visas. Those visas are used by Mexican students who pay tuition, primarily at parochial schools.
However, for tuition-free public school attendance, state law requires students to live in the district — a rule that many officials don't rigidly enforce. Some are uncomfortable with following the letter of the law because doing so could deny U.S. citizen children access to public schools. Also, turning away students cost the districts money. Texas schools get funding for each student. Statewide, it works out to about $9,400 per student, primarily from local property taxes and state supplements designed to balance rich and poor school districts. Additional grants from the federal government for low-income and special education students account for about $920 per student. Cooper estimates his district of 10,000 students would lose $2.7 million if 400 students were expelled. So not only will the school district lose $2.7M per year, the city can expect to lose countless millions in Sales Revenue, and countless businesses will close.
Some parents are very upset with the news. U.S. residents who have homes in Mexico are scrambling to find a local apartment within the district to ensure their children can stay in school.
In the meantime, Bob Dane, a spokesperson for the hate group FAIR, a John Tanton organization, cheered the superintendent saying said Cooper's bridge stakeout prevented parents from taking advantage of a "duty-free education." Bob Dane is NOT a resident of Texas.
Reference:
US Superintendent tells Mexican residents attending schools: Prove Texas residency or leave
dee wrote, "The superintendent is violating these students' rights."
ReplyDeleteHow so? I don't believe you can make a case that he is violating any rights that these Mexican students are entitled to.
Reference?
"A decades-old Supreme Court ruling prevents school officials from even asking about citizenship."
ReplyDeleteCan you cite the specific ruling?
"...they are U.S. citizens, permanent residents with green cards or Mexicans with student visas."
ReplyDeleteIf so, they should live here then there wouldn't be a problem. We should largely eliminate cross-border commuting to reduce the level of pedestrian and vehicular traffic so we have at least a prayer of keeping our country secure against those who under the current policy could easily enter the U.S. to do us great harm. How do the the townspeople feel about paying for the education of Mexican citizens? I'm sure there are many among them who are not citizens and that increases the cost to the locals.
"Some parents are very upset with the news. U.S. residents who have homes in Mexico are scrambling to find a local apartment within the district to ensure their children can stay in school."
ReplyDeleteWhy are they upset? This helps them hang on to the $2.7 million or is this of less importance to them than being able to exercise some control over the local school policy?
So other nonresidents of Del Rio have the right to express their opinions but not Dane?
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with having these kids go to school where they live?
ReplyDeleteUltima,
ReplyDeleteObviously you are not familiar with sleepy little border towns. There is no border in most of those towns. Thousands of people walk back and forth every day.
The towns are +90% Latino and Native American. Families live on both sides of the border. That's how it has been forever.
I have cousins who live in border towns. We visited them a year or so ago. I wrote about its. Its all very safe. All very family. Very little to no crime at all.
These are not the big towns where our US Drug use and the Mexico suppliers have formed Cartels. These are tiny little towns that have family on both sides.
The issue is, the towns have mutual economies. To separate them would be devastating to both sides.
ReplyDeleteThis is similar in Detroit and Windsor. I used to work downtown in Detroit. We have several people who worked with us that lived in Windsor. The houses were nice and inexpensive in Windsor. Less commute than the suburbs of Detroit on the US side. I always had canadian coins in my pocket.
Do we really want to blockade ourselves off from the rest of the world?
ReplyDeleteIf we do, we are really letting the Terrorists WIN. That is what they truly wanted to accomplish!
Didn't the FBI just arrest a Colorado man for domestic terrorism? Should we WALL of Colorado because that's where the terrorists are?
Mexican children belong in Mexican schools, period. American children belong in American schools, period.
ReplyDeleteNo, the anger will never subside as long as the pro-advocates continue to name call anyone who wants soveirgn borders.
So to expect people to come here legally with papers to either live or visit here is walling ourselves off from the world? Boy, talk about a stretch! As Ultima pointed out we have to check every individual who crosses our borders even in these so-called sleepy border towns because terrorists are just looking for every little unsecured spot to sneak in here.
ReplyDeleteEducation should be provided by the counry that one is a citizen of regardless of what country they decide to take up illegal residence or to work in.
Dane is a Washington DC mouthpiece for FAIR. He is not a parent in the local community. He can voice his opinion, but that does not make his opinions count for more than the locals involved.
ReplyDeleteThis goes to a much larger issue:
ReplyDeleteWe should not change our freedoms due to the actions of some crazed terrorists. If we do, then the terrorists have won.
The terrorists have no boundaries. Some terrorists are domestic. (e.g. McVeigh and the militias). Some are American citizens living in our midst (e.g. Najibullah Zazi just arrested in Denver).
They are not the little children in sleepy little towns who walk to school.
The community of Del Rio, Texas is connected by a bridge to Ciudad Acuna, Mexico, and like most border cities, the towns operate in tandem, with U.S. citizens and LEGAL residents living, working and shopping on both sides. All of it is LEGAL, but public school attendance by children living in Mexico is another issue.
ReplyDeleteSo exactly what freedoms are we as Americans losing by making sure everything is done LEGALLY on these border towns? You won't answer that though will you?
There are countless laws on the books that don't make any sense and are not enforced. For years, this law has gone unenforced. People work and live legally on both sides of the border. Many from Mexico work in Del Rio everyday. Many children go to Catholic school legally with a student visa. If the point of the law is that those in the district fund the schools, it is the businesses in the district that pay the taxes that fund the schools, so therefore the tax income is accomplished because their parents ARE working, and working Legally, in the district.
ReplyDeleteHere are some other laws that do not make sense:
1. You can legally shoot and kill Rhode Islanders who cross the Mass border after dark.
2. In Tucson, AZ women are not allowed to wear pants.
3. In AZ it is illegal for donkeys to sleep in bathtubs.
4. in Alaska: While it is legal to shoot bears, waking a sleeping bear for the purpose of taking a photograph is prohibited.
5.In Oklahoma, people who make ugly faces at a dog may be fined or jailed!
6.In Washington, it’s illegal to ride an ugly horse!
7.In California, nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.
8. In Illinois, the law says that a car must be driven with the steering wheel!
9.In Kentucky, it’s the law that a person must take a bath once a year.
10.In New York, the penalty for jumping off a building is death.
11. In Oregon, it is illegal to box with a kangaroo.
12. In Florida, you may not fart in a public place after 6pm on Thursdays!
13. In New Mexico, it is illegal for women to appear unshaven in public.
14.In Los Angeles, toads cannot be licked.
15.In Nevada, it is illegal to drive a camel on the highway.
16.In Ohio, it’s illegal to get a fish drunk.
17.In Massachusetts, you’re not allowed to have a gorilla in the back seat.
18.In Atlanta, Georgia, it is illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole or street lamp.
19.In Indiana, it is illegal for a monkey to smoke cigarettes.
20. In Hawaii, coins are not allowed to be placed in your ears.
Just because some think that certain laws are unjust doesn't give them the right to violate them. Laws can be changed but we honor them until they are changed. There is nothing unjust about having immigration laws nor enforcing them. All countries have them!
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me more than anything is those who want certain laws changed but call those who don't see certain laws as unjust all kinds of nasty and hateful names. These are their fellow Americans they are doing this to!
The petty laws you mentioned are not a threat to our national security either. Unsecured borders are!
ReplyDeleteI have a solution. If the Mexican government pays $10,000/year/student, they can go to the U.S. schools ! That would lift the burden on the U.S. taxpayer for paying for foreign children attending U.S. taxpayer funded schools.
ReplyDeleteJools: If Mexico was willing to pay that much, they could get good teachers to teach them in Mexico.
ReplyDeleteSo there are a bunch of nonsensical laws on the books -- shows that law makers are loafing on the job rather than cleaning up these stupid provisions.
I don't see anything stupid about the border control or immigration laws. What is stupid is the attempt to undermine them by misguided citizens and Congressmen like Gutierrez, et. al.
The nonsensical laws are those that change what did not require or need change. That is what the terrorists wanted us to do.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is, the nature of peaceful border towns worked on both sides of the border. That is a fact. To change the partnerships or relationships and sucesses of these border towns over the boogey man threats by the AM Shock Jocks is just plain WRONG!
No one is seeking to change business or back and forth traffic in these border towns only that the border crossers identify themselves at a legal port of entry and have the proper papers to cross. Is that asking too much to maintain border security? If one believes that terrorists haven't or won't try to cross in these so-called peaceful border towns then they aren't living in the real world.
ReplyDeleteUlTIMA: Ya think?
ReplyDeleteSonia Sotomayor tossing a pitch at the Yankee Stadium and many people worried about her curves to the left - The New York Times
ReplyDeleteSotomayor Gets Opening Toss at Yankee Stadium
By Bernie Becker
Justice Sonia Sotomayor will get a chance to show off her throwing arm this weekend.
September 22, 2009
Sotomayor Gets Opening Toss at Yankee Stadium
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/sotomayor-gets-opening-toss-at-yankee-stadium/
Some excerpts :
The Supreme Court’s newest member, a Bronx native, will toss the ceremonial first pitch at Yankee Stadium on Saturday afternoon, before the New York Yankees take on their rivals, the Boston Red Sox.
Justice Sotomayor’s pitch will be part of the Yankees’ celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month. On Friday, Ricardo Martinelli, the president of Panama, will throw out the first pitch at the new Yankee Stadium, which opened earlier this year.
“Having Justice Sotomayor, a South Bronx native, participate in our yearly Hispanic Heritage Month celebration is very exciting, as she is an inspiration to so many,” Manuel García, the Yankees’ director of Latino Affairs, said in a statement. “We are proud to welcome her and President Martinelli to our new home.”
The Supreme Court begins its next term on Oct. 5.
Milenials.com
Vicente Duque
Sleepy little border towns have been living in peace and intermixing, relatives on both sides of the border, spending, paying taxes, sales tax, etc. since their inception. They come in legally. They have their green cards. Why try to build a wall between them? Why not let them continue to do as they do? What right does F.A.I.R. or anyone else have to impose their will on the people of those little towns.
ReplyDeleteI say none!
FAIR has no control over our borders so I don't know what you are talking about. Only our government does. As I said, no one is looking to disrupt and LEGAL entry back and forth on these borders, just to make sure that everyone who is crossing back and forth has papers to do so. So what would be the change? A wall would not change that. With or without a wall everyone will be and should be checked. Evidently everyone crossing is not crossing legally or our government wouldn't be seeking to erect a walls in those places. Walls are only being constructed in the most porous places for national security. Why does that bother you? Shouldn't national security be a priority for loyal Americans?
ReplyDelete