Home Education The Texas governor has provoked an unpleasant reaction, talking about the abolition...

The Texas governor has provoked an unpleasant reaction, talking about the abolition of free school for immigrant children

The Texas governor has provoked an unpleasant reaction, talking about the abolition of free school for immigrant children

Gov. Greg Abbott has angered immigration advocates and educators, suggesting Texas may challenge a long-standing U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states and communities cannot ban immigrant children from unauthorized access to public schools.

On Thursday, critics called the Republican governor “hare” and “tough.”

Beta O’Rourke, an opponent of Abbott of the Democratic Party in the November election, went further.

“He’s trying to charge our public schools,” O’Rourke told a news conference in Austin.

The criticism came after Ebat appeared on the phone on a talk show in San Antonio, during which he agreed with the presenter that the cost of educating more and more immigrant children in public schools and in many languages ​​was “unusual.”

Ebat also said that “times are different” than four decades ago, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Texas law that allowed school districts to charge tuition fees from parents of unauthorized immigrant schoolchildren – essentially a blockade.

Tyler schools sought to introduce an annual tuition fee of $ 1,000 per child, which today is about $ 5,300.

Apart from the fact that migrants enter Texas from 155 countries and speak many languages, Ebat did not elaborate on what had changed, which would have forced the Supreme Court to overturn its 1982 decision. Plyler v. Doe.

“The challenges facing our government systems are extraordinary,” Abbott told conservative WOIA-AM presenter Joe “Pags” Pollarula in a program that aired Tuesday night. (Although the Palyarula website says the show came out on Wednesday, it’s wrong, confirmed the Ebat office.) “Texas has long sued the federal government over the need to bear the cost of this educational program,” Ebat said.

He added: “I think we will reopen this case and challenge this issue again because the costs are extraordinary and the times are different than when Plyler vs. Doe was released many decades ago. ”

Thomas A. Saenz, president and chief legal counsel of the Mexican American Foundation for Legal Protection and Education, or MALDEF, called Ebata “irresponsible” and “desperate” practitioners of “dog whistle populism” in the form of former President Donald Trump.

“First, Abbott needs some correctional education Plyler himself, ”Science said in a written statement. “It was a case against Texas, not Texas, as Abbott claimed. The case was filed by MALDEF on behalf of students who are threatened with a Texas charter that allows schools to expel undocumented students from a public school.

In a ruling four decades ago, the Supreme Court split into 5-4 when it declared Texas law unconstitutional. But even four dissenters agreed with the majority that it was unwise in Texas to pass the law, Science said.

“All the judges, including then-assistant judge William Rankvist, agreed that the Texas law, which seeks to exclude undocumented children from school, was a bad government policy,” he said.

Asked about Abbott’s remarks, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said: “It’s an ultra-magician. … I mean that denying public education to children, including immigrants to this country, is not the main point of view. “

Abbott’s position, she added, “comes out of the mainstream.”

In Houston on Thursday, Abbott said the federal government was imposing heavy education costs on states without ensuring border security – costs much higher than 40 years ago.

Either the state should be given “full authority to enforce U.S. immigration laws, either Plyler we will have to go, ”he said after a small business roundtable.

O’Rourke accused Abbott of threatening a settled constitutional law that opened K-12 classes to all young people, regardless of immigration status.

“It’s very revealing, and I want everyone to pay special attention to the wording of it,” O’Rourke told a news conference at the Texas Capitol. “Governor Abbot is against providing public education to all Texas children. Now he’s saying out loud what we know he’s been working on since he became governor – he’s trying to deprive our public schools. ”O’Rourke noted that teachers’ salaries in Texas lag far behind their counterparts in other states.

David Leopold, an immigration lawyer and legal adviser to the propaganda group America’s Voice, said Abbott had helped build an “anti-immigrant lawsuit” and could now “confidently expand his war on immigrants to brazenly attack undocumented children” knowing his Plyler to land in the courtroom of one of his Republican political allies. “

Zef Capo, president of the Texas Teachers Union AFT, called Abbott’s remarks “tough, petty thinking.”

“If the governor succeeds, he will destroy thousands of Texas school towns, eliminating them in a world where angry adults target children with questions about their legal status,” Capo said in a written statement. “Students face speculation about the color of their skin or their accent, even if they are legal residents.”

According to Michael Olivas, a late professor at the University of Houston Law Center who wrote a book in 2012, “No Undocumented Child Remains,” in 1975 the Texas legislature did not hold a public hearing on a provision that allows school districts to charge tuition fees. parents of unauthorized schoolchildren.

“Some heads of Texas frontier schools have backed the law, which was passed without controversy in the form of a small part of a larger, regular education charter,” Olivas said in a 2010 article before viewing his book.

Tyler, led by James Player, enrolled about 60 unauthorized immigrants out of a total of about 16,000 students. Citing the state’s new law, Tyler began charging $ 1,000 in annual tuition for each unauthorized immigrant student. According to Olivas, the secular Catholic objected to a local lawyer who, along with MALDEF, filed a case in federal district court on behalf of four families whom the court allowed to be identified by pseudonyms.

Although a district court judge in 1978 ruled both Tyler’s law and Tyler’s policies unconstitutional because they violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, it took four years for appeals to be heard. The Plyler The case and a similar one from Houston went to the U.S. Supreme Court for arguments in 1981.

The following year, five judges upheld the district court, saying Texas had failed to demonstrate to some children that the denial of K-12 education “supports a significant state interest.” “Banning unauthorized immigrant children from school is an ‘ineffective’ means of deterring illegal immigration, at least compared to banning illegal aliens,” said Judge William Brennan, who writes for the majority.

Because of “independent of their circumstances,” children of unauthorized immigrants will be given second-class status, “a treatment that the 14th Amendment was designed to repeal”.

Brennan warned: “The stigma of illiteracy will mark them for the rest of their lives.”

Source link

Previous articleIntroduction to live audio social networks and misinformation
Next articleDisney’s Ron DeSantis Attack Breaks Republican, Republican Opponent Says | Ron DeSantis