Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see what the fuss is. Education is a public good. Our whole society benefits when members are educated. I would rather have an illegal immigrant who has a college degree and works full time rather than one who does not get any education, can't speak the language, becomes a gang member, and ends up in jail.
Now if you do not perceive education as a public good and don't believe society benefits from educated individuals, it is a different story. If you really believe education only benefits the person who receives it, ie it is a private good, forget about illegal immigrants, even citizens should not be subsidizing each other. It should be to each to his own.
The “fuss” is due to the BILLIONS they are costing taxpayers annually. Billions we simply do not have. When Plyler v. Roe was enacted, we didn’t have massive illegal immigration. Hence, the law applied primarily to a small number of children of Mexican migrant workers. Due to the abysmal failure of our federal government to enforce our laws, we now have untold millions living in our country illegally, and the costs are borne by taxpayers, not illegals, or their unscrupulous employers.
We can afford to be charitable during times of economic prosperity. However, we are now experiencing record high unemployment/underemployment, and states are cutting costs wherever possible. Why should we continue to be burdened by people who have no legal right to even be here, especially to the detriment of our own citizens? Why should our children suffer from overcrowded and underfunded schools simply to accommodate illegal aliens?
We have been more than generous by providing a tax-funded K-12 education for illegal aliens. Mind you, an education the majority clearly do not appreciate, as evidenced by their high school dropout rate. But, no one wants to acknowledge the money we have squandered thus far. Perhaps if their parents were required to pay for their K-12 education, they would encourage their children to complete high school, rather than extolling their teen pregnancies.
The “fuss” is due to the BILLIONS they are costing taxpayers annually. Billions we simply do not have. When Plyler v. Roe was enacted, we didn’t have massive illegal immigration. Hence, the law applied primarily to a small number of children of Mexican migrant workers. Due to the abysmal failure of our federal government to enforce our laws, we now have untold millions living in our country illegally, and the costs are borne by taxpayers, not illegals, or their unscrupulous employers.
We can afford to be charitable during times of economic prosperity. However, we are now experiencing record high unemployment/underemployment, and states are cutting costs wherever possible. Why should we continue to be burdened by people who have no legal right to even be here, especially to the detriment of our own citizens? Why should our children suffer from overcrowded and underfunded schools simply to accommodate illegal aliens?
We have been more than generous by providing a tax-funded K-12 education for illegal aliens. Mind you, an education the majority clearly do not appreciate, as evidenced by their high school dropout rate. But, no one wants to acknowledge the money we have squandered thus far. Perhaps if their parents were required to pay for their K-12 education, they would encourage their children to complete high school, rather than extolling their teen pregnanciryes.
Quote:
we didn’t have massive illegal immigration. Hence, the law applied primarily to a small number of children of Mexican migrant workers
Where did any justice[SCOTUS], write in his opinion that contention?What makes you believe that the justices would considered the numbers of aliens here in their descission?
It seems the tactic of opponets [to constitutional rights] is to cite that the founding fathers and architects of the consitution had no idea of what modern America was going to be, so therefore some "rights" are "antiquated". Example...opponets to the 2nd amendment contend that the founding fathers had no idea the type of moderen weaponry, therefore the right to "bare arms" is antiquated in a moderen society.
Sorry, "rights" are not only afforded in "good times". The test of rights is weather Americans uphold them in tough times. The founding fathers were educated men, they understood that the Nation would change; They also understood that constitutional rights should-and-would stand the test of time...regardless of "nay-sayers". Sorry that the "nay-sayers" are unable to understand the concept.
Where did any justice[SCOTUS], write in his opinion that contention?What makes you believe that the justices would considered the numbers of aliens here in their descission?
It seems the tactic of opponets [to constitutional rights] is to cite that the founding fathers and architects of the consitution had no idea of what modern America was going to be, so therefore some "rights" are "antiquated". Example...opponets to the 2nd amendment contend that the founding fathers had no idea the type of moderen weaponry, therefore the right to "bare arms" is antiquated in a moderen society.
Sorry, "rights" are not only afforded in "good times". The test of rights is weather Americans uphold them in tough times. The founding fathers were educated men, they understood that the Nation would change; They also understood that constitutional rights should-and-would stand the test of time...regardless of "nay-sayers". Sorry that the "nay-sayers" are unable to understand the concept.
Is that why we have had many amendments to our Constitution since our founding fathers wrote it? So I guess it isn't set in stone afterall, is it?
Where did any justice[SCOTUS], write in his opinion that contention?What makes you believe that the justices would considered the numbers of aliens here in their descission?
It seems the tactic of opponets [to constitutional rights] is to cite that the founding fathers and architects of the consitution had no idea of what modern America was going to be, so therefore some "rights" are "antiquated". Example...opponets to the 2nd amendment contend that the founding fathers had no idea the type of moderen weaponry, therefore the right to "bare arms" is antiquated in a moderen society.
Sorry, "rights" are not only afforded in "good times". The test of rights is weather Americans uphold them in tough times. The founding fathers were educated men, they understood that the Nation would change; They also understood that constitutional rights should-and-would stand the test of time...regardless of "nay-sayers". Sorry that the "nay-sayers" are unable to understand the concept.
You have AGAIN conveniently ignored the following. . .
Quote:
If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest.
I do believe measures to reduce school budget deficits, and the negative impact of overcrowding, qualifies as furthering substantial state interests. Our children are receiving a subpar education, in part, due to the educational requirements of millions of illegal alien children. The average illegal alien child enters our school system lacking even rudimentary English language skills, which, in turn, creates an enormous burden for our schools. To compound the problem, many of these children and their parents are illiterate. It’s a daunting task to teach a class comprised of English-speaking children, along with foreign children who are unable to even read or write in their native language. Countless teachers are being forced to first instruct their classes in English, then to give the same instructions in Spanish. Consequently, OUR children suffer.
Again, the law was not enacted to allow illegal aliens to rape this country. It was generously enacted to help the children of Mexican migrants. Given the relatively small number of illegal aliens at that time, the Supreme Court could not possibly have anticipated the resultant astronomical fiscal burden. It was also not enacted to allow Mexican children to cross our border daily to receive an education at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. Of course, as with every act of generosity, illegal aliens ultimately abuse our kindness.
Is that why we have had many amendments to our Constitution since our founding fathers wrote it? So I guess it isn't set in stone afterall, is it?
No it isnt, Ive always contended that...but how many of the additional amendments to the consitution Limit or deny rights?
The architects of the constitution were very cognisant of difference of the rights being afforded to citizens and to all persons .
examples
Quote:
Article I No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,...
Article II No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ...
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,...
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,...
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.History
1. The right of citizens of the United Statesto vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude...
You have AGAIN conveniently ignored the following. . .
Quote:
If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest.
Quote:
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote: "If the state is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here."
then lets not ignore the last sentence of his statement...
In the case, the state of Texas...argued that it was not responsible for the financial cost of educating illegal alien children residing in the state.
then lets not ignore the last sentence of his statement...
In the case, the state of Texas...argued that it was not responsible for the financial cost of educating illegal alien children residing in the state.
"No such showing was made HERE". . . as in, at that time. Times have changed, and so should the law. None of our states can continue to allow illegals to bankrupt school systems, especially since most never complete high school.
No it isnt, Ive always contended that...but how many of the additional amendments to the consitution Limit or deny rights?
The architects of the constitution were very cognisant of difference of the rights being afforded to citizens and to all persons .
examples
In nearly all the amendments you quoted, "citizens" were specifically mentioned and where the word "people" or "persons" were mentioned instead anyone with any kind of logic would realize that they are talking about citizens or legal residents also.
In nearly all the amendments you quoted, "citizens" were specifically mentioned and where the word "people" or "persons" were mentioned instead anyone with any kind of logic would realize that they are talking about citizens or legal residents also.
Musat be a different constitution...The first section of the 14th says...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You will note they first do the thing for the "citizens" and then the more general rights for "persons".
They knew the difference.
And to avoid any unpleasantness about enforcement they added...
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Musat be a different constitution...The first section of the 14th says...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You will note they first do the thing for the "citizens" and then the more general rights for "persons".
They knew the difference.
And to avoid any unpleasantness about enforcement they added...
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Time to change the 14th.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
