Immigrants & K-12 Debate - Chico, CA

Just the facts wrote:

It is a done deal. The Supreme Court has already ruled that you cannot deny children education based on immigration status.
Curtain Rod has cited the case many times, I don't remember its name, but I checked, it is true. It is a fact.
Change the Constitution or accept the facts

welfare mart wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing in the constitution concerning mandatory education , none .

Curtain Rod wrote:

<quoted text>
The Constitution does not say anything about most things, but that does not mean that those things are Constitutional.
I looked up the relevant Supreme Court ruling. IT IS IN FACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DENY EDUCATION TO CHILDREN BASED ON THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS.
Plyer vs Doe
"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
457 U.S. 202
Plyler v. Doe
No. 80-1538 Argued: December 1, 1981 --- Decided: June 15, 1982 [*]
Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Is there anything about that you don't understand?
Here is Wikipedia's explanation of the same case.
"Revisions to education laws in Texas in 1975 withheld state funds for educating children who had not been legally admitted to the United States and authorized local school districts to deny enrollment to such students. A 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court found that this policy was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment"
"The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law."
Pretty clear. This is settled law. Accept the facts or change the U.S. Constitution.
Why do you all hate the U.S. Constitution so much?

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
When are you going to prove this statement?????
Post # 158 here
www.topix.com/issue/immigrant-amnesty/chico-c...
You said this lie..........LOL
I was not wrong. Bilingual ed of the type Angry American was talking aobut, the type I was talking about when I responded to him, IS IN FACT illegal.
Or this one?????
Post # 107 here
www.topix.com/forum/city/chico-ca/T8U6SFH3DK7...
Rod in the arse said this..........LOL
Oh B.S. I don't doubt that it happens in some cases but the Mexican Gangs are an American phenomenon not a Mexican phenomenon.
Tell us how Mexican gangs are a American thing..........LOL
Or how about this classic one????
I posted a link showing that oslama sued city bank long before he was president.......LOL
Post # 17.......LOL
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry moron you are wrong again.........LOL
oslama the economy slayer is not the government..........
Can you walk and chew gum at the same time??????
rod arse posted this.......LOL
He is the President of the United States if Obama sues the banks IT IS IN FACT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SUING THE BANKS.
He is not suing them as a private citizen yhou moron.

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
When are you going to prove this statement?????
Post # 158 here
www.topix.com/issue/immigrant-amnesty/chico-c...
You said this lie..........LOL
I was not wrong. Bilingual ed of the type Angry American was talking aobut, the type I was talking about when I responded to him, IS IN FACT illegal.
Or this one?????
Post # 107 here
www.topix.com/forum/city/chico-ca/T8U6SFH3DK7...
Rod in the arse said this..........LOL
Oh B.S. I don't doubt that it happens in some cases but the Mexican Gangs are an American phenomenon not a Mexican phenomenon.
Tell us how Mexican gangs are a American thing..........LOL
Or how about this classic one????
I posted a link showing that oslama sued city bank long before he was president.......LOL
Post # 17.......LOL
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry moron you are wrong again.........LOL
oslama the economy slayer is not the government..........
Can you walk and chew gum at the same time??????
rod arse posted this.......LOL
He is the President of the United States if Obama sues the banks IT IS IN FACT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SUING THE BANKS.
He is not suing them as a private citizen yhou moron.

Curtain Rod wrote:

<quoted text>
The Constitution does not say anything about most things, but that does not mean that those things are Constitutional.
I looked up the relevant Supreme Court ruling. IT IS IN FACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DENY EDUCATION TO CHILDREN BASED ON THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS.
Plyer vs Doe
"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
457 U.S. 202
Plyler v. Doe
No. 80-1538 Argued: December 1, 1981 --- Decided: June 15, 1982 [*]
Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Is there anything about that you don't understand?
Here is Wikipedia's explanation of the same case.
"Revisions to education laws in Texas in 1975 withheld state funds for educating children who had not been legally admitted to the United States and authorized local school districts to deny enrollment to such students. A 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court found that this policy was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment"
"The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law."
Pretty clear. This is settled law. Accept the facts or change the U.S. Constitution.
Why do you all hate the U.S. Constitution so much?

Curtain Rod wrote:

<quoted text>
The Constitution does not say anything about most things, but that does not mean that those things are Constitutional.

welfare mart wrote:

<quoted text>
Come on , citing issues of unconstitutionality when the issue isn't even addressed within the constitution is nothing short of legislating from the judicial branch , which is definitely unconstitutional .

Curtain Rod wrote:

<quoted text>

2ndly, Legislating from the bench? What in the world are you talking about? Lets get something straight, "legislating from the bench" is what people call Supreme court decisions they don't like, nothing more nothing less, and there is nothing "illegal" about it.

Curtain Rod wrote:

<quoted text>
I already have, over and over again, in the appropriate place. Which, anyone who was interested in those converstations has already read and made thier own mind up about.
But here you are again, being rude to every single person reading this thread by bringing old arguements into it. If they are curious about those discussions they can read them in the appropriate place. I am confident in my points and stand by them.
You, on the other hand, are a rude little brat, who, once again, is way off topic.

Grow up wrote:

<quoted text>
Seriously guy, what the hell was that all about? What has any of that rubbish to do with the subject at hand?
I am not interested in your meladrama but based solely on what you posted and his tone as compared to yours, it sure seems like he had the better of you and you are just to cocky to realize when you've had enough. He certainly has you beat when it comes to manners and maturity.

Grow up wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not a student of your constitution but that seems pretty clear. What is the process to change something in the Constitution, it is an ammendment right, how does one go about getting something like that done?

Curtain Rod wrote:

<quoted text>
What issues does the Constitution adress? You know better than that don't you?
You realize that most issues, the vast majority of issues, are not adressed in any way shape or form by the constitituion?
That is not how the Constitutiion works, it does not adress issues, it adresses core principles. That is lesson # 1. If you don't know that basic fact about the Constitution then you need to brush up before we can even talk. If it adressed issues it would have been out dated by the turn of the centurey (the 19th century).
2ndly, Legislating from the bench? What in the world are you talking about? Lets get something straight, "legislating from the bench" is what people call Supreme court decisions they don't like, nothing more nothing less, and there is nothing "illegal" about it.
Was "Brown vs. Board of Education", you know the one that made it illegal to have seperate schools for black kids, illegal, was it legislating from the bench? Give me a break, it was based on Constiutional Principles. As is the case in Plyer vs Doe.
The principle at stake here is the principle adressed in the Principle adressed in the 14th ammendment. More specifically the "the equal protection clause" which holds that all persons must be treated equally by the laws (and does not distingish between citizens and non-citizens or legal or illegal residents).
The supreme court ruled that preventing kids from attending school based on their immigration status violates the equal protection clause (no need for the Constitution to mention education in any way shape or form, see?). Seriously welfare mart, all that was explained in the Decision, which I provided a link to, did you read it?

welfare mart wrote:

Judicial legislation is legislation "we the prople" do not wish despite popular vote to the contrary , so much for a democrazy !