The TREASONOUS Behavior by DEMOCRATS In The Nation Is Getting WAY OUT OF HAND.

[Drummond]

I think that's a clear case of cherry picking, and correct me if I'm wrong, but due to the influence of the powerful teacher's union on the courts.(?) I think it's pretty evident what side of illegal immigration the leftist teacher's union comes down on.

My mom was a teacher, not for that many years, and then substituted some, my aunt was a teacher, (Mom's sister, many of my friends here in town had her as their teacher), and both her kids are college professors, one at SWTC in Fennimore where I got my degree in Electrical Engineering, and one at UW Platteville... so I really don't want to bad mouth teachers.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument to me.

Because of where I come from, it obviously follows that I'm not qualified to be overly-judgmental in a purely 'domestic' matter such as this. I've no idea, for example, what influence the teachers' union would wield, IF they do, & to what extent.

But this much makes sense: illegal immigration is illegal, by sheer definition. Surely child abuse is also illegal ? So, how can it be that teachers could be in a position to be 'fine' about being proactive on one issue, and not at all on the other ?

Some measure of bias -- whatever its form, or wherever it comes from -- MUST be involved. Something needs to explain that lack of consistency.

So, who can help me understand why it exists ? Who decided what illegal situation mandates action, where one does, and the other doesn't ? Political focus ? Political suppression ? Serving what agenda ?

There have to be answers to this.

[jimnyc]

I hear ya... no need to repeat yourself. We've all hashed this over pretty good.

Hey, 9 pages, stayed on topic, no fighting only a little sarcasm here and there.... oddly good thread!

[jimnyc]

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument to me.

Because of where I come from, it obviously follows that I'm not qualified to be overly-judgmental in a purely 'domestic' matter such as this. I've no idea, for example, what influence the teachers' union would wield, IF they do, & to what extent.

But this much makes sense: illegal immigration is illegal, by sheer definition. Surely child abuse is also illegal ? So, how can it be that teachers could be in a position to be 'fine' about being proactive on one issue, and not at all on the other ?

Some measure of bias -- whatever its form, or wherever it comes from -- MUST be involved. Something needs to explain that lack of consistency.

So, who can help me understand why it exists ? Who decided what illegal situation mandates action, where one does, and the other doesn't ? Political focus ? Political suppression ? Serving what agenda ?

There have to be answers to this.

I think the why is the same as why it's consistent as well - Educate children & safeguard them, and take the side of caution, is what they did. In many eyes, simple protection of the children in front of them takes precedent and all that matters. So of course they protect against suspected child abuse & don't engage as to country status but rather teach the children in front of you, and safeguard. So I see the why's and all of that, and it almost makes sense in theory.... but personally I disagree with any citizen being somehow harmed for reporting a known crime. I personally would love to see a better balance between doing the best by the children and upholding legal standards within our communities. I see WHY teachers shouldn't be burdened with police type of monitoring and investigating, but I was speaking more of simply coming across the info somehow, not that a teacher be expected to investigate anything.

I also hope that such a standard for the education system never carries over to other places and types of employment, or worse, simply punish a regular citizen, non teacher, of reporting a crime. I highly highly doubt that though, as normally, citizens are encouraged to report things.

[Kathianne]

I answered Abbey as succinctly as I was able. The best answer I can give, not that it matters, is that Plyler is about kids, regardless of how they got here and what their parents are guilty of. You don't have to agree, as I said from the onset of the thread, get with like minded folks and try to get a case to SCOTUS.

Mandated reporting on suspected child abuse is also in the best interest of the child, regardless of the child's origins. Again, since children are involved, social workers, like teachers, would be covered by Plyler. How likely that the parents in such circumstances would not be brought to the attention of law enforcement? Pretty unlikely, they probably would. But it would be within the protocols of Plyler, i.e., known as following the law. Police would be brought in if the initial report led to an investigation beyond the scope of child protection agency. I.e., the police would be brought in. That is the EXECUTIVE branch of local government-enforcing the laws. There is a system, as I said, seems most have lost faith in it. Certainly evident in this thread.

[jimnyc]

There is a system, as I said, seems most have lost faith in it. Certainly evident in this thread.

As for myself, I think the only faith lost in the system is 100% pertaining to illegals, which I also understand the connected law. It's nothing of lost faith to me but rather a simple disagreeing with a high court decision. Certainly isn't the first one! Lots of them I disagree with!

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument to me.

Because of where I come from, it obviously follows that I'm not qualified to be overly-judgmental in a purely 'domestic' matter such as this. I've no idea, for example, what influence the teachers' union would wield, IF they do, & to what extent.

But this much makes sense: illegal immigration is illegal, by sheer definition. Surely child abuse is also illegal ? So, how can it be that teachers could be in a position to be 'fine' about being proactive on one issue, and not at all on the other ?

Some measure of bias -- whatever its form, or wherever it comes from -- MUST be involved. Something needs to explain that lack of consistency.

So, who can help me understand why it exists ? Who decided what illegal situation mandates action, where one does, and the other doesn't ? Political focus ? Political suppression ? Serving what agenda ?

There have to be answers to this.

Oh believe me, the teacher's union is as powerful influencing the democrats in congress as the NRA is influencing the republicans, very powerful.

No doubt the NRA's influence is why we still have our 2nd Amendment, because the democrats would take out guns away in a heart beat if they could, and no doubt the teacher's union has influenced the decision to allow teachers to look the other way when there's illegal alien children in school. It is my opinion, and I know there's disagreement here, so, "IMO," illegal alien children shouldn't even BE in our schools. To me, they're as guilty of breaking our laws as their parents, or whoever "rented" them to illegally enter this nation. They ALL are guilty in my opinion and they should ALL be DEPORTED. That is MY OPINION. It is not the law, CURRENTLY, and I disagree vehemently with the law. What REALLY irks me is, we TAXPAYERS PAY to teach these illegals, and I don't think that's right.

And then there's the BIG reason WHY the democrats WANT those illegals here, and getting their INDOCTRINATION in SCHOOL... because they see them ALL as NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS, and that is the 900 LB GORILLA IN THE ROOM.


And I guess that's all I have to say about the matter.

[Drummond]

[COLOR=#454545][FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]

This was exactly what I said in my post? The UKSC has the parliamentary sovereignty to challenge some legislation, and I gave examples of how they influence primary legislation and even strike down subordinate legislation.

Apparently, I need to re-post my link, with the section of pertinent text ?

OK, then. Here it is ...

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.

They include:

• The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
• The Human Rights Act 1998.
• The UK's entry to the European Union in 1973.
• The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal.

These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.

Summarising what should be obvious, Noir ... Parliament chose to devolve sovereign powers. It did so in a controlled and selective way, in order to achieve a planned-for effect. You can see from the list just what was aimed for, and achieved.

The UK Supreme Court may be capable - in specific instances - of mounting legal challenges. BUT, the big difference here is that Parliament ultimately remains sovereign. What is done, can also be undone. The Supreme Court only has powers for as long as Parliament continues to confer them. Should a Supreme Court decision somehow result in a change of a law's application, then Parliament can act to change the law so that it operates as intended. Consequently, the balance of power always ultimately remains on the side of Parliament ... the Supreme Court can't take for itself a measure of absolute power immune from challenge.

Guaranteed legal permanence comes from Parliament (to the extent it chooses to apply it).

This is nothing to do with European interference, this is British judges using their sovereign powers to advise that they believe it is foreseeable that they would rule against the government in a judicial review of legislation based on their interpretation and implementation of the ECHR.

How come the ECHR even exercises ANY powers AT ALL in any UK-related issues ? The very fact that it can, or does, constitutes European interference !!

What you're describing, if I read your post correctly, is a process whereby the ECHR has a means of interfering, one where they, and our own courts, act synergistically to subvert our Government's legislation !! How on earth is this not interference ??

[Kathianne]

As for myself, I think the only faith lost in the system is 100% pertaining to illegals, which I also understand the connected law. It's nothing of lost faith to me but rather a simple disagreeing with a high court decision. Certainly isn't the first one! Lots of them I disagree with!

You've been circumspect in name calling and insinuations. Not so of others, but that again is their rights. They want what they want, any way they can get it. No care of broken laws-they disagree of anything they don't agree with. LOL! Fine to ignore. In fact, if one doesn't ignore, they are freakin' unAmerican, by definition, 'liberal' or 'far-right' depending on the ox.

[Kathianne]

Guys, the reasoning going on here is interesting. From judicial, to Parliament, to teachers' unions, to gorillas. How much influence does the teachers' unions have on the SCOTUS? I understand about legislature, but c'mon, in this case it was the court, in freakin' 1982.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Guys, the reasoning going on here is interesting. From judicial, to Parliament, to teachers' unions, to gorillas. How much influence does the teachers' unions have on the SCOTUS? I understand about legislature, but c'mon, in this case it was the court, in freakin' 1982.

Well, I've remained "circumspect" as well, and the gorilla reference is an old adage, as I'm sure you already know.

I don't think there's any denying what I said. Unions are powerful and wield considerable influence, and democrats are pro illegal alien. I can't see how anyone can argue that isn't true.

[Kathianne]

Well, I've remained "circumspect" as well, and the gorilla reference is an old adage, as I'm sure you already know.

I don't think there's any denying what I said. Unions are powerful, and democrats are pro illegal alien. I can't see how anyone can argue that isn't true.

OK, let's give you that as a 'fact.' What does it have to do with teachers, illegals, child abuse? Legislation I can see. SCOTUS case? not so much.

[Kathianne]

And I say TREASONOUS, but if this ISN'T treasonous, then PLEASE, TELL ME WHAT IS... and what in the HELL is going on in TEXAS? I thought Texas was CONSERVATIVE! But the anti American CRAP just keeps coming from TEXAS...

===========

UNREAL: Texas School Board Votes To FIRE Teacher For Reporting ILLEGAL ALIEN Students


The war on illegal immigration heated up today after a controversial decision by the Fort Worth Independent School Board, who unanimously decided to fire a teacher for attempting to report students that were not in the country legally.

One could see how the teacher, Georgia Clark, could have thought she was well within her rights after comments by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy Clark stating that schools can make the decision to report, or not report students and their families.

Breibart reported on the story:

At a hearing of the House Education and the Workforce committee, former illegal immigrant Rep. Adriano Espaillat pressed DeVos to explain her views on immigration enforcement.

“Inside the school,” the New York Democrat asked, “if a principal or a teacher finds out that a certain child is undocumented, or his or her family members are undocumented, do you feel that the principal or teacher is responsible to call [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and to have that family reported?”

“Sir, I think that’s a school decision,” DeVos responded. “That’s a local community decision. And again, I refer to the fact that we have laws and we also are compassionate, and I urge this body to do its job and address or clarify where there is confusion around this.”

Still, the Fort Worth teacher was not given any mercy.

As reported by NBC:

A Texas school board unanimously voted to fire a teacher who tried to report undocumented students in her school district to President Donald Trump through a series of public tweets — that she thought were private messages to the president.

The Fort Worth Independent School District voted 8-0 to terminate the employment of Georgia Clark at a special meeting Tuesday.

The unanimous vote of 8-0 is not surprising when you consider that the majority of the school’s population is made up by the Hispanic community.

When “nearly 90 per cent of the students are Hispanic” at your school, that means that there is probably a similar racial makeup of the parent/teacher community that would be voting against you.

Also, NBC Dallas Fort-Worth reported that this isn’t the first time that Clark had been investigated for racially-motivated comments, such as asking a student to prove that they were legal before they could use the restroom.

If that weren’t enough, Clark accidentally made her comments publicly on Twitter in an attempt to communicate directly with President Trump, according to NBC:

Clark, an English teacher at Amon Carter-Riverside High School, tweeted that the school she worked at had been “taken over” by “illegal students from Mexico” and that Trump was elected “on the promise that a wall would be built to protect our borders.” She also referred to “illegals” in her tweets.

The tweets started gaining attention on social media last week, and Clark’s account was deleted May 29. She was placed on administrative leave after the school district became aware of them.

According to district documents, Clark told an investigator she thought the tweets were direct messages to Trump and didn’t know they were public.

Although things look pretty dire for the newly fired teacher, isn’t there a light at the end of the tunnel? I mean, she works for the teacher’s union, for crying out loud!

As reported by Time:

Clark has 15 days to choose to seek an appeal with the state, according to the outlet.

Clark’s attorney, Brandon Y. Brim, told TIME in an email that she “intends to request a hearing for the purpose of contesting the proposed action against her contract.”

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/unreal-te...medium=twitter

Let's think of what a teacher should do and be, just for a moment. Did this teacher?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

OK, let's give you that as a 'fact.' What does it have to do with teachers, illegals, child abuse? Legislation I can see. SCOTUS case? not so much.

I don't think there's any denying our supreme court has partisans on it, both sides, and their judgments go along party lines. We know who they are and how they're going to vote. That's why there's such a massive circus every time a new judge is appointed. The leftist judges are going to decide in favor of any case pro illegal alien, the conservatives, not so much.

Case in point, SCOTUS just upholding President Trump's EO on appropriating funds to build the wall after an activist leftist judge put a stop to it. Why? Because the supreme court is now leaning right. However, it may be that even the conservative judges on the S.C. could disagree with me when it comes to this topic. I KNOW I'm HARD right. So... I live with it. I have my opinion but, it just isn't shared with enough people in power. I lose. All taxpayers lose. We're financing the education of people that are here illegally.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Let's think of what a teacher should do and be, just for a moment. Did this teacher?

My compassion runs out when it comes to who should be in this nation and who shouldn't. I guess it's as simple as that.

Actually, my compassion is for the America people and this nation, not the people that have illegally invaded it. Compassion to me is sending all those who came here illegally to be deported. The cost to this nation's taxpayers is staggering paying for those people to be here, and it ain't right.

[Kathianne]

My compassion runs out when it comes to who should be in this nation and who shouldn't. I guess it's as simple as that.

Actually, my compassion is for the America people and this nation, not the people that have illegally invaded it. Compassion to me is sending all those who came here illegally to be deported. The cost to this nation's taxpayers is staggering paying for those people to be here, and it ain't right.

Though your jobs have been US Air Force; prison guard; mechanic, right? You have not been a teacher or involved with kids beyond your own, family, and neighbors.

The lady you wrote about, claimed to be a teacher. Yep, right their with those that abuse kids and want easy access.