Posted on 02/11/2002 11:14:47 AM PST by janetgreen
Is Proposition 187 really legal after all?
Well, it is part of the Education Code
Go to the following url, select California Education Code, and search for 48215
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTION 48215.
(a) No public elementary or secondary school shall admit, or permit the attendance of, any child who is not a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, or a person who is otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States.
(b) Commencing January 1, 1995, each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolling in the school district for the first time in order to ensure the enrollment or attendance only of citizens, aliens lawfully admitted as permanent residents, or persons who are otherwise authorized to be present in the United States.
(c) By January 1, 1996, each school district shall have verified the legal status of each child already enrolled and in attendance in the school district in order to ensure the enrollment or attendance only of citizens, aliens lawfully admitted as permanent residents, or persons who are otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States.>p> (d) By January 1, 1996, each school district shall also have verified the legal status of each parent or guardian of each child referred to in subdivisions (b) and (c), to determine whether such parent or guardian is one of the following:
(1) A citizen of the United States.
(2) An alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident.
(3) An alien admitted lawfully for a temporary period of time.
(e) Each school district shall provide information to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Attorney General of California, and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any enrollee or pupil, or parent or guardian, attending a public elementary or secondary school in the school district determined or reasonably suspected to be in violation of federal immigration laws within forty-five days after becoming aware of an apparent violation. The notice shall also be provided to the parent or legal guardian of the enrollee or pupil, and shall state that an existing pupil may not continue to attend the school after ninety calendar days from the date of the notice, unless legal status is established.
(f) For each child who cannot establish legal status in the United States, each school district shall continue to provide education for a period of ninety days from the date of the notice. Such ninety day period shall be utilized to accomplish an orderly transition to a school in the child's country of origin. Each school district shall fully cooperate in this transition effort to ensure that the educational needs of the child are best served for that period of time.
The Pacific Legal Foundation has claimed that no initiative passed by California voters can be held unlawful unless tested by an appeals court. That did not happen with Proposition 187. Could it be that the entire education establishment is breaking the law? Glenn Spencer
Personally, I tend to find that many on this board don't so much care about the law so much as they don't want MEXICANS in their neighborhood, marrying their daughters, etc.
As far as my OWN opinion on immigration, how come it is so difficult for my Colombian and Venezuealan cohorts in the banking industry to get residency, while everyone who wants to pick grapes can just come on in?
Send the link to as many friends as you can!
The laws are for everybody....we obey them and the liberals make sure of it. We really need to grow a spine and turn it around on them. Strories like this one give me hope though:
Animal rights protesters meet with resistance at convention center
People are getting fed up!
Because unlike the latter ethnic groups, Mexicans enter this country illegally to begin with and by their sheer numbers account for well over 70% of all illegal immigration. So when the topic of illegal immigration comes up it is quite natural to target the group that is responsible (by far) for most of the illegal immigration in this country. This should be common sense. I guess in your case it is not.
Where is the connection to this section of the code and 187? There may be none and this then could be enacted!
Non sequitur. Proposition 187 didn't restrict or regulate immigration.
California's voters weren't taken in by left, and they passed Proposition 187 by a landslide
BTW: As I have said before, I am FOR stricter enforcement of immigration laws. I just find that on these threads, all I find is lower-middle-class resentment against Mexicans. They're not that bad!
A far better solution would have been to mandate a lengthy residence period in the state of CA before being allowed to receive public assistance, imposed on everyone, along with a maximum period that one may receive benefits in one's lifetime. Immigrants (legal and otherwise) would be caught up in the same hopper as US citizens who had recently moved to CA, it would not be tied to a status that is under the purview of the Feds (domiciling in any state takes a minimum amount of time; the exact amount of time required is left to the discretion of the several states), and it would have substantially the same effect as Prop 187, but it would have been much harder to attack in Federal court.
As someone who opposes most big government services (I even HATE public schools), there was much in Prop 187 to love. Nevertheless, it was sold in racialist terms and the authors should have spent more time drafting it with legal objections in mind.
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! This point should be made on all of these threads!
When I was a kid, I knew many idiots who would whine about the "n--gers on welfare," yet would beg for services for "dere grandmudda." Big government for me, but not for thee.
Immigration status? They're illegal aliens.
By your "reasoning", illegal aliens should be able to demand the right to vote in California elections. Come to think of, they do.
Federal law addresses this issue already. Federal law needs to define who is and is not eligible for public assistance based on their immigration status--which, if they are not bona fide US citizens, should be "no public assistance whatsoever."
The only reason we have as much poverty as we do in America is that we subsidize it.
What does it say? Cite, please.
Federal law needs to define who is and is not eligible for public assistance based on their immigration status--which, if they are not bona fide US citizens, should be "no public assistance whatsoever."
You've just tacitly admitted that there is no federal law requiring states to provide free benefits to illegal aliens.
It happened in Little Rock, Arkansas in the 1950s and it can happen again. This is so typical when liberal causes are at stake. But look what happens when the state of California passes legislation in clear violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Nothing.
Only if the state is not using any federal monies to accomplish this.
Cite, please.
Oh, and as I recall, Marianna Pfaelzer's exercise in legislating from the bench made no such distinction.
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.