Texas Gov. Abbott wants to get rid of mandatory public education

[Crossbow]

The whole "taxpayer" thing is a different debate. Lets just say that if Juan buys a Snickers bar and pays 5% in taxes from his under-the-table job, it is not the same as me paying 35% out of my paycheck, plus that 5%.

Remember, technically these kids should not even be here in the first place. Their illegal parents made that decision. It isn't about who's "sins" they are paying for. All of that falls on the parents, imo. And nobody should have to provide any resources for these people, educational or otherwise.

I hope that you will realize the fact that regardless of the legality of the parents being in the USA, that if the children of these parents were born in the USA, then these children are citizens of the USA and as such, these children are entitled to a public education in the USA.

 

[The Don]

I hope that you will realize the fact that regardless of the legality of the parents being in the USA, that if the children of these parents were born in the USA, then these children are citizens of the USA and as such, these children are entitled to a public education in the USA.

I think that Republicans would like to do away with citizenship by dint of being born in the US and would like to modify it to citizenship being granted to those born to people legally resident in, or even citizens of, the Unite States.

I think that they would want children of illegals deported with their parents regardless of whether those children were US born or not. Actually, some would like both children and parents to remain in the US but their undocumented status would allow both parents and children to be exploited.

They want a large workforce who may or may not be paying taxes but who are ineligible for any welfare, education or any other benefits of being part of a civilised society.

 

[Crossbow]

I think that Republicans would like to do away with citizenship by dint of being born in the US and would like to modify it to citizenship being granted to those born to people legally resident in, or even citizens of, the Unite States.

I think that they would want children of illegals deported with their parents regardless of whether those children were US born or not. Actually, some would like both children and parents to remain in the US but their undocumented status would allow both parents and children to be exploited.

They want a large workforce who may or may not be paying taxes but who are ineligible for any welfare, education or any other benefits of being part of a civilised society.

Thanks much.

I recall hearing a few Republicans say these sorts of things over the years, such as:

'Automatic citizenship should be revoked since pregnant women are sneaking in to the USA in order to provide their child with USA citizenship.'
'USA citizenship should only be conferred when both parents are USA citizens.'
'I hate illegal immigrants, but I want a cheap labor force that can be readily exploited because I want low cost labor for my new swimming pool, garage construction, etc.'

And so on.

 

[Warp12]

I hope that you will realize the fact that regardless of the legality of the parents being in the USA, that if the children of these parents were born in the USA, then these children are citizens of the USA and as such, these children are entitled to a public education in the USA.

Not if I'm writing the law, they aren't.

 

[plague311]

Not if I'm writing the law, they aren't.

That's why you're not, and while saying things that knowingly gets a rise and reply from people is entertaining, it's pretty thinly veiled here.

You don't think illegal immigrants deserve anything but have no problems paying cheaper prices for the fruit they pick, or any of the other myriad of services they provide.

This is a topic you just can't be debated with because everything you bring up is going to be focused on nothing other than saying hateful, hurtful, and disparaging comments about illegal immigrants. Why anyone would engage further, myself included, is beyond me. I can't read minds but I know that every post you make in this thread is going to be exactly as I described.

 

[Warp12]

That's why you're not, and while saying things that knowingly gets a rise and reply from people is entertaining, it's pretty thinly veiled here.

You don't think illegal immigrants deserve anything but have no problems paying cheaper prices for the fruit they pick, or any of the other myriad of services they provide.

This is a topic you just can't be debated with because everything you bring up is going to be focused on nothing other than saying hateful, hurtful, and disparaging comments about illegal immigrants. Why anyone would engage further, myself included, is beyond me. I can't read minds but I know that every post you make in this thread is going to be exactly as I described.

Please, not the "who will pick our fruit?" argument, again.

These are not reasons taxpayers need to pay to educate the children of illegals. Nor are they reasons that they should be entitled to such an education.

 

[The Don]

I hope that you will realize the fact that regardless of the legality of the parents being in the USA, that if the children of these parents were born in the USA, then these children are citizens of the USA and as such, these children are entitled to a public education in the USA.

I think that Republicans would like to do away with citizenship by dint of being born in the US and would like to modify it to citizenship being granted to those born to people legally resident in, or even citizens of, the Unite States.

And as if by magic

Not if I'm writing the law, they aren't.

 

[sackett]

Having gone through the Texas public education system in the late 90s, I'm not sure they have anything left to lose.

I wonder how many Texican school teachers, let alone their pupils, would be able to come up with plausible weaknesses in any scientific theory.

Spittle-flying howls of fundamentalist denial, yes. Old stuff. I think it's taught in Sunday school.

 

[Random]

Please, not the "who will pick our fruit?" argument, again.

These are not reasons taxpayers need to pay to educate the children of illegals. Nor are they reasons that they should be entitled to such an education.

No, it is because we recognize that children do not have full autonomy and control over their lives and actions, and it is wrong to punish them for the actions of others. Denying a child an education because of the choices of their parents does just that. Punish the child for things not in their control.

Blaming the parents might give you a buzz of moral rectitude, but it does not give the child an education.

 

[Warp12]

No, it is because we recognize that children do not have full autonomy and control over their lives and actions, and it is wrong to punish them for the actions of others. Denying a child an education because of the choices of their parents does just that. Punish the child for things not in their control.

Blaming the parents might give you a buzz of moral rectitude, but it does not give the child an education.

These children do not have any right to a US education, imo. They are not being "punished". They would only be denied access to a privilege that should not be afforded to them in the first place, as children of illegals. And then we wouldn't need to have this debate about who is providing the resources and footing the bill.

 

[The Don]

No, it is because we recognize that children do not have full autonomy and control over their lives and actions, and it is wrong to punish them for the actions of others. Denying a child an education because of the choices of their parents does just that. Punish the child for things not in their control.

Blaming the parents might give you a buzz of moral rectitude, but it does not give the child an education.

Well, from a right wing perspective that's a win-win.

You don't want a legal, educated, Hispanic, population because they're far more difficult to exploit. What you want is a poorly educated population living in fear of deportation who are willing to work for a fraction of the going rate.

Of course if you can get them to pay taxes (direct or indirect) but make them ineligible to enjoy the benefits those taxes go to fund then so much the better.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hmmmm so why would the side that's proudly wrong about literally everything not wantchildren to be educated... hmmm... hmmm.... yes that's quite a pickle of a dilly.

It's almost like actual intelligence and not being intentionally wrong is against a core part of their message or something.

 

[Crossbow]

Not if I'm writing the law, they aren't.

You are quite at liberty to write any law that you like.

However, your power to actually enact such a law is quite limited.

 

[Random]

These children do not have any right to a US education, imo. They are not being "punished". They would only be denied access to a privilege that should not be afforded to them in the first place, as children of illegals. And then we wouldn't need to have this debate about who is providing the resources and footing the bill.

Well, if you are arguing that children have no right to an education, then why have a public education system at all?

Of course, this is probably just a few years away from becoming mainstream GOP policy...

 

[JoeMorgue]

All children need is the Bible and a good whippin' whenever they act up.

 

[sackett]

Pounding the bartop and glaring around

Not if I'm writing the law, they aren't.

Well now, that's why we have parliamentary government.

But suppose some states did manage to ban certain types of children from public school. Then what? How will those children grow up? What will they do as they get older? Will society be able to sustain itself with a literally unschooled mass of sub-citizens in its midst?

And what about the children of the banned? Will they also be forbidden to go to public school?

And how will you determine which parents' children can go to school? Must parents register with some government office, presenting acceptable proof of their Aryan status? Not every parent can, you know.

Excuse me, their American status. Sorry, I jumped ahead.

 

[The Don]

Well now, that's why we have parliamentary government.

But suppose some states did manage to ban certain types of children from public school. Then what? How will those children grow up? What will they do as they get older? Will society be able to sustain itself with a literally unschooled mass of sub-citizens in its midst?

And what about the children of the banned? Will they also be forbidden to go to public school?

And how will you determine which parents' children can go to school? Must parents register with some government office, presenting acceptable proof of their Aryan status? Not every parent can, you know.

Excuse me, their American status. Sorry, I jumped ahead.

IMO this approach only works if it only applies in some states, not all states.

Modern economies are dependent on having a well educated work force who can quickly adopt new technologies and working practices. As long as the states on the edges do that, they can provide a surplus which can be used to subsidise other states - as already happens with "Blue" states subsidising "Red" states.

In those red states there will still be a (white) elite who can continue to afford to educate their children. These will be the mercantile and farming classes who will rely on access to a large, cheap, poorly educated, work force they can exploit.

IOW we're looking at a return to a pre Civil War US where technocratic states subsidise the indolent lifestyles of bucolic states. In order to keep the peace, those bucolic states will be granted political influence far beyond their economic impact or size of population.

The GOP are winning the Civil War, 160 years after the fact, by nudging those Southern states back into a similar situation they were in the mid 1800s.

 

[Crossbow]

All children need is the Bible and a good whippin' whenever they act up.

Indeed so!

These children need to love God and respect their elders, even when God and elders treat their own children terribly.

After all, the education of children should be about obedience as opposed to logic.

By the way, this posting of mine is me being sarcastic.

 

[Donal]

It's like he read "A Modest Proposal" and thought that Jonathan Swift was on to something.

 

[The Don]

Well now, that's why we have parliamentary government.

But suppose some states did manage to ban certain types of children from public school. Then what? How will those children grow up? What will they do as they get older? Will society be able to sustain itself with a literally unschooled mass of sub-citizens in its midst?

And what about the children of the banned? Will they also be forbidden to go to public school?
And how will you determine which parents' children can go to school? Must parents register with some government office, presenting acceptable proof of their Aryan status? Not every parent can, you know.

Excuse me, their American status. Sorry, I jumped ahead.

IMO that's what parts of the Republican Party want. You only get citizenship if you're born in the US to people who are there legally (or who are citizens - opinions differ*). If you're born to people who aren't legally entitled to US residency (because they are illegal or are on a restricted work visa) then you don't get US citizenship and so your children are also not entitled to US citizenship.

Some people would want those people sent home. Others like an easily exploitable pool of labour.


* - I expect that Republicans wouldn't mind a child born to white middle-class Swedish parents who are in the US on a work visa having US citizenship. A child born to Indian IT workers on fixed-term contracts or black Africans here on a student visa or Hispanic agricultural workers wouldn't be as appealing.