News-Record.com

Ken Sawyer: "I do not understand the argument about whether we, as taxpayers, should fund illegal aliens in our schools."

The seamless melding of taxpayer-funded schooling with illegal immigration is a highly instructive story --- from which we can all profit.

I had relevant short letter printed in the Caldwell County paper.

Notice its relevance to the decision you --- as a voter will make --- as to whom you would look to appoint federal judges for the next four years --- at the Supreme Court, appellate and district levels:

The consequences of enrolling illegal immigrants
News-Topic (Caldwell County)
July 2, 2008

The intersection of illegal immigration with education has large consequences.

The immediate issue: Should students illegally living in North Carolina be admitted to our community college system? The numbers seeking admission are small. "If they' re willing to pay their own way," writes Edward Terry, "Why deny them an education?" ("Education is no Battlefield, " June 26).

There would be unintended consequences. The admission of illegal immigrants to community colleges would ratchet up pressure to take the next logical step: granting a path to citizenship to such students. On reaching age 21, the students could petition to legalize their illegal alien parents. Legalization of illegal students would thus reward the illegal behavior of the parents, ensuring more of the same. It would also put in motion chain migration of extended family --- thanks to the generous "family reunification" provisions of the 1965 Immigration Act.

That's higher ed.

The major impact of illegal immigration on education is at the K-12 level. In 1977, lawyers for a group of children illegally in Texas sued the state seeking a free public education. The case, Plyler v. Doe, eventually reached the Supreme Court, which in 1982 ruled, 5 to 4, that the children were entitled to free taxpayer-funded schooling.*

The constitutional language on which the decision was based is from the 14th Amendment: "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was meant to secure the rights of newly freed slaves, that is, American citizens. The Amendment's vague, sweeping language, however, has potential for expansive interpretations of all sorts. That potential was tapped by a liberal court majority in 1982.

Plyler v. Doe has transformed --- is transforming --- neighborhoods and communities across the nation. In the process, it is normalizing illegal immigration.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the dissenting minority, concluded with a common-sense observation many readers will appreciate:

"The major flaw in the court's reasoning, of course, is that illegal aliens are not, by definition, citizens of the United States. No matter how you parse it, the equal protection clause just does not apply to people who are in this country illegally. They aren't Americans."

Tom Shuford
Lenoir

My guess is politicians do not understand what illegal means. Many of the elected officials in Raleigh, are in jail. No thanks to the attorney general office. Who's main function seems to cover up corruption in Raleigh.
I find it strange folks get upset,if their house gets broken into, and could care less if their country gets broken into.
Obama* and McCain are both soft on illegals.
Obama is the worst he wants complete open boarders, and to put illegals on social security.
McCain is only slightly better.
He said in his speech, illegal immigration is only a passion.
Guess he forgot 9-11, if we were like China, these would have never happened.

"democracies are created by conservatives and used by liberals until they become socialism."

Look up ANY non-biased historical textbook from the construction era, and if it says that the framers are conservatives I will cease posting...

"No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Why do you think this applies to ONLY citizens? It says any PERSON. Are illegals not people? Foreigners not people? Are we free to slaughter anyone that is not an American citizen just because they are not American? After all, if this amendment doesn't protect them, States are free to allow that to happen.

"Legalization of illegal students would thus reward the illegal behavior of the parents, ensuring more of the same."

So a person that has lived all of their life in the United States, just not born here, tries to become legal, the opposite of what you hate, and you villify them? You are making no sense.

We get 4 or 5 people yelling about illegals every week . . . and now some dude, playing with his bippy, loves China because of thier human rights agendas and wants to knock other humans down . . . who aren't from around here . . . how redneck.

Why not help the people who are already here? You want to make enemy's or friends?

Last time I checked China doesn't have many 'good' friends . . . good relations or good anything . . .

Addressing the second half of the letter to the editor, what is troubling is the lack of understanding US history. Some citizens try to rewrite history with their understanding of affairs but fall into a fact less abyss.

During the revolution, those who supported England were known as loyalist. They supported the Church of England, and had no problem with the lack of representation or taxation of the colonies, and certainly shunned the protests by the "rebels". By today's standards this group would be call conservatives not the founders of our country. The colonialist, called rebels, by the loyalists were protesters, revolutionists, and free speech advocates. The protesters had names as Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Paine, Madison, Monroe and the list goes on. They were anything but conservatives and most were not religious zealots, and some were atheist. These people were for change, away from tyranny and oppression, and were called criminals, and law breakers.

Out of their combined genius came a constitution centered on freedom, representation and control of government. Central to this document and intent of the founders was the need to encourage protest, safe guard freedom of speech and just as important separate the powers of the government and representation with checks and balances. According to Thomas Paine revolution, protest and change should be a permanent part of the American people so as to assure freedom for all and proper representation of the people. He would have called the current administration illegitimate, not that is was elected improperly but by it’s irresponsible actions, and warranting immediate citizens’ action to expel the elected officials.

Given the above historical context, this country does need to elect representatives who will follow the law and not allow warrant less searches, illegal justice department practices, and abandonment of the principles of a controlled government, one responsible to the citizens this country. Lastly, freedom of the press has been with us since our founding. American history literature can be found in any book store and much can be read online. Assumptions and opinions are sometimes far from the truth as seen in this letter to the editor. I am sure glad those pursuing citizenship have to pass a US history test.

Agreed Molly,

The Tories were the conservatives in our revolution just as the folks in China wishing to uphold the current political order are the conservatives.

Can't imagine where Ken was going with this gem.

The definition of conservative aside, what is the point of having laws if there are no penalties for breaking them? Why bother to obey laws if lawbreakers get to cut in front of you in line?

I could agree with much of what Ken said until he got into the liberal & conservative garbage.

"Given the above historical context, this country does need to elect representatives who will follow the law and not allow warrant less searches, illegal justice department practices, and abandonment of the principles of a controlled government, one responsible to the citizens this country."

Voting third party this year, eh Molly?

Momma Steam - I totally agree with your post.

I hate it when berks get published. Who advocates being like China? If you want to live in China, move to China.
The definition of "troublemaker" in modern society is "anyone who argues with me".

As per Slaan's distortion of the 14th amendment, here is the part between the ellipsis: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ". The clause was, is and shall be intended to protect the rights of citizens, not illegal aliens. Sorry, nice try to leave out the guts of the language there, Slaan.
Due process includes by all legal standards enforcement of existing laws, even the ones Slaan does not like pertaining to illegal immigrants.

And then Slaan gets ridiculous "Are we free to slaughter anyone that is not an American citizen just because they are not American". Only you mention slaughter, Slaan. We are talking about enforcement of existing laws. You just use rhetoric and nonsense in a feeble attempt to compare enforcement of laws to slaughter. Its the "you don't agree with me therefore you are evil" dialogue. We've heard it before in junior high school debate. Try to argue from a logical position.
Are you free to take money out of my pocket and hand it to your illegal immigrant friend in an attempt to buy their favor with my labor? Yet that is what you propose, Slaan. Stealing my kids' education to pay for that of strangers with no business being here in the first place. You love the stranger while hating your neighbors. As Emerson wrote, "Your love afar is spite at home."
It's so easy to be condescending and "save" people whom you perceive to be dependent on your largesse. The problem is that it's not your money to give away. If you want to fund education of foreigners, do it with your money.
I for one would like to see this pretense of diversity uncovered for what it is: a sham. If we need diversity in our schools we have plenty of citizens of color who cannot afford college. Let's fund their education right up to doctorate level before paying for one year of illegal immigrant education. Our own people suffer but you want to give away money to strangers while painting those who disagree with you as people wanting to "slaughter" others.
I cry foul.

Eloquent post verelse. I've oft seen emotional references of separating illegal mothers from their young with deportation, yet I was unaware that we are slaughtering illegal immigrants as Slaan indicates.

I thought the opposite was occurring, illegal immigrants slaughtering Americans, the most notorious recent case being Edwin Ramos, an illegal gang banger with previous charges who slaughtered Tony Bologna and his two sons in San Francisco.

Thanks to mayor Gavin Newsom's sanctuary city policy three American citizens are dead.

And to think this guy aspires to be governor of CA.

The Sawyer family of politicos never disappoints. Only problem is that their message seems more from the 16th century rather than today.

"Also, remember, democracies are created by conservatives and used by liberals until they become socialism."

Laugh out loud! Guess you think Jesus was a right winger too?