• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

So now we're being forced, yet again, to have a "civil debate" where we have to "prove" that schools should teach facts and not go "Here's a fact and here's some nonsense, it's not on us to tell you which is which."
 
JoeMorgue said:
So now we're being forced, yet again, to have a "civil debate" where we have to "prove" that schools should teach facts and not go "Here's a fact and here's some nonsense, it's not on us to tell you which is which."
Click to expand...

Except you're not. You can move on without ever addressing what is plainly a disingenuous attempt to derail the discussion.
 
Donal said:
Except you're not. You can move on without ever addressing what is plainly a disingenuous attempt to derail the discussion.
Click to expand...

Yeah and then we'll see the same arguments being mad on the floor of Congress in a few weeks.

"Just ignore the people trying to find new ways to be wrong" is how we got here. If you wish to complicit in that fine, I will not.
 
kookbreaker said:
This would be like saying kids should jump off tall buildings and lick outlets because gravity and electrical theory are also theory and denying letting kids do this is “close-minded”.
Click to expand...

No he's now going to tell us that is totally different for reasons that he will literally never provide to us.
 
kookbreaker said:
While the basic structure of evolution as proposed by Darwin is in place evolution has undergone multiple, multiple changes to its aspects over the years.
Click to expand...

I wish people would regularly make the distinction between evolution and the theory of natural selection. Darwin is responsible for the latter, NOT the former. The concept of evolution predates him, and was an inferred phenomenon distinct from any theory of its cause. Other explanations have been proposed, but so far only natural selection has survived scrutiny.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah and then we'll see the same arguments being mad on the floor of Congress in a few weeks.

"Just ignore the people trying to find new ways to be wrong" is how we got here. If you wish to complicit in that fine, I will not.
Click to expand...

Not ignore them, but there's no need to engage them directly. Do you think that maybe *this* time they'll see the error of their ways? Precisely what laws are being passed by people here?

You should pay attention to the rhetoric and how they are trying to frame and change the discussion, but it's an asymmetric game. They aren't trying to accomplish anything specific. They have no coherent goals, principles, or beliefs. They are just there to stop any sort of progress. Why would you even want to deal with them head-on?

Coming here and pointing out some right-wingers fallacies might make you feel smart, but you're even less effective than complacency. You're letting them bog down the conversation and drive away people who maybe want to understand these things.
 
newyorkguy said:
I'm trying to discover, is Abbott proposing to bar the children of undocumented persons from Texas schools or is he trying to shift the costs? Shift the burden from local taxpayers to...the federal government? That actually sounds fairly reasonable...
Click to expand...

As it turns out Governor Greg Abbot isn't proposing the children of the undocumented be barred from schools -in Texas or anywhere else. That would be barbaric. :( Below is a news story from the Texas Tribune.

Gov. Greg Abbott wants the federal government to pay for the public education of undocumented students in Texas schools, arguing that President Joe Biden’s administration’s decision to lift the Title 42 policy later this month will bring an influx of immigrants across the border that is “unsustainable and unavoidable.”

Last month, a Texas Education Agency lawyer testified before the House Public Education Committee that federal guidance indicates that denying enrollment or attendance based on citizenship status would violate Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Texas does not track the citizenship status of students. Therefore, it is unclear how many undocumented students are enrolled or what the financial impact on Texas public schools is. Texas spends a minimum of $6,160 per student, which lags behind the national average of $12,600 in 2018. Texas Tribune link
Click to expand...

The 1964 Civil Rights Act established that the only requirement a school district can use for enrollment is residency. That can be established by a parent producing a utility bill. School districts are not allowed to ask for citizenship or immigration status. If the kids live in the district they can go to school there.

With a big rise in undocumented people arriving in Texas Abbot is concerned with the effect on local taxes. (Schools are normally funded by property taxes, not income tax.) Abbot is also basing this request on the fact the state cannot take control of the parts of the international border that are within their state, only the federal government has that power.

In this case I find Abbot's request to be fairly reasonable.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
With a big rise in undocumented people arriving in Texas Abbot is concerned with the effect on local taxes. (Schools are normally funded by property taxes, not income tax.) Abbot is also basing this request on the fact the state cannot take control of the parts of the international border that are within their state, only the federal government has that power.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I see your point. Illegal immigrants have to live somewhere too, and whatever place they're living is certainly kicking up property taxes.

From a tax perspective, there's no difference between illegal aliens living in slums and a poor American citizen doing the same.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
I said "illegals" a lot. I mean a whole lot. Like, in almost every post.
Click to expand...
Yes, and we can presume that you would like to deny American citizenship to those born of illegal parents. But you have not really addressed the problem here, that until such a law is passed, the law explicitly states that all children born within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens by birth. That means, among other things, that all the children who attend public schools for the five or six years AFTER such a law is passed, if it is passed, will STILL be citizens. There is a strict constitutional bar against ex post facto laws.

And though it is a subsidiary issue, you have not suggested a way that such a rule could be enforced without a citizenship test for children and parents, and a bureaucracy that can handle not only that but the inevitable mistakes and oversights and appeals that will result from it.

And of course we can hope you mean the same thing every time you state it, but if you don't you don't, and since I suspect you sometimes will accept collateral damage for ideas you support, precision is important whether you think so or not.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I've made it very clear I'm talking AT them, not TO them.
Click to expand...

That's great for hurting the feelings of someone you're speaking to face to face who actually believes what they are saying. That is not what we're dealing with.
 
In most places property owners are assessed for a special school district tax. It's often a separate payment on your tax account and in many places the tax is considered an irritant.

What Abbot is saying is, an influx of the kids into a school district, especially a smaller district, will create an identifiable increase in the school assessment for individual property owners. That will generate a lot of complaints. So he would like the federal government to pay the added costs.

I'm sure this is for when someone gets up at a school board meeting and complains their tax increased because of "all these illegal kids!" If Abbot can get the feds to shoulder the cost local politicians can assure property tax owners -- and it's usually people who own private homes, not the guy who owns a factory -- that the costs have been transferred to the federal government.

It's come up now because the Biden Administration is going to discontinue trump's Title 42 initiative that effectively blocked asylum seekers from being allowed into the United States while their request (often a lengthy process) gets considered. Under Title 42, asylum seekers had to remain in Mexico while their request was processed. This was begun during the Covid-19 pandemic and Biden doesn't feel continuing it is warranted. It places a considerable burden on both the asylum seekers and Mexico.
 
newyorkguy said:
As it turns out Governor Greg Abbot isn't proposing the children of the undocumented be barred from schools -in Texas or anywhere else. That would be barbaric. :( Below is a news story from the Texas Tribune.



The 1964 Civil Rights Act established that the only requirement a school district can use for enrollment is residency. That can be established by a parent producing a utility bill. School districts are not allowed to ask for citizenship or immigration status. If the kids live in the district they can go to school there.

With a big rise in undocumented people arriving in Texas Abbot is concerned with the effect on local taxes. (Schools are normally funded by property taxes, not income tax.) Abbot is also basing this request on the fact the state cannot take control of the parts of the international border that are within their state, only the federal government has that power.

In this case I find Abbot's request to be fairly reasonable.
Click to expand...
I think by itself it probably is. The question that follows is how it is implemented and what is required, and how slippery the slope here might be. The suggestion seems to be that if one cannot "prove" one's legal immigration status, public education will be denied. While this might be possible, I question how it would be done, what will be adequate, and what degree of profiling and error will result. Although it is obvious to some, it has, in some cases not been obvious to all, that a person born in this country cannot, under any circumstance, prove legal immigration. With that said, I can see a reason behind it. This is quite different from Warp12's desire to see birthright citizenship denied, and other issues not yet addressed.
 
bruto said:
...The question that follows is how it is implemented and what is required, and how slippery the slope here might be. The suggestion seems to be that if one cannot "prove" one's legal immigration status, public education will be denied...
Click to expand...

I hope that this can be worked out. That a way can be found to provide some support for Texas schools which are, undoubtedly, being strained by the large influx of undocumented students. To do it in a way that supports both. Public school education for children regardless of their immigration status, and providing financial support for public schools in Texas. But in the current atmosphere of hyper-partisanship, along with the current vindictiveness of conservatives, you wonder how this will turn out.
 

Attachments

  • Go home.jpg
    Go home.jpg
    92.9 KB · Views: 7
SuburbanTurkey said:
Critical support for teaching the one true biblical creationism in schools:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam)
Click to expand...

The Yakub story is a load of utter hogwash

* * * * * * * * *


:offtopic ....but interesting nonetheless!

There is evidence of white humans going back to almost 30,000 years ago (that predates the Yakub claim by over 23,000 years. Further, it has recently (and seriously) been proposed that early humans probably had pale skin like our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, that are white under their fur. Then, as a response increasing temperatures and exposure to the sun, around 1.2 million to 1.8 million years ago, early Homo sapiens evolved dark skin as a defence against skin cancer.

https://www.livescience.com/43674-cancer-skin-color-evolution.html
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
I hope that this can be worked out. That a way can be found to provide some support for Texas schools which are, undoubtedly, being strained by the large influx of undocumented students. To do it in a way that supports both. Public school education for children regardless of their immigration status, and providing financial support for public schools in Texas. But in the current atmosphere of hyper-partisanship, along with the current vindictiveness of conservatives, you wonder how this will turn out.
Click to expand...

Just hand Master Abbot a big bale of federal cash. He can disburse it appropriately. He's a governor, isn't he?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom