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.
"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.
Exactly. Plyler v Doe was enacted in 1982, 4 years before the amnesty of 1986 when Americans were assured only ONE million illegals would be eligible for amnesty though the number was found to be closer to THREE million.
30 years later we have an estimated number of illegals anywhere from 12 to 20 million plus (depending on whose "statistics" you believe) and the school system is overwhelmed with children who are illiterate for the most part in their own native language, let alone English.
Exactly. Plyler v Doe was enacted in 1982, 4 years before the amnesty of 1986 when Americans were assured only ONE million illegals would be eligible for amnesty though the number was found to be closer to THREE million.
30 years later we have an estimated number of illegals anywhere from 12 to 20 million plus (depending on whose "statistics" you believe) and the school system is overwhelmed with children who are illiterate for the most part in their own native language, let alone English.
I think you lie. Let us see a credible source that "system is overwhelmed bu children wo are illeterate for the most part in their own native language let alone english."
The system, in some places, may be overwhelmed. But it does not appear to correlate with the presence of non-English speakers. See the DC school system.
"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.
Times have changed; but Please explain what is difference in the claim that was made [at that time] by the state of Texas and today? The state of Texas made every claim of damage due to funding illegal alien children in Texas public schools as is being made today.
Understanding that the Supreme Court very rarely [if almost never] revisits or over-turns a previous Supreme Court's ruling, what damage can Texas[or any state] claim that was not previously claimed that would cause the court to revisit the issue?
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.
I dont understand your post.
It was my intention to show that the architects of the constitution purposely used "citizens" and "all persons" to distiguish rights afforded.
Are you saying my post didnt convey that the clssification "all persons" also includes "citizens"?
Or are you saying that "all persons" only refers to "citizens" while excludeing all other...
foreign visitors
aliens with visas
illegal aliens?
I think you lie. Let us see a credible source that "system is overwhelmed bu children wo are illeterate for the most part in their own native language let alone english."
The system, in some places, may be overwhelmed. But it does not appear to correlate with the presence of non-English speakers. See the DC school system.
Yeppers.
WE have enough kids who are a mess in school. We DONT need anchors or dream kids also filling up the schools.
I don’t know why in this century are people so ignorant that thinks that a person is less than then because their status migratory....Although, we claim we live in one of the freest countries in the world most Americans think that this freedom only extents to those who were already here but our lady liberty which is our symbol for freedom states differently. THIS COUNTRY IS FOR EVERYONE. Young people that live in this country should have the opportunity to better themselves the law should allow them to go to college. If US educate already provide education for the illegal kids let them take high school, so US should allow them to go to college because they don’t have they are not guilty of been in this country . The parents bring them when they were children.
WHAT part of ILLEGAL do people misunderstand.
If you are here ILLEGALLY, we need to send you home.
MY grandparents, and MANY other people immigrated here LEGALLY! This is a slap to the face of every person who waited to come here LEGALLY.
If you are here illegally, you are breaking our laws. If you are willing to break our immigration laws, what other laws are you willing to break? I don't want to know, I want to send you packing.
If you are here ILLEGALLY, we need to send you home.
MY grandparents, and MANY other people immigrated here LEGALLY! This is a slap to the face of every person who waited to come here LEGALLY.
If you are here illegally, you are breaking our laws. If you are willing to break our immigration laws, what other laws are you willing to break? I don't want to know, I want to send you packing.
You make very passionate argument, but what does anything you stated have to do with the topic question?
The topic is not..."willingness to break laws", it is the funding of education for illegal aliens.
I understand you believing that is the case, because to do other would mean that the current interpretation of such rights like Section I of the 14th amendment would make your contention that "All Persons" does not apply to illegal aliens moot.[If that is your contention, then every right that is now afforded to "all persons" would have to be ejudicated to exclude illegal aliens specifically.]
So be it. So explain, do illegal aliens have the right in a criminal case, to a trial by jury? Speedy trial? legal representation? protection from unreasonable searches and seizures...ect.? If so, how can these rights be afforded to "all persons" and include illegl aliens? Where and how in the Consitution is that distinction made?
Last edited by 1751texan; 02-19-2011 at 09:11 AM..
...there are ton's of Court rulling upholding Constitutional rights afforded all persons regardless of their immigration status.
Then why do we charge tuition to other foreign students? If foreign citizens wish to use our schools, they should be required to pay a foreign citizen rate. Being here illegally shouldn't get them any special deals.
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.
illegal
