Should 'illegal,' bright high-schoolers get the boot?

[aGameOfThrones]

Over the years, I have taught hundreds of Latino kids and naively assumed they were all legal immigrants. Or for that matter, the many Asian, African and Middle Eastern students I have taught. But several staff members who work closely with immigrant students estimate that as many as 60% of our Latino students alone — that is more than 300 kids — might be illegal.


In my classroom
My high school is only about a half-hour drive from the U.S. Capitol, where legislators wage divisive battles over what do to about illegal immigrants. But those lawmakers do not see what I see. When I scan my classroom, I see only the diverse faces of my students — but I couldn't tell you who is here legally or who isn't. Nor do I care. And apparently neither does our educational system, which is as it should be.


Why else would federal law forbid a school district from denying a free public education to undocumented children who reside within that district or forbid schools from disclosing any information about a child's immigration status to the Citizenship and Immigration Services? The federal government understands that it is in the country's best interest to give these children access to a free public elementary and secondary education.

But why do we stop there?

We are in essence kicking these young people out of America at the point when they have the potential to become more productive members of our society.
I understand that many Americans see these students as lawbreakers. But like their parents, these students have already been in the USA for years and have no plans to leave.

Rather than consigning these young people to lives in the shadows, unable to vote, to attend a four-year state college, to enter the military or to get anything but the lowest-paying jobs that do not require a Social Security number, we need to come up with an innovative way to put them on a path to citizenship. And not only for their sake, but also for our own.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-03-29-column29_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[cindy25]

their parents are paying property taxes (either as owner or renter of real property-and yes, renters do pay as its factored into the rent)

let them enter the military, or attend a private college without aid from govt. voting-no.

[Bman]

their parents are paying property taxes (either as owner or renter of real property-and yes, renters do pay as its factored into the rent)

let them enter the military, or attend a private college without aid from govt. voting-no.

Whose parents? I won't say all cases and could not even say for sure that this holds water, but I imagine since it is low income it does have relevance. That would be called public housing.

[William R]

Yes!! What open border proponents don't seem to understand is, mass immigration only grows government. We have a huge welfare state.

[cindy25]

Whose parents? I won't say all cases and could not even say for sure that this holds water, but I imagine since it is low income it does have relevance. That would be called public housing.

1) there should be no public housing
but
2) I doubt if illegals can provide the documentation needed to qualify for public housing

[juleswin]

So should it make a difference if they were average/dumb and not bright? rules are rules and once you start making exceptions for bright kids, next you would be asked to do the same for average and dumb kids who really need the education more. This is one of the issues that pissed me off when I was a liberal, it seems like the Hispanics (not whites or god forbids Arabs) have a total monopoly on illegal immigration and its just ok to them.

I hope some time in the near future, public schools and welfare would be a thing of the past and these kind of stories would be non issues. My guess is that by then, private schools may even invite and sponsor those bright student on their own dime.

[LibertyEagle]

Should 'illegal,' bright high-schoolers get the boot?

Smart or dumb, it makes no difference. They are breaking the laws of our country. They need to go back whence they came and apply to become a citizen of our country, if that is what they want.

[fisharmor]

let them enter the military

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO



Yes!! What open border proponents don't seem to understand is, mass immigration only grows government. We have a huge welfare state.

And what closed border proponents never seem to understand is that if the above is true, then shrinking government will curtail immigration.
"Should 'illegal,' [sic] bright high-schoolers get the boot?"
Hang on a second, what is high school?
Until everyone realizes that in addition to its main role of programming society to be obeisant to our masters, school is itself welfare, we're not going to get anywhere in this argument.

The state doesn't give out welfare because it cares about its citizens.
It gives out welfare to control people. That's all welfare is about: control.
The state doesn't give a shit whether the people it's trying to control are citizens or not.
I don't know about other open borders types, but the reason I'm open borders is because being closed border draws attention away from the real issue.
If closed borders is your pet thing that you really want the state to do, then you're a statist, just like the welfare and warfare and healthcare folks.

[TruckinMike]

Smart or dumb, it makes no difference. They are breaking the laws of our country. They need to go back whence they came and apply to become a citizen of our country, if that is what they want.

Yep. ^

[cindy25]

wouldn't it make more sense to give citizenship to anyone who joins the military than to pay American citizens $40,000 bonuses?

as far as breaking the law a baby brought to the USA at 1 month did not break the law. their parents broke the law.

[FrankRep]

Smart or dumb, it makes no difference. They are breaking the laws of our country. They need to go back whence they came and apply to become a citizen of our country, if that is what they want.

This ^^^

[fisharmor]

wouldn't it make more sense to give citizenship to anyone who joins the military than to pay American citizens $40,000 bonuses?
Wouldn't it make much more sense to come to a true understanding of the constitution?
Our standing army stands against the spirit of the constitution, and exist only as a serious stretch of its wording.
The founders knew quite well that the purpose of a standing army is to commit aggression. That is why the US Constitution specifically states that congress has the power to call on the militia to repel invasions. Not the army.

Moreover, I challenge you to find congress' authority to determine who is and is not a citizen.
I contend that this authority is not explicitly defined in the constitution, and that therefore under the 10th amendment congress does not have the authority to define who is and is not a citizen.

If you were to agree with me that this whole thing is broken and we should just trash it, that would be one thing. But....


as far as breaking the law a baby brought to the USA at 1 month did not break the law. their parents broke the law.

... here you're arguing for the rule of law, so I assume you're not in the "constitution has failed" crowd.
Does congress in fact have the power, under the constitution, to determine who is legally residing in the US?
Doesn't this then fall under the 10th amendment as well?

I realize I'm not going to see the system destroyed and replaced with nothing in my lifetime, but I'll settle for what the law ACTUALLY SAYS.

[juleswin]

wouldn't it make more sense to give citizenship to anyone who joins the military than to pay American citizens $40,000 bonuses?

as far as breaking the law a baby brought to the USA at 1 month did not break the law. their parents broke the law.

How about a baby of 1 month squatting on your property? do you kick him/her out or let him/her stay on since he/she did not break any rules? It is not fair to other immigrants who do not have a close proximity to the US border and who have to follow the rules

[Bossobass]

Should bright embezzlers be arrested?

Bosso

[Southron]

If closed borders is your pet thing that you really want the state to do, then you're a statist
:rolleyes:

[Justinjj1]

No one should "get the boot."

[PreDeadMan]

If you're going to argue the "law" in this case then if you were around during slavery would you argue against people that set slaves free? after all the law can never be wrong!...

[PreDeadMan]

No one should "get the boot."

except the government ;)

[Fredom101]

Nobody in reality is "legal" or "illegal". Those are fictions made up by government.
Everyone should have a chance. The problem is law itself, allowing people to get all the welfare state goodies when they get here. Take out the welfare state, solve the problem. Otherwise you're just trimming branches, which will grow back, as opposed to striking the root.

[Fredom101]

If you're going to argue the "law" in this case then if you were around during slavery would you argue against people that set slaves free? after all the law can never be wrong!...

Excellent point. Law is the problem.

[FrankRep]

What's Ron Paul's view on Illegal Immigration?

[Dr.3D]

Smart or dumb, it makes no difference. They are breaking the laws of our country. They need to go back whence they came and apply to become a citizen of our country, if that is what they want.

Exactly.... if people don't like the law, then they should work to change it.

[Fredom101]

Exactly.... if people don't like the law, then they should work to change it.

And majority rules has worked so well in every other area, so it will work here too?

[Dr.3D]

And majority rules has worked so well in every other area, so it will work here too?

Just what does that have to do with illegal entry into this country?

[eduardo89]

Smart or dumb, it makes no difference. They are breaking the laws of our country. They need to go back whence they came and apply to become a citizen of our country, if that is what they want.

My thoughts exactly

[madfoot]

And what closed border proponents never seem to understand is that if the above is true, then shrinking government will curtail immigration.
"Should 'illegal,' [sic] bright high-schoolers get the boot?"
Hang on a second, what is high school?
Until everyone realizes that in addition to its main role of programming society to be obeisant to our masters, school is itself welfare, we're not going to get anywhere in this argument.

The state doesn't give out welfare because it cares about its citizens.
It gives out welfare to control people. That's all welfare is about: control.
The state doesn't give a shit whether the people it's trying to control are citizens or not.
I don't know about other open borders types, but the reason I'm open borders is because being closed border draws attention away from the real issue.
If closed borders is your pet thing that you really want the state to do, then you're a statist, just like the welfare and warfare and healthcare folks.

Lmao, yes, we're indoctrinating kids by teaching them math and science. SMFH

[Justinjj1]

What's Ron Paul's view on Illegal Immigration?

Which view? I support his 1988 stance

“As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.”

[Slutter McGee]

Smart or dumb, it makes no difference. They are breaking the laws of our country. They need to go back whence they came and apply to become a citizen of our country, if that is what they want.

I agree with the end opinion, but not with the reasons you got there. While I am ideally an open borders guy, I recognize that we can not have this with current welfare state that illegals can take advantage of.

So yeah, they need to be deported.

Slutter McGee

[AuH20]

The law was created for this very reason. So as to avoid emotional responses devoid of logic. Once you start rationalizing why one individual should stay over another you undermine the entire spirit upon which the law was created to begin with. If someone wishes to gain legal entry into country, submit the proper paperwork and wait to be processed through the immigration quota system.

[ARealConservative]

Which view? I support his 1988 stance

“As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.”

I imagine he has the same view today, but he has cleaned up the message. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. unfortunately, we subsidize laziness.

[fisharmor]

If you're going to argue the "law" in this case then if you were around during slavery would you argue against people that set slaves free? after all the law can never be wrong!...

Show me the law that stated that people could not free their slaves.

The law at the time allowed for slavery. Guess what - gasp! - it still does!
See, unlike the rest of you I actually go read the "God-damned piece of paper" and process what it says.


Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Slavery is still nice and legal in the US, kids, so stop pretending it isn't. The supreme law of the land says that if there has been a conviction of a crime, slavery's A-OK.


Nobody in reality is "legal" or "illegal". Those are fictions made up by government.
Now, I don't agree with this, but you "law and order" types force me to take sides with him.
The fact that the people who are supposed to be on my side here can't process simple English grammar is the reason I've given up on the constitution.
The law doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean - yes, if you interpret the constitution to mean that congress has the power to define citizenship and kick people out for not having it, you are anti-constitution and a statist.


Exactly.... if people don't like the law, then they should work to change it.

How about those of us who would prefer that we have the unchanged law as codified?
Work to change what?
Work to formally give congress the power to define citizenship?
Work to give congress the power to pass laws about kicking people out who don't meet this definition?
Work to give the executive the authority to enforce unconstitutional laws?
Work to give congress the power to hand out the welfare that keeps them here?

'Cause the law clearly states that they don't have this power.
Until one of you points out the part of the constitution that grants the federal government the power and authority to do these, you are advocating your own pet statism.


Lmao, yes, we're indoctrinating kids by teaching them math and science. SMFH

You've got a long way to go. I suggest reading some John Taylor Gatto for a start. Read his books and you get direct quotes from the mouths of the people who pushed for public schooling saying exactly this. Let me repeat: the people who pushed for public schooling did so with subordination and control in mind. They even said so.

[nobody's_hero]

Bit of a chicken and egg problem, eh?

We could ask which came first:

Hand-outs (in this case, "free" education)? (which means, the system existed and others came to take advantage of it)

or People in search of hand-outs? (which means the welfare system was created due to overwhelming demand)

If the former is true, then yes, getting rid of the hand-outs will mean less people are attracted to the U.S. for the purpose of obtaining hand-outs (we can go back to good 'ole fashioned immigration in search of opportunity).

If the latter is true, then it doesn't really matter what you do about the system, since there will be enough people here to over-ride your decision to dismantle it and before you know it, we're back to square 1.

I think that's what closed-borders proponents are getting at. After all, even the best plumber in the world still has to shut the water valve off before attempting to fix a broken pipe.

[madfoot]

@fisharmor We already have a decentralized system, run by states and school boards. I understand NCLB tried to change that, but our educations system is a lot less centralized than other parts of the world. You don't need to convince me about the evils of centralization, because I'm already aware, but going "herp derp charter schools!" doesn't really fix anything and is a laughably ideological solution.

[dannno]

Smart or dumb, it makes no difference. They are breaking the laws of our country. They need to go back whence they came and apply to become a citizen of our country, if that is what they want.

I break federal laws everyday, but it's a victimless crime, just like crossing the border and minding your own business, working hard, etc..

I'm not against protecting our border, at the border, due to our current circumstances with the welfare state, but I'm really not a fan of sending families back to Mexico, some of whom have been here for decades.

I agree illegals shouldn't get welfare because they often don't pay income taxes that pay for welfare, but they are paying property taxes so I don't see any reason why they can't go to school.

[fisharmor]

@fisharmor We already have a decentralized system, run by states and school boards. I understand NCLB tried to change that, but our educations system is a lot less centralized than other parts of the world. You don't need to convince me about the evils of centralization, because I'm already aware, but going "herp derp charter schools!" doesn't really fix anything and is a laughably ideological solution.

Where'd I say anything in support of schooling in general?
Where'd I say anything about a decentralized system - or any system?
I'm already "fixing" something:
My kids aren't going to school.
It'd be nice if I didn't have to rent my house from the county to pay for a brainwashing service I'm not using. Not only would I have some extra scratch, but I'd, you know, actually own my house.

So yeah, there's a BUNCH of laws that aren't right.
And like I said, I'd be a lot more prone to stop talking about trashing the system and help you guys restore law & order, if we could start with some basics, like the supreme law.
The one that says that congress doesn't have the power to define citizenship.

[madfoot]

learning is bad for you, mm'kay

[sailingaway]

I break federal laws everyday, but it's a victimless crime, just like crossing the border and minding your own business, working hard, etc..

I'm not against protecting our border, at the border, due to our current circumstances with the welfare state, but I'm really not a fan of sending families back to Mexico, some of whom have been here for decades.

I agree illegals shouldn't get welfare because they often don't pay income taxes that pay for welfare, but they are paying property taxes so I don't see any reason why they can't go to school.

The problem is it is about 20,000 a year per student to educate them when they don't speak English and not only do the states and taxpayers pay for that, it is drawn from the education of the students who are doing better because they do speak English. It is a reason schools are going down hill dramatically in border states. In California, for example, they no longer provide languages for middle school for English speakers, and people who start learning a language in high school (and are only given the option of Spanish) aren't going to become fluent. Illegal immigrant children come out of school bilingual, and our kids don't. That is a competitive disadvantage which seems unfair to me. Private schools have become oversubscribed as a result of the poor education, and good ones are $25,000 per year, per student, on top of the property tax which is supposed to cover 'tuition' for a decent education for your children, over your lifetime.

And those who come illegally tend to be from lower socioeconomic groups which take more out from the system in housing and food stamps and free health care (by showing up at emergency rooms) than most. The reason no country that provides welfare services has unlimited immigration of poor people is that they take out more than their taxes put back as a function of their salary. And if one child is legal, that gives housing, food stamps etc. It is a huge impact on the education of our own children in border states. It is not at all a victomless crime. And where foodstamps are handed without realistic proof of citizenship, employers have taxpayers subsidizing the fact that they don't pay a salary they otherwise would have to pay, because people can't live off of it.

If there was no welfare state and 'free' education that taxpayers fund, I would have no issue with this. But as long as there is, I do. Checking legal citizenship for all benefits would absolutely cure the problem for me, but it is a huge problem, as things stand.

[madfoot]

The one that says that congress doesn't have the power to define citizenship.

I don't particularly disagree. I'm not an anti-immigration freak. Although I'm not sure what you're trying to say, that the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional? Because amendments can't be unconstitutional.

[mczerone]

Smart or dumb, it makes no difference. They are breaking the laws of our country. They need to go back whence they came and apply to become a citizen of our country, if that is what they want.

Smart or dumb it makes no difference. The govt is breaking the laws of our constitutions. They need to stop pretending they are communist central planners and apply to become our representatives to provide social services, if that is what they want.

You don't want to extend YOUR FREE SERVICE to people that "aren't from here"? - FINE. STOP MAKING ME PAY FOR YOUR free SERVICE.

[fisharmor]

learning is bad for you, mm'kay

Hey, I'm trying to eat lunch here. My peach yogurt doesn't taste good along with the words you're putting in my mouth.
My 4-year-old already knows how to read. The only possible result from her attending school two years from now is to undo what she already has, bore her to tears, and set her against the whole idea of learning. But like I already pointed out, learning isn't the point.

[fisharmor]

Smart or dumb it makes no difference. The govt is breaking the laws of our constitutions. They need to stop pretending they are communist central planners and apply to become our representatives to provide social services, if that is what they want.

You don't want to extend YOUR FREE SERVICE to people that "aren't from here"? - FINE. STOP MAKING ME PAY FOR YOUR free SERVICE.

Glad to see the cavalry finally showed up.
+rep

[madfoot]

Hey, I'm trying to eat lunch here. My peach yogurt doesn't taste good along with the words you're putting in my mouth.
My 4-year-old already knows how to read. The only possible result from her attending school two years from now is to undo what she already has, bore her to tears, and set her against the whole idea of learning. But like I already pointed out, learning isn't the point.

I feel like you're channeling Sir Ken Robinson here. There's a lot of problems with education, but that doesn't mean the solution is to stop teaching our kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY (great video)

but yeah, who's going to teach her the subjects of advanced calculus, biology and british literature when she gets older? you?

[fisharmor]

but yeah, who's going to teach her the subjects of advanced calculus, biology and british literature when she gets older? you?
Who are you arguing with?
Do you know me?
Do you know I'm not versed in calculus?
Do you know that my wife is not versed in British literature?
Or do you just assume that because the state has rubber-stamped somebody who failed to do anything else with his or her life as a "teacher" that only that person is qualified to do what you suggest?

It's also telling that you picked mostly college-level subject matter.
Do college instructors truly teach their students, or do they instead give lectures, and expect that the students will do what is necessary to learn the material themselves?
Is college not intended to get young adults to do precisely this - teach themselves?
Do young adults fail out of college for lack of intelligence, or because they've spent the last 12 years being spoon-fed what to do with their lives and can't cope?

Did I do something incorrect when I taught myself advanced SQL Server scripting without benefit of a teacher? Or any of the other half-dozen computer programming languages I've learned since I left school?
Do I know them any less?
Was it a cosmic mistake when I built a power hammer in my garage? How could I, unversed in structural engineering or physics, have accomplished such a feat without the use of an instructor? How could I possibly have understood the subject matter?


Or, is it instead the case that people do this every single day?

Who will teach her these things?
HERSELF.

[madfoot]

Well I'm assuming you don't have expert-level proficiency in every high school subject. That would be rather unlikely.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

We should send those fuckers back!!! They should be forced to take a citizenship test that the rest of us born in the US were forced to take...

[nobody's_hero]

We should send those fuckers back!!! They should be forced to take a citizenship test that the rest of us born in the US were forced to take...

Actually, a test wouldn't be a bad idea for immigrants or native-born people. But I'd like to know more about the test-makers, for sure.

Easy question for example:

1. According to 'original intent', the Constitution was written to limit the powers of the government, or of the people?

A. Limit government
B. Limit people
C. Kludge is a douche
D. Where's my free pony?

[MRoCkEd]

No, I don't blame people for coming here illegally when the government makes it close to impossible to do so legally.

If I lived in Mexico and the average wait for legal immigration was 100 years, I would break that stupid law too.

As others have mentioned, the problems are with the stupidity of current laws, not with immigrants.

I used to be a "close the borders!" guy until I studied the issue more.

[Dr.3D]

Actually, a test wouldn't be a bad idea for immigrants or native-born people. But I'd like to know more about the test-makers, for sure.

Easy question for example:

1. According to 'original intent', the Constitution was written to limit the powers of the government, or of the people?

A. Limit government
B. Limit people
C. Kludge is a douche
D. Where's my free pony?

Emmm... I would have a big problem with deciding between choices C and D.

[AuH20]

Thomas Woods and Hans Hermann Hoppe are the few who haven't been swept up by emotive pleas of guilt:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/liberty-and-immigration/


Massive migration of ethnic Russians into Estonia, for example, was deliberately encouraged for the purpose of destroying Estonian culture and nationalism. In Yugoslavia, Tito enforced a policy of forced mixture and resettlement of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, exploiting the resulting animosities to justify further expansion of state power. A population thus divided against itself at the local level can pose no threat whatsoever to the central state. And this, of course, is the point.

Barring the establishment of a pure private-property system, the only sound libertarian approach to immigration is thus a radical devolution of power from the central state to the local level, and to allow individuals and communities to decide the issue for themselves.

A facile advocacy of “open borders” gives the central state exactly what it wants: the chance to supersede the preferences of property owners, and to provide the pretext for further encroachments on local and individual liberty. Such a system, in short, will make America less free. That’s a good enough reason for libertarians to rethink it. []

[ClayTrainor]

I wish someone kicked me out of public school, when I was young.

[ClayTrainor]

No, I don't blame people for coming here illegally when the government makes it close to impossible to do so legally.

If I lived in Mexico and the average wait for legal immigration was 100 years, I would break that stupid law too.

As others have mentioned, the problems are with the stupidity of current laws, not with immigrants.

I used to be a "close the borders!" guy until I studied the issue more.

Very well said!

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Thomas Woods and Hans Hermann Hoppe are the few who haven't been swept up by emotive pleas of guilt:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/liberty-and-immigration/

As for his greater argument, he's clearly fucking up his cause and effect. As for the example of Yugoslavia, are libertarians really going to justify not allowing mass immigration based on what happened there? That is a clear admission of xenophobia, racism, and bigotry, really quite pathetic.

[Southron]

No, I don't blame people for coming here illegally when the government makes it close to impossible to do so legally.

If I lived in Mexico and the average wait for legal immigration was 100 years, I would break that stupid law too.

As others have mentioned, the problems are with the stupidity of current laws, not with immigrants.

I used to be a "close the borders!" guy until I studied the issue more.

That's funny because I took the exact opposite path after thinking a great deal on immigration. I am convinced that an open borders nation would not retain its form of government very long with the ease of travel we have today.

When I look at all the change that took place at the beginning of the 20th century, I notice that it took place after a great wave of immigration. It only makes sense to me that if a populace shares a set of values, that importing more people who don't share those values will dilute the political power of the former.

Now some people on this forum want to destroy what is left of the Constitution, so I can see why they want open borders.

I don't mind if any illegals are deported as long as it is done in a reasonable manner. Citizenship in these United States is not a human right.

[AuH20]

As for his greater argument, he's clearly fucking up his cause and effect. As for the example of Yugoslavia, are libertarians really going to justify not allowing mass immigration based on what happened there? That is a clear admission of xenophobia, racism, and bigotry, really quite pathetic.

It's called balkanization for a reason. Diverse blocks of foreign nationals detached from each other sow distrust and discord. This is what transpired in the Balkans after the Ottoman Empire dissolved. You either have one unifying culture or you have potential chaos. In the curious case of the Ottoman Empire, societal order was maintained via violence. So obviously, when these artificial bonds were broken, all hell broke lose.

[Jay Tea]

Smart or dumb, it makes no difference. They are breaking the laws of our country. They need to go back whence they came and apply to become a citizen of our country, if that is what they want.

Right. God only knows how many four-year-olds just couldn't resist the urge to break the immigration laws of another country.

[moostraks]

Well I'm assuming you don't have expert-level proficiency in every high school subject. That would be rather unlikely.

LOL...If you raise a competent learner by the time you reach this stage you are enabling them to access information not spoon feeding them. Even if the parent chooses not to be the conduit for the information, they have the say so as to where and under whom the child will tutor. This is infinitely better than allowing the state to choose and enforce the curriculum standards (of which to date they show no competency in doing).

Try opening a teaching manual from early 1900's they were rather unabashed about their agenda of raising citizens who know their place. BTW they are not just teaching math and science but numerous subjects all in a vacuum under the theory of relativism. This is the necessary manner of getting society to become untethered from an absolute value system (of one's spiritual choosing) so the state sets the standard for ethics.

[heavenlyboy34]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO




And what closed border proponents never seem to understand is that if the above is true, then shrinking government will curtail immigration.
"Should 'illegal,' [sic] bright high-schoolers get the boot?"
Hang on a second, what is high school?
Until everyone realizes that in addition to its main role of programming society to be obeisant to our masters, school is itself welfare, we're not going to get anywhere in this argument.

The state doesn't give out welfare because it cares about its citizens.
It gives out welfare to control people. That's all welfare is about: control.
The state doesn't give a shit whether the people it's trying to control are citizens or not.
I don't know about other open borders types, but the reason I'm open borders is because being closed border draws attention away from the real issue.
If closed borders is your pet thing that you really want the state to do, then you're a statist, just like the welfare and warfare and healthcare folks.
+rep :cool:

[DamianTV]

If illegal immigrants werent afforded all the freebies that they receive from us and paid their own way, I would not have a problem with the eduation of illegal immigrants or thier children.

As it stands, the status of illegal seems to entitle many of them to benefits that are not available to the very people whose backs that they tread upon in order to receive said benefits. Welfare, Food Stamps, Special Hispanic Scholarships, etc.

If we had a Caucasian Scholarship fund, you know they would cry foul and play the Racist card, but when they say they CANT have a Hispanic Scholarship, they again play the Racist card. This should make everyone wonder who is really racist in these types of situations? A lot of this also assumes that all illegal immigrants are of a different ethnic background than State Citizens. Its like saying Canadians are all something other than caucasian, but we take it a step further and immediately assume that any illegal is hispanic. Guess what, there are caucasian mexicans too! (Identifying the country of origin with the assumed ethnic group, thus, I am trying very hard not to say that all people in Mexico are Hispanic, because it is not true) As a result, would their own proclaimed actions of not having a Hispanic Scholarship Fund or something of that nature be racist against individuals that illegally immigrated from Mexico and are Caucasian, not Hispanic?

The thing that pisses me off about the whole thing is that they come here illegally and immediately demand entitlements because they act like they are more deserving of any form of benefit than those that were born in this country, and always at our expense.

[QueenB4Liberty]

If illegal immigrants werent afforded all the freebies that they receive from us and paid their own way, I would not have a problem with the eduation of illegal immigrants or thier children.

As it stands, the status of illegal seems to entitle many of them to benefits that are not available to the very people whose backs that they tread upon in order to receive said benefits. Welfare, Food Stamps, Special Hispanic Scholarships, etc.

If we had a Caucasian Scholarship fund, you know they would cry foul and play the Racist card, but when they say they CANT have a Hispanic Scholarship, they again play the Racist card. This should make everyone wonder who is really racist in these types of situations? A lot of this also assumes that all illegal immigrants are of a different ethnic background than State Citizens. Its like saying Canadians are all something other than caucasian, but we take it a step further and immediately assume that any illegal is hispanic. Guess what, there are caucasian mexicans too! (Identifying the country of origin with the assumed ethnic group, thus, I am trying very hard not to say that all people in Mexico are Hispanic, because it is not true) As a result, would their own proclaimed actions of not having a Hispanic Scholarship Fund or something of that nature be racist against individuals that illegally immigrated from Mexico and are Caucasian, not Hispanic?

The thing that pisses me off about the whole thing is that they come here illegally and immediately demand entitlements because they act like they are more deserving of any form of benefit than those that were born in this country, and always at our expense.

I've never seen an illegal immigrant demand entitlements.

[Flash]

Yes!! What open border proponents don't seem to understand is, mass immigration only grows government. We have a huge welfare state.

Seems to be an argument against government, if anything. This is the problem with Libertarian societies, the more immigrants (with different cultural values) a nation attracts, the more they will radically change the size of government. You could end all immigration or pass restrictions on it, but people who are wealthier (and I think all of us here can admit-- a Libertarian society would be pretty wealthy) statistically have less kids, so immigration is always needed.

Like others have been saying, legal & immigration is the problem it is today due to government intervention into the marketplace. No one has even brought up the fact that farm subsidies are one of the causes Mexicans (legal or illegal) come here in the first place, since they simply can't compete against American farmers due to Statist policies. I'm always amused how big-gubmint Conservatives are harshly opposed to cutting back on farm subsidies, yet then will complain endlessly about immigrants.

[madfoot]

LOL...If you raise a competent learner by the time you reach this stage you are enabling them to access information not spoon feeding them. Even if the parent chooses not to be the conduit for the information, they have the say so as to where and under whom the child will tutor. This is infinitely better than allowing the state to choose and enforce the curriculum standards (of which to date they show no competency in doing).

Try opening a teaching manual from early 1900's they were rather unabashed about their agenda of raising citizens who know their place. BTW they are not just teaching math and science but numerous subjects all in a vacuum under the theory of relativism. This is the necessary manner of getting society to become untethered from an absolute value system (of one's spiritual choosing) so the state sets the standard for ethics.

So basically you're saying parents should enroll their kids in a school that teaches creationism, if that's what they want them to learn? That's, uh, wow.

[Vessol]

So basically you're saying parents should enroll their kids in a school that teaches creationism, if that's what they want them to learn? That's, uh, wow.

Parents and children shouldn't have the choice of where they want to learn?

[madfoot]

I don't think parents should be able to indoctrinate their kids, I don't want a huge segment of the population being taught pseudo-science.

[sailingaway]

I don't think parents should be able to indoctrinate their kids, I don't want a huge segment of the population being taught pseudo-science.

Who decides for everyone's children what indoctrination is?

[madfoot]

Math and sciences isn't indoctrination. >_>

[AuH20]

Math and sciences isn't indoctrination. >_>

Global warming hysteria disagrees with you.

[madfoot]

No, it really doesn't.

[madfoot]

I just want to point out before I sign off that the government doesn't really have any control over curriculums as is, so I don't know really what you're afraid of.

[Vessol]

I don't think parents should be able to indoctrinate their kids, I don't want a huge segment of the population being taught pseudo-science.

State indoctrination is fine though, amirite?


I just want to point out before I sign off that the government doesn't really have any control over curriculums as is, so I don't know really what you're afraid of.

Lolwut?

You are taught only what the government approves of.

I knew this by the age of 14. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Especially considering our entire system is the Prussian model of public education.

http://www.quantumshift.tv/v/1198046178
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system

To quote Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the father of the Prussian education system:

"The schools must fashion the person, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will"

Madfoot, you are an excellent product of the educational system it seems.

[madfoot]

Accreditation are privately owned organizations.

[sailingaway]

Math and sciences isn't indoctrination. >_>

A lot of what now passes for science but it really redistribution is. There are consultants who can give you 'scientific' studies going both ways, but only one view is taught as fact in school.

[Vessol]

Math and sciences isn't indoctrination. >_>

Math and sciences are important tools for creating good workers for the State.

They have little bias and create no critical or creative thinking skills.

Most math and science majors I know personally are great at their jobs but have little independent thinking skills and rely on previous ideas in order to shape their own "beliefs". They find it incredibly difficult to talk about something that is not related to their field, and have a hard time forming independent thoughts on ideas developed on their own.

Classes that teach actual critical thinking skills; such as history, philosophy, and other social sciences. Are heavily controlled by what the State deems is alright to teach.

The Prussian system's two goals are:
1) To create technical and skilled workers
2) To create an obedient populace.

[mczerone]

Accreditation are privately owned organizations.

Examples? It seems to me that many of the "private" agencies are either (1) subsidized heavily by the state or federal govts, (2) given exclusive privilege by the govt, or (3) govt'ally formed and administered organizations that just happen to be privately incorporated.

And that doesn't include the actual govt-run systems for licensing, diploma certification, academic standards testing, or educational "efficiency" investigators.

Every post you make is just bald assertion with no links to supporting evidence or logical explanation. They lack the elements of persuasive writing that would follow from forming these opinions via critical thinking. Give examples to illustrate your points, link to others who have made the points, or make hypotheses and attempt to prove them.

[madfoot]

Classes that teach actual critical thinking skills; such as history, philosophy, and other social sciences. Are heavily controlled by what the State deems is alright to teach.

Yeah, and the schools teach these things too, at least mine did. @_@

[madfoot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_accreditation


Accreditation of primary and secondary education

Main article: Pre-tertiary education accreditation
In the United States, educational accreditation has long been established as a peer review process coordinated by accreditation commissions and member institutions. The federal government began to play a limited role in higher education accreditation in 1952 with reauthorization of the GI Bill for Korean War veterans.[5] With the creation of the U.S. Department of Education and under the terms of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, the U.S. Secretary of Education is required by law to publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies for higher education. There is no similar federal government list of recognized accreditation agencies for primary and secondary schools. Public schools must adhere to criteria set by the state governments, and there is wide variation among the individual states in the requirements applied to non-public primary and secondary schools.[6] There are six regional accreditors in the United States that have historically accredited (and therefore include among their membership) most elementary schools, junior high schools, middle schools, high schools, as well as nearly all public and private institutions of higher education that are academic in nature.[citation needed] In addition, it is common for national and regional associations of independent or religious schools to provide accreditation for their members. Some of the regional accreditors, such as AdvancED, and some independent associations, such as the Association of Christian Schools International, have expanded their accreditation activity to include schools outside the United States.[7][8]
In Canada, some primary and secondary schools are privately accredited by SEAL Canada.[citation needed][9]

[dannno]

Yeah, and the schools teach these things too, at least mine did. @_@

So you want to decide what people are allowed to learn and what they aren't allowed to learn, or you want to give that power to someone else??

Either way, it sounds pretty dangerous.

[Vessol]

Yeah, and the schools teach these things too, at least mine did. @_@

I never said that they didn't teach them. I said that their content is heavily controlled by what the State approves of.

You never once in class had the thought "Wow, this is utter bullshit" and then go look up things yourself and find out how useless and how incorrect they are?

Even non-libertarian friends of mine know and agree with me when I tell them that the State runs and controls the public indoctrination system and that it teaches nothing.

[JCLibertarian]

Illegal Immigrants should not get public services at all, and laws abolishing birthright citizenship like Ron Paul suggested are ways to curb illegal immigrants, at least it's negative effects(which are in my mind high public debt, lower quality public services, a generation of children of immigrants who will vote to grow the state). Rounding up millions of people isn't ideal or achievable. If you stop subsidizing illegal immigration, you will get less of it. And one of the very few functions of a State should be to secure it's borders and defend them from invasion/aggression. So the military budget should be slashed, around 75%, and all troops in bases on foreign soil should be moved to America's northern and southern borders(like 1/3rds on the northern border and 2/3rds on the southern border).

[Southron]

Illegal Immigrants should not get public services at all, and laws abolishing birthright citizenship like Ron Paul suggested are ways to curb illegal immigrants, at least it's negative effects(which are in my mind high public debt, lower quality public services, a generation of children of immigrants who will vote to grow the state). Rounding up millions of people isn't ideal or achievable. If you stop subsidizing illegal immigration, you will get less of it. And one of the very few functions of a State should be to secure it's borders and defend them from invasion/aggression. So the military budget should be slashed, around 75%, and all troops in base son foreign soil should be moved to America's northern and southern borders(like 1/3rds on the northern border and 2/3rds on the southern border).

+1

I can agree with most of this.

[JCLibertarian]

Which view? I support his 1988 stance

“As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.”

So citizenship should only be available to Whites? That was the immigration policy for the first 150 years. Until the 1880s with the Chinese Exclusion, anyone could enter the country, but only Whites could attain citizenship, this curtailed immigration as it removed the incentive for non-whites to immigrate as they would be second class residents.

[JCLibertarian]

As for his greater argument, he's clearly fucking up his cause and effect. As for the example of Yugoslavia, are libertarians really going to justify not allowing mass immigration based on what happened there? That is a clear admission of xenophobia, racism, and bigotry, really quite pathetic.

Lol, I want Xenophobe, Racist and Bigot written on my tombstone, roflmao. I think it is pretty pathetic to suggest Tom Woods fears foreigners and hates non-whites.

[Vessol]

If we didn't have welfare, I don't see why anyone would be worried about illegal or legal immigrants.

[JCLibertarian]

If we didn't have welfare, I don't see why anyone would be worried about illegal or legal immigrants.

If we didn't have a state, I don't see why anyone would be worried about migration of peoples. Communities based on governments formed by voluntary association could make their own laws on entry, and individuals could decide who they interact with and do business with.

But unfortunately, I don't see welfare or the State in some form or another ending anytime soon.

[madfoot]

I never said that they didn't teach them. I said that their content is heavily controlled by what the State approves of.

You never once in class had the thought "Wow, this is utter bullshit" and then go look up things yourself and find out how useless and how incorrect they are?

Even non-libertarian friends of mine know and agree with me when I tell them that the State runs and controls the public indoctrination system and that it teaches nothing.

You're making the claim that accreditors are somehow in bed with the government, beyond the occasional corruption or the fact that, well, schools need to be accredited. I'm not trying to argue that our education system is perfect, or in good shape - that is clearly not the case - but I am questioning what the agenda is here, and what specific criticisms you're levying besides "schools are indoctrination systems!".

[LibertyEagle]

Which view? I support his 1988 stance

“As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.”

Yes, and you should also know that this was before our borders were being totally overrun by illegal aliens. That caused him to change his stance. A nation with no borders is no nation at all.

Ron Paul is a strong advocate of national sovereignty. Without borders, we have no nation.

[LibertyEagle]

If we didn't have welfare, I don't see why anyone would be worried about illegal or legal immigrants.

Well, there is this...


The American people continue to be involved in a long-overdue national discussion of immigration. And yet, during the debate over the immigration bill that recently died in the Senate, I do not recall hearing the views of the Founding Fathers -- even if only out of curiosity -- considered, pursued or even raised.

Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21626

[LibertyEagle]

I just want to point out before I sign off that the government doesn't really have any control over curriculums as is, so I don't know really what you're afraid of.

Are you kidding?

Ever heard of School-to-Work?
How about Outcome-based Education?
Or, Goals 2000?

And that is just a very few of them.

[ExPatPaki]

I don't think parents should be able to indoctrinate their kids

That's going to happen anyways, public schools or no public schools. Unless you want to control every conversation a parent has with their own kids.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think parents should be able to indoctrinate their kids, I don't want a huge segment of the population being taught pseudo-science.

What you want, is really of no consequence. They are not your children. Yes, parents should be able to school their children however they deem best for their children. You see, by in large, parents are the people who have the best interests of their children in mind. Certainly much more than government ever would.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Exactly.... if people don't like the law, then they should work to change it.

The source of the so called "the law" argument you are supporting does not surprise me. What does surprise me is your endorsement of bullshit you know is bullshit becuase it has been debated on this forum so many times. Prove the bullshit you are claiming:

#1. Please cite where the United States of America border is defined in the United States of America Constitution or United States Code.

#2. Please cite any treaty where the United States of America border is referred to versus the borders of other parties such as "the border of Mexico."

#3. Please cite the express delegated authority of the federal political subdivision under the United States of America Constitution to utilize any police powers whatsoever enforcing a rule (not law) of allegiance under the rule of naturalization.

#4. Please cite the express delegated authority of the federal political subdivision under the United States of America Constitution to utilize any police powers enforcing trespass of visitors or tourists within any State borders defined in State Constitution(s).

#5. Please cite from the United States of America Constitution where States delegated an express grant of power to create a sovereign nation with national borders versus a federal political subdivision with express delegated power(s) based on enumerated subject matter(s). (ie. To form a more perfect union of a loose confederation of States versus to form a nation).

#6. Please cite from the United States of America Constitution where States delegated an express grant of power for the organized military to exercise police power trespassing visitors or tourists within any State borders defined in State Constitution(s).

*** DISCLAIMER: This list of demands for proof may increase the longer I think about it. ***

[fisharmor]

Moreover, I challenge you to find congress' authority to determine who is and is not a citizen.
I contend that this authority is not explicitly defined in the constitution, and that therefore under the 10th amendment congress does not have the authority to define who is and is not a citizen.
Way back at post 12, and nobody can offer evidence that congress (and therefore the also executive) has any business defining who is a citizen or in any way dealing with those who aren't.
Very telling.


Math and sciences isn't indoctrination. >_>
My brother has degrees in both physics and chemistry and is working in computational modeling for Eli Lilly - which as far as science goes is, sadly, on the market end of the spectrum - and he often talks about getting out, because of how politicized science is.
His exact words are 'Science isn't scientific'.
The people offending him all went through public school and got degrees from accredited colleges. So I have at least one example where you're wrong.


Yeah, and the schools teach these things too, at least mine did. @_@
Hmm.... I never learned a single fact in school about the Byzantine empire, the Muslim expansions, or the crusades. Aren't those episodes in history relevant to forming critical thoughts on what's happening in current events?
I remember clearly when I was taught that medieval people were all dirty, prudish, and had no art with any sense of perspective. You can imagine my surprise five years ago when reading a book about the 12th century industrial revolution (which public school will not admit the existence of) when I saw a 12th century painting of several rooms (in perspective) of a bathhouse, with co-ed naked bathers in it.
I'm not claiming I didn't learn things in school - I'm claiming I learned an astonishing amount of abject bullshit.


So basically you're saying parents should enroll their kids in a school that teaches creationism, if that's what they want them to learn? That's, uh, wow.
Have you heard creationists make their case? Generally their approach is to teach evolution first so that they can present the opposing view. The better ones proceed to tear it to pieces. I don't disbelieve evolution for religious reasons: I disbelieve it first because there are holes in it, and second because its proponents are too often, as my brother says, not scientific, and too willing to politicize it in order to kill competing ideas.
One side deliberately teaches the opposing viewpoint - the other uses the state to silence the opposing viewpoint.
Which sounds like education to you?
I've made my decision about what my kids are going to learn in this regard, and I'll thank you not to force them to stick to the state-sanctioned officially allowable range of opinion.


but I am questioning what the agenda is here, and what specific criticisms you're levying besides "schools are indoctrination systems!".

Ok, so hang, on.... thats... not enough?
Most of us in America can't own real estate - we're renting our houses from the state - and the reason is to pay for our children to be indoctrinated - and that's not enough?

[moostraks]

So basically you're saying parents should enroll their kids in a school that teaches creationism, if that's what they want them to learn? That's, uh, wow.

Children are the parents responsibility not property of the state. Your responses to most issues are ,uh, wow. So not surprising you can not grasp the right of the individual/family in regards to education. The agenda being driven by the government is to teach children relativism in all matters. By doing so the state defines what are the absolutes and control its populace through various laws that will enforce these absolutes.

Unlike public school, parents have the ability to challenge future generations to think outside the box and learn competing theories. They may also teach logic and reasoning rather than regurgitation and test taking skills.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The source of the so called "the law" argument you are supporting does not surprise me. What does surprise me is your endorsement of bullshit you know is bullshit becuase it has been debated on this forum so many times. Prove the bullshit you are claiming:

#1. Please cite where the United States of America border is defined in the United States of America Constitution or United States Code.

#2. Please cite any treaty where the United States of America border is referred to versus the borders of other parties such as "the border of Mexico."

#3. Please cite the express delegated authority of the federal political subdivision under the United States of America Constitution to utilize any police powers whatsoever enforcing a rule (not law) of allegiance under the rule of naturalization.

#4. Please cite the express delegated authority of the federal political subdivision under the United States of America Constitution to utilize any police powers enforcing trespass of visitors or tourists within any State borders defined in State Constitution(s).

#5. Please cite from the United States of America Constitution where States delegated an express grant of power to create a sovereign nation with national borders versus a federal political subdivision with express delegated power(s) based on enumerated subject matter(s). (ie. To form a more perfect union of a loose confederation of States versus to form a nation).

#6. Please cite from the United States of America Constitution where States delegated an express grant of power for the organized military to exercise police power trespassing visitors or tourists within any State borders defined in State Constitution(s).

*** DISCLAIMER: This list of demands for proof may increase the longer I think about it. ***

Why is it no evidence is ever presented to support xenophobic arguments yet unfounded "the law" arguments continue?

[jmdrake]

1) there should be no public housing


Should there be public schools?

[fisharmor]

Unlike public school, parents have the ability to challenge future generations to think outside the box and learn competing theories. They may also teach logic and reasoning rather than regurgitation and test taking skills.

My four-year-old knows that I welcome civil argument in my house, and that if she presents a valid argument I will acquiesce.
It actually does happen, pretty regularly.
I don't need to wonder how far that attitude will go with a public school teacher. I know exactly how far that will go.


Why is it no evidence is ever presented to support xenophobic arguments yet unfounded "the law" arguments continue?

And like I pointed out, "the law" actually forbids the things that the xenophobes want to implement.

[LibertyEagle]

And like I pointed out, "the law" actually forbids the things that the xenophobes want to implement.

What are you implying here? That anyone who doesn't want open borders is a "xenophobe" in your book?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The source of the so called "the law" argument you are supporting does not surprise me. What does surprise me is your endorsement of bullshit you know is bullshit becuase it has been debated on this forum so many times. Prove the bullshit you are claiming:

#1. Please cite where the United States of America border is defined in the United States of America Constitution or United States Code.

#2. Please cite any treaty where the United States of America border is referred to versus the borders of other parties such as "the border of Mexico."

#3. Please cite the express delegated authority of the federal political subdivision under the United States of America Constitution to utilize any police powers whatsoever enforcing a rule (not law) of allegiance under the rule of naturalization.

#4. Please cite the express delegated authority of the federal political subdivision under the United States of America Constitution to utilize any police powers enforcing trespass of visitors or tourists within any State borders defined in State Constitution(s).

#5. Please cite from the United States of America Constitution where States delegated an express grant of power to create a sovereign nation with national borders versus a federal political subdivision with express delegated power(s) based on enumerated subject matter(s). (ie. To form a more perfect union of a loose confederation of States versus to form a nation).

#6. Please cite from the United States of America Constitution where States delegated an express grant of power for the organized military to exercise police power trespassing visitors or tourists within any State borders defined in State Constitution(s).

*** DISCLAIMER: This list of demands for proof may increase the longer I think about it. ***

Still waiting for some evidence but then again... I have been waiting for some evidence for over two years in the course of several threads on this topic... so I won't hold my breath.

[fisharmor]

What are you implying here? That anyone who doesn't want open borders is a "xenophobe" in your book?

Ok, so since this concept is apparently more advanced than relativity, let me retract my original statement and rephrase it.

The supreme law of the land actually forbids the things that closed borders advocates want to implement.
If you choose to sidetrack the issue and not address the allegation the supreme law of the land forbids these things, I strongly suspect that your true motivation is that you are a xenophobe.

[MN Patriot]

If they are bright, let them stay to be obedient productive tax slaves. If they are dumb, let them stay so they can vote for Democrats to collect welfare from the bright ones. I am pretty sure that is the plan.