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

[shemp]

Abbott says Texas could 'resurrect' SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids

Quote:

Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that Texas would consider challenging a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring states to offer free public education to all children, including those of undocumented immigrants.

"Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler versus Doe," Abbott said, speaking during an appearance on the Joe Pags show, a conservative radio talk show. "And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue. ... I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different than when Plyler versus Doe was issued many decades ago."

Hell, why should Texas have to educate minorities and poor children anyway? They're nothing but a burden on good white taxpayers! Bring back the workhouses! Let them pick cotton!

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by shemp

Abbott says Texas could 'resurrect' SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids







Hell, why should Texas have to educate minorities and poor children anyway? They're nothing but a burden on good white taxpayers! Bring back the workhouses! Let them pick cotton!

Republicans hate public education regardless. Its paid for by taxes and teaches liberal lies like science and history.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Republicans hate public education regardless. Its paid for by taxes and teaches liberal lies like science and history.

And critical thinking, which has "the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by shemp

Abbott says Texas could 'resurrect' SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids



Hell, why should Texas have to educate minorities and poor children anyway? They're nothing but a burden on good white taxpayers! Bring back the workhouses! Let them pick cotton!

"Let them die and decrease the surplus population"!

Charles Dickens would go crazy on where to start ridiculing Abbott.

[dudalb]

IMHO he tired of De Santis getting all the press, and trying to outstage him.

[Norman Alexander]

If lack of education was good enough for Abbott, it's good enough for all Texans!

Also, I expect all the "illegals" will be better educated than most of the Texan border vigilantes trying to catch them. So it's just petty jealousy, really.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

And critical thinking, which has "the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

Some of my favorites from the 2012 platform:

"American Identity Patriotism and Loyalty – We believe the current teaching of a multicultural curriculum is divisive. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that
nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups. Students should pledge allegiance to the American and Texas flags daily to instill patriotism."

Instill patriotism? What was that they were saying about 'indoctrination'?

"Classroom Discipline –We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas"

Because hitting children is the answer! Put the fear of God into those little bastids with a good whoopin'.

"Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific
theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Because GOD and mah Bible are just as scientificy as evolution. If we're descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys? and Climate Change is just a hoax. I mean, look at how much snow we got this past winter!

"Early Childhood Development – We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development."

ZERO states have mandatory pre-K! We still oppose it. And how dare my tax payer money go to early childhood development for kids other than my own. Those babies are only precious before birth; they're not my responsibility after birth.

"Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex
education other than abstinence until marriage."

Yeah! Look at how well "Just say No" to drugs worked! If kids know about how sex works and how a girl gets pregnant, it'll make 'em run right out and start having wild n crazy sex. All girls need to know is to keep an aspirin between their knees!

"Private Education – We believe that parents and legal guardians may choose to educate their children in private schools to include, but not limited to, home schools and parochial schools without government interference, through definition, regulation, accreditation, licensing, or testing."

How are we gonna teach our children to be good Christians and not Mooslims like them madrassas that Barack HUSSEIN Obama went to if the government sticks its nose into our classrooms? Government should only regulate PUBLIC schools.


"Religious Freedom in Public Schools – We urge school administrators and officials to inform Texas school students specifically of their First Amendment rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in
groups, on school property without government interference. We urge the Legislature to end censorship of discussion of religion in our founding documents and encourage discussing those documents."

But no discussing anything about them sicko lezzies, homos, or man-girls or about racism!

[Silly Green Monkey]

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

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by dudalb

IMHO he tired of De Santis getting all the press, and trying to outstupid him.

FTFY

[Silly Green Monkey]

New data isn't being produced that challenges the theories though. Beliefs like creationism and intelligent design are religious in origin rather than data-based.

[newyorkguy]

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.

As a law professor stated, the Supreme Court invalidated the original Texas law on Constitutional grounds, there is no basis to appeal that ruling. Texas needs to create a new law or legal issue. The state can't just say, we never liked that ruling, let's do it over.

The other factor is, in addition to moral and humanitarian concerns, in the original case, even Justice Warren Burger recognized, creating a large group of non-educated children might save education costs, but what would be the cost to society as they grow up? It would probably be considerable.

[Warp12]

Quote:

Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that Texas would consider challenging a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring states to offer free public education to all children, including those of undocumented immigrants.

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

The other factor is, in addition to moral and humanitarian concerns, in the original case, even Justice Warren Burger recognized, creating a large group of non-educated children might save education costs, but what would be the cost to society as they grow up? It would probably be considerable.

I don't feel any taxpayer funds should be going to pay for educating the children of illegal aliens. Devote all such funds to children of legal American citizens, I say. Children of illegals shouldn't be in our public schools, imo. Hell, they shouldn't even be in our country.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't feel any taxpayer funds should be going to pay for educating the children of illegal aliens. Devote all such funds to children of legal American citizens, I say. Children of illegals shouldn't be in our public schools, imo. Hell, they shouldn't even be in our country.

for "illegal aliens", read "current and future taxpayers".
because undocumented immigrants can't get access to social security, they pay into a system they won't benefit from.
It's very much in the interest of every American to allow immigrants to find jobs that fits their qualification. It's a documented fact that they pay way more into the system than the system spends on them.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

for "illegal aliens", read "current and future taxpayers".
because undocumented immigrants can't get access to social security, they pay into a system they won't benefit from.
It's very much in the interest of every American to allow immigrants to find jobs that fits their qualification. It's a documented fact that they pay way more into the system than the system spends on them.

This isn't a debate about illegals and their job hunting efforts, I'm afraid. It's about Abbott not wanting Texans to have to pay to educate their children, at minimum. I don't see any good argument for why they should have to.

An argument that they should be in public school might have some merit, but I find it hard to get behind that, in part because ultimately taxpayers are going to be footing that bill in some way, at some level. And that is outside of the obvious fact that they shouldn't even be here in the first place, which is a bigger can of worms.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Exactly!

Children should be punished for the choices of their parents.
Besides, by keeping the children of illegal immigrants uneducated you keep the underclass alive to work for *real* Americans in jobs they don't want to do.

The lower classes (immigrants, women) should not harp on about those 'rights' and 'freedoms', those are only for rich white males that vote correctly.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

This isn't a debate about illegals and their job hunting efforts, I'm afraid. It's about Abbott not wanting Texans to have to pay to educate their children, at minimum. I don't see any good argument for why they should have to.

An argument that they should be in public school might have some merit, but I find it hard to get behind that, in part because ultimately taxpayers are footing that bill. And that is outside of the obvious fact that they shouldn't even be here in the first place, which is a bigger can of worms.

Unless they are not spending money within the USA aren't even illegal immigrants still tax payers?

Plus this is about legislation about the teaching of children, the children won't have made the decision to come to the USA illegally. Should they pay for the rest of their lives because of the "sins of their fathers"?

[JoeMorgue]

"We can't win if the we aren't allowed to cheat the system."
"We can't win if children are educated."

That's some good morals there Republican party.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Seems we're going to get a good test case for the Democratic party strategy of trying to woo the mythical centrist swing voter.

With Roe and all this other insane stuff that is going to be cropping up in red states to take advantage of the new legal landscape, there has never been a more primed environment for wooing voters by being the reasonable alternative to the Republican party. Absolute banner day for being the "lesser evil", if such a thing works.

I'm personally quite jaundiced about such a proposition. The extreme right tilt will absolutely drum up some liberal agitation in response, but I would guess that it will be largely a wash compared to how galvanizing this massive victory on the right is for their voting base. Nothing brings out the fans like a big win, and gleeful, slavering conservative ghouls are going to be flooding into the voting booths to signal their pleasure with this recent turn of events.

I'm guessing the Dems are going to rely on some mass defection of suburban whites to their side in response to the gallop to the right of the Republican party, but I'm not holding my breath. Time will tell I suppose, but I very much suspect the political viability of being the "Conservative-lite" party has expired.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

Unless they are not spending money within the USA aren't even illegal immigrants still tax payers?

Plus this is about legislation about the teaching of children, the children won't have made the decision to come to the USA illegally. Should they pay for the rest of their lives because of the "sins of their fathers"?

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.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Students should ask questions, but I don't see the value in permitting teachers to answer earnestly asked questions about science with fairy tales and easily disproven pseudo-science.

Teaching creationism is an objectively poor science education. it would be like paying money to go to a sovereign citizen law school or psychology program that takes seriously people's star signs. Imagine a health class that permitted the gym teacher to teach doubt about whether or not cigarettes are harmful to health. A tremendous disservice to the students in the school's care.

Creating a science education standard that ultimately boils down to the totally arbitrary "well, if your science teacher is a religious crank you won't get taught evolution" is abandoning the very concept of a course standard.

The thing is that, if polls are to be believed, creationism is a view held by a sizeable minority of the US population - approaching 50%. Bearing that in mind, the demand to teach creationism and/or intelligent design instead of evolution is hardly surprising.

Add in a version of US history which skips over all of the uncomfortable bits, abstinence only sex education and a desire for teaching Christianity and it's fairy tales all the way down.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

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]

Originally Posted by The Don

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]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

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]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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]

Originally Posted by plague311

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]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

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.

Originally Posted by The Don

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

Originally Posted by Warp12

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

[sackett]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

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]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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]

Originally Posted by Random

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]

Originally Posted by Random

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]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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]

Originally Posted by sackett

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]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

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]

Originally Posted by sackett

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.