Teacher Lay-Offs due to Children of Illegals Leaving OC Schools? (Sacramento: neighborhoods, private school)

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

They absolutely DO NOT "extend to all" especially when it comes to immigration law. You are completely wrong on this topic.

Immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation. Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review.

Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

In 1952's Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists.

This is also why the SCOTUS recently decided that Trump's travel ban was completely constitutional.

*****************************
Trump supporters might be surprised at how far the Constitution extends toward non-citizens once they're inside the country, however. Cases extending back to the 1800s, including ones brought by Chinese immigrants challenging the arbitrary seizure of their property, have established the rights of non-citizens under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments including due process and the right to a jury.
*****************************
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf.../#238a34df4f1d

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons" "People" includes aliens of whatever sort. It is as simple as that. Amazing some cannot follow the simplest basics of American law.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

They absolutely DO NOT "extend to all" especially when it comes to immigration law. You are completely wrong on this topic.

Immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation. Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review.

Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

In 1952's Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists.

This is also why the SCOTUS recently decided that Trump's travel ban was completely constitutional.

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.

Wong Win v. United States (1896), the court ruled that: It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Plyler V Doe Plyler 1982: The illegal aliens who are ... challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'"

You are confusing the right of the Government to prevent certain people from obtaining visas which is what the travel ban is about with the treatment of people who are already here. If the Government passed a law requiring deportation of certain people, they would still be entitled to due process.

You really should read up on this

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Not this charter school.

...according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday, the state is not meeting its constitutional responsibility to educate all children. The plaintiffs are current and former students and teachers at La Salle Elementary School; Van Buren Elementary School, in Stockton; and the charter school Children of Promise Preparatory Academy, in Inglewood.

California isn't doing enough to teach kids how to read, lawsuit says - LA Times

One charter school and two conventional public schools, in two of the worst districts in the entire US (including the absolute worst district in the US).

Charter schools which fail can be closed much easier than conventional schools which fail. Children of Promise will probably be closed (and perhaps should be closed) but I doubt La Salle or Van Buren will be.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by majoun

One charter school and two conventional public schools, in two of the worst districts in the entire US (including the absolute worst district in the US).

Charter schools which fail can be closed much easier than conventional schools which fail. Children of Promise will probably be closed (and perhaps should be closed) but I doubt La Salle or Van Buren will be.

They can refuse to authorize renewal of the charter but that's about it. Here is the real problem, under NCLB parents could demand that the district enroll a child in a different school if their neighborhood school failed to meet standards for three years in a row. That was replaced in 2016 by ESSA which gives states the option to refuse to transfer students out of failing schools, California to not allow transfers and instead submitted their alternative plan which is to provide students in failing schools with additional resources. It's just a joke of a solution and infuriates me.

In my experience the only way you can demonstrate to district administrators that they need to fix the problems in a school is when parents transfer the kids out, but at least in California with ESSA they lost that right. I hope these parents win their lawsuit and that they reinstate the transfer rights that were part of NCLB.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.

Wong Win v. United States (1896), the court ruled that: It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Plyler V Doe Plyler 1982: The illegal aliens who are ... challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'"

You are confusing the right of the Government to prevent certain people from obtaining visas which is what the travel ban is about with the treatment of people who are already here. If the Government passed a law requiring deportation of certain people, they would still be entitled to due process.

You really should read up on this

Are you sure you didn't post this in this thread by mistake?

No one is talking about "trial by jury" or "grand jury", you posted all of that for nothing. You should read a thread before you chime in so you won't waste time pasting stuff that's not relevant to topic.

We're talking about the right of detainers. lvl said detainers are unconstitutional, the SCOTUS long ago said they are not. That is a fact. The Federal government has the right to detain ANY individual that is not a citizen (spy, illegal alien, etc) as long as it's an immigration violation and/or security issue. In Zarate's case, it's clear immigration violation, not only that he was a felon.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Are you sure you didn't post this in this thread by mistake?

No one is talking about "trial by jury" or "grand jury", you posted all of that for nothing. You should read a thread before you chime in so you won't waste time pasting stuff that's not relevant to topic.

We're talking about the right of detainers. lvl said detainers are unconstitutional, the SCOTUS long ago said they are not. That's is a fact. The Federal government has the right to detain ANY individual that is not a citizen (spy, illegal alien, etc) as long as it's an immigration violation and/or security issue.

Unfortunately you are conflating two different issues.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

They can refuse to authorize renewal of the charter but that's about it. Here is the real problem, under NCLB parents could demand that the district enroll a child in a different school if their neighborhood school failed to meet standards for three years in a row. That was replaced in 2016 by ESSA which gives states the option to refuse to transfer students out of failing schools, California to not allow transfers and instead submitted their alternative plan which is to provide students in failing schools with additional resources. It's just a joke of a solution and infuriates me.

In my experience the only way you can demonstrate to district administrators that they need to fix the problems in a school is when parents transfer the kids out, but at least in California with ESSA they lost that right. I hope these parents win their lawsuit and that they reinstate the transfer rights that were part of NCLB.

For once we're actually agreeing on an education issue.

A shame that California won't allow transfers anymore.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by majoun

One charter school and two conventional public schools, in two of the worst districts in the entire US (including the absolute worst district in the US).

Yet that's where there are the greatest number of charter schools. It would be difficult for one to fail in one of the "best" districts, wouldn't it?

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Yeah, you're right. I can totally see Trump, Pelosi, and Schumer coming to a meeting of minds.

Mimi Walters joins the group to try to fix DACA.

Orange County U.S. Rep. Mimi Walters on Tuesday joined Central Valley congressmen David Valadao and Jeff Denham in urging House Speaker Paul D. Ryan to address the legal status of people brought to the country illegally as children before the end of the year.

“I feel strongly that we take care of the Dreamers in our country and that we try to get them situated as soon as we can,” Walters said.

Mimi Walters becomes third California GOP representative to advocate for DACA fix this year - LA Times

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Yet that's where there are the greatest number of charter schools. It would be difficult for one to fail in one of the "best" districts, wouldn't it?

Because thats where there is a demand for charters. If the conventional schools were not irredeemably and irreversably failed there would be less of a demand for charters.

However charters do exist in places with great public schools too. like Newport Beach and Huntington Beach.

In any case while Children of Promise may have its charter revoked we can be sure LAUSD and SUSD schools won't be closed.