Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can You Help America?
Self ^ | 11/30/2002 | B4Ranch

Posted on 11/30/2002 8:03:21 AM PST by B4Ranch

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 681-688 next last
To: B4Ranch
Gotcha, bro. Thanks for the ping. I'm working it for all I'm worth on this end.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

141 posted on 11/30/2002 6:46:25 PM PST by wku man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
LOL...yup....just found a ton of pings myself! :)))
142 posted on 11/30/2002 6:49:56 PM PST by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
Thanks, Sam!
143 posted on 11/30/2002 6:50:12 PM PST by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Aliska
"And I'm not sure it is morally ethical to keep them out, even though I don't like what is happening in this country."

Why is it morally ethical to enforce our borders? Why is it morally ethical to prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law?


144 posted on 11/30/2002 6:53:42 PM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: boris
I meant "why is it not morally ethical"...sorry.
145 posted on 11/30/2002 6:54:10 PM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Plyler vs. Doe
- A Summary -

In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe , 457 U.S. 202 (1982), that public schools were prohibited from denying immigrant students access to a public education. The Court stated that undocumented children have the same right to a free public education as U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Undocumented immigrant students are obligated, as are all other students, to attend school until they reach the age mandated by state law.

Public schools and school personnel are prohibited under Plyler from adopting policies or taking actions that would deny students access to education based on their immigration status.

Based on the Supreme Court's ruling, public school districts should consider the following practices in working with ELL students:

School officials may not require children to prove they are in this country legally by asking for documents such as green cards, citizenship papers, etc. They may only require proof that the child lives within the school district attendance zone, just as they might for any other child.

Schools should be careful of unintentional attempts to document students' legal status which lead to the possible "chilling" of their Plyler rights.

The following school practices are prohibited:

• Barring access to a student on the basis of legal status or alleged legal status.

• Treating students disparately for residency determination purposes on the basis of their undocumented status.

• Inquiring about a student's immigration status, including requiring documentation of a student's legal status at initial registration or at any other time.

• Making inquiries from a student or his/her parents which may expose their legal status.

Federal Program Requirements - Federal education programs may ask for information from parents and students to determine if students are eligible for various programs, such as Emergency Immigrant Education. If that is the case, schools should ask for voluntary information from parents and students or find alternative ways of identifying and documenting the eligibility of students. However, schools are not required to check or document the immigrant status of each student in the school or of those students who may be eligible for such programs. The regulations do not require alien registration numbers or documentation of immigration status.

Social Security Numbers - Schools should not require students to apply for Social Security numbers. If schools decide to pass out Social Security registration forms to assist the Social Security Administration, they must tell parents and students, in appropriate languages, that the application forms are merely a service and it is up to the parents and students whether the applications are actually filed. They should stress that schools will not monitor the filing of these applications. Additionally, schools should not require any student to supply a social security number.

School Lunch Programs - In order to qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch Programs, all applicants are required to furnish either of the two following types of information: Social Security numbers of all household members over the age of 21, should they have one. For all household members above the age of 21 who do not have a Social Security number, an indication of the application that he or she does not possess one. If a student or household members over the age of 21 do not have a Social Security number, "none" should be written in that space or another identifying number could be assigned by the school.

Parents and students should be reminded that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibits any outside agency, including the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), from getting this information without obtaining permission from the student's parents or a valid court order.

School lunch programs are interested in determining household income, not in determining a student's legal status.

Communication with INS - Any communication to INS initiated by a school or school official concerning a specific student is prohibited. If parents and/or students have questions about their immigration status, school personnel should refer them to legal service organizations, immigrant rights organizations, or local immigration attorneys. They should not advise immigrants to go directly to INS offices without first getting proper advice from an attorney or immigrant rights advocate.

Requests for information by INS - School personnel are prohibited from cooperating with INS in any way that may jeopardize an immigrant students' right of access (with the exception of the administration of F-1 and J-1 visas). INS requests for information can only be released upon the presentation of a valid subpoena. All school personnel should be advised of this policy. If a subpoena is presented, it may be advisable to check with an attorney to properly check into the validity of the subpoena.

Requests by INS to enter a school - School personnel should not cooperate with INS in any manner that jeopardizes immigrant students and their right of access. The school principal should meet with INS officials in the front office with a credible witness present, deny the INS officials consent, and request to see a legal warrant. If a warrant is presented, the principal should determine that it:

Lists the school by its correct name and address
Lists students by name
Be signed by a judge
Be less than ten days old
Be served by an INS officer with proper identification.

To protect other students in the school, the principal should bring the INS officials to the office and request that they remain there while the named student(s) is brought to them. The principal should immediately inform the Superintendent and school attorney.

School District Personnel should always consult an attorney to clarify their duties and responsibilities under Plyler. This document is intended solely for guidance.


"Immigrant Students: Their Legal Right of Access to Public Schools. A Guide for Advocates and Educators" by John Willshire Carrera, Esq. National Coalition of Advocates for Students. Boston MA

146 posted on 11/30/2002 7:03:30 PM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
BTW, my recollection of the above (Plyler vs Doe) was that the school district was actually bussing Mexican children across the border every day to attend taxpayer-funded schools in Texas...
147 posted on 11/30/2002 7:05:08 PM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: citizenK
That was an excellent, well thought-out post. Unfortunately I don't think what you propose will work any longer. There is no turning back the clock. The system is snowballing.

There is no way to get good people in government any more. Most of the well-educated are leftists. Most of the politicians haven't lived in the real world since they were born. There is no way in hell an unknown can be elected even with money and connections.

Rather than talking about fixing things, we ought to be focussed on how to get through the changes being imposed upon us.

The government is no longer run of the people, by the people and for the people. The government bows to special interest groups and we shouldn't have meddled in foreign affairs to the extent we have done.

If the government listened to the people, we wouldn't have gotten into this mess because the American people would have wanted immigration drastically curtailed.

148 posted on 11/30/2002 7:28:03 PM PST by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Carlos Olemedo of the National Council of Mexican Professionals (?) was on O'Reilly Factor squaring off against Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo on the administrations plan to push amnesty for illegal aliens from Mexico. Olemedo was presenting the tired argument that the illegals are economically necessary and that rounding up and deporting millions of them would be inhumane.

Olamendi is the perfect spokesman for the Mexican amnesty lobby.... he's a bumbling moron who can't speak English well enough to understand what he's trying to say. A complete idiot. He's also a professional Mexican (a leech).

It would be nice to be able to repatriate this gaggle of despicable lawbreakers without anything going wrong, but that's impossible. They have to go, nevertheless..... whether they consider it "humane" or not. Lot's of Americans have been hurt by this invasion already.... just look at California and Arizona.

You have to remember that the vile Mexican government has been teaching their unskilled, uneducated minions to hate 'gringos' since 1848. This won't just go away because Bush's cattle-ranching buddy got elected on a campaign full of lies, will it? Not a chance. Round 'em up and move 'em out. And remember this treachery come 2004.

149 posted on 11/30/2002 7:33:04 PM PST by Tancredo Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Good luck fighting human will....
150 posted on 11/30/2002 7:45:31 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Is it morally ethical to throw away the future of your children?

No. It is our responsibility to raise them in such a manner that they will be able to survive under almost any circumstances.

As to slamming the door on poor people from the south, I wonder what God thinks about it.

Also I wonder how much is our fault that Mexico is in a mess . We set the world standard financially.

I'm kind of thinking out loud here; I don't have a clear sense of what is best. My sense of what is best is that Mexico should have cleaned up their act and made their country nice so people would want to stay. We were the ones who were told by opinion shapers that we were being immoral (the implication) if we produced more than 2.5 children. That was a lie.

I deleted some other things I really think. Deep down I don't trust Mexicans as a whole because they seem sneaky. That may be totally untrue, but I have seen them get away with things I couldn't get away with. An example:

My daughter was in a horrible accident. My ex-husband turned me in to social services because parts of the walls were out in my house because I hadn't gotten around to hire anyone to fix them. Because of possible lead poisoning, the social worker said I couldn't take care of my granddaughter. I managed to get permission from the housing manager (which was really nice of her) to stay at my daughter's government-subsidized apartment while she was in the hospital so I could take care of my granddaughter. I couldn't have my underage son there; he had to fend for himself at home and with friends.

One of the girls in the building had an illegal Mexican boyfriend who got a pass living in government housing and never ever had to get out. Others had drug dealers and all kinds of creepy people hanging around day and night.

That's a microcosm of how illegal people get more and better treatment than American citizens when the chips are down.

There I shouldn't have spouted that off but I did.

151 posted on 11/30/2002 7:46:17 PM PST by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

Comment #152 Removed by Moderator

To: B4Ranch
How about no entry into state (or federally) funded schools (primary through university level) unless you are an american citizen? Implement substantial fines (and revocation of tax incentives, if applicable) for employers who don't take reasonable steps to ensure they are hiring citizens.
153 posted on 11/30/2002 7:48:58 PM PST by Helix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: boris
Why is it morally ethical to enforce our borders? Why is it morally ethical to prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law? It may be a sin to slam the door on the less fortunate. Moral law supercedes civil laws in such cases. I can't really answer that.

My personal feelings may not be in line with higher moral law.

154 posted on 11/30/2002 7:49:39 PM PST by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

Comment #155 Removed by Moderator

Comment #156 Removed by Moderator

To: MistyCA
157 posted on 11/30/2002 7:57:57 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Also, support American made products.
158 posted on 11/30/2002 7:58:11 PM PST by Helix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GirlShortstop; B4Ranch
We must recognize what is, and what has been, happening to our country with respect to the rise of socialism in America during the 20th Century.

This is it. This is the battle we must fight, and if we win the war against socialism, we will be able to control our borders and maintain our sovereignty.

" A country's character, like the character of any man, depends on how hard its people fight for what they believe in. We know how to win against subversion at home... Our weapons are the same weapons as at Valley Forge in 1777-1778. What are they? Belief in God, faith in man, hard work, loyalty to country and kin. Loyalty to the verities for which men lie at Bunker Hill, Valley Forge, Anzio and Heartbreak Ridge. Yes, unyielding, honorable patriotism is the something that in our time will win decisively over the nothingness of socialist atheism." Dr. Kenneth D. Wells
159 posted on 11/30/2002 7:59:08 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: boris
Okay, so we make sure that the parents are here legally and legally employed. If we can raise enough hell about the fact that companies are employing LAWBREAKERS, then we should even get some support from the Democrats. The don't particularly want criminals working beside them. Or want them as neighbors. Or want them dating their children. Or want them employing their children. Or want them medicating them in the hospitals. The list goes on and on. Nobody wants to be around criminals.
160 posted on 11/30/2002 8:03:05 PM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 681-688 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson