N.J. Schools Improperly Asking For SS Numbers

[Marc LeVine]

See article, below. Once again our hands are bound by our own rope. The ACLU is quick to point out what they expect of us and our state is quick to rubber stamp their complaints, without providing the necessary financial support to our schools and municipalities.

The ACLU looks at the world through rose colored glasses. They complain, but never solve - at least, not in a constructive way. They only deal in philosophy and never in economics. Civil liberties effect us all, including the average American who suffers under the hand of an unresponsive government. Why do they not advocate for us all, by citing the social problems the federal goverment has created and demand that the feds do more to repair the damage, including sending more aid to strapped communities. This is ALL about money. Not their money - our money, under their control.

"No taxation without representation" is what caused the American Revolution. How is our current situation any different under this King George and a Parliament we now call Congress?

While I agree that no child should be turned away from our schools and that no child is to blame for their parent's illegal immigration to the US, I do believe that our state and federal governments should subsidize the extra financial burdens placed on our schools and municipalities. They have allowed and even encouraged illegal immigration to take place without providing our states and towns with any authority to deal with the issue at the local level. This is unfair to our legal residents and to their children, since budgeting decisions are often made against their best interests for the purpose of offsetting the shortfalls created by the unfunded needs of a growing illegal immigrant population. Where is the equity in all this and where are the rights of the American taxpayers? Who advocates for us. Not even the people we elect!

Marc L.


Here is the article.

ACLU: N.J. Schools Improperly Asking For SS Numbers

Many New Jersey schools are asking students to provide their Social Security numbers when they enroll -- a practice the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey said is illegal and could make undocumented immigrants fearful to enroll their children.

The ACLU released a study Tuesday that found 57 of the 224 schools it queried, or 25 percent, were asking for Social Security numbers. Not having a Social Security number is one sign that someone might be in the United States illegally.

Under state regulations, parents cannot be required to give that information -- or other citizenship-related details, such as immigration status -- to schools as a condition of enrolling their children. Schools, however, can require proof of residency in the district.


"This type of practice has a chilling effect on immigrant students, both documented and undocumented, who want to attend our public schools," said ACLU spokeswoman Annu Mangat. "You run the risk of creating an underclass of children who are not integrated into society."

The ACLU surveyed schools across New Jersey from December through this month after hearing complaints that some districts were asking students for Social Security numbers on their enrollment forms.

Mangat said that in some cases, the parents who complained enrolled their children, but did not provide the information. She said that because it gets into legal strategy, she could not disclosed whether any children have been kept out of school because of the question on the forms.

More than half the schools that were asking for the information told the ACLU they would stop after being informed it was illegal, the organization said. Some schools denied that they had ever requested the numbers.

The ACLU said the state Education Department should force schools to follow its policies.

Education Department spokesman Richard Vespucci said the state updated its policies less than two years ago to clarify that districts cannot request Social Security numbers.

[richardkelsey]

While I agree that no child should be turned away from our schools and that no child is to blame for their parent's illegal immigration to the US, I do believe that our state and federal governments should subsidize the extra financial burdens placed on our schools and municipalities.

Sorry -- but this is a view with which I cannot agree. It is wrong on so many levels, that it is hard for me to get my arms around it.

First -- preventing children from using services to which they are not entitled is not "blaming" the parents. It is also not punishing the children. It is merely stopping the parents from profiting, stopping them from using the services, and incentivizing them to return to their country of origin. The children would then be entitled to the services provided, if any, by that country.

I have no interest in hurting kids either. I have given freely of my time to tutor poor children in a special program in Arlington County. I simply don't want to reward these children with services to which they are not entitled. (Now the argument gets far more dicey with anchor babies who are, according to the Supreme Court, citizens by merely being born here after illegal entry) Those children, U.S. Citizens, are welcome to stay -- their parents are not. Removing the parents, would likely force the decision to take the children with them. Current U.S. immigration policy reverses this presumption. Fighting to stop the inducement of a free k-12 U.S. education is probably the highest priority in combating illegal aliens. It may be higher than combating illegal job hires, and if it is not, it is far easier to enforce. Cutting off that expense will slow the flow -- immediately, and measurably.

Second, when you suggest that we simply give these kids a pass so as not to create an underclass, you suggest that "state and Federal Governments" should subsidize the increased costs.

Who are those people -- the state and Federal Government? That's you! That's me! That's the rest of us who don't want this illegal immigration problem either. Why on earth should anyone subsidize it? In Arlington County Virginia, that would be almost 19,000 per-student. In most communities, that's 10-11k per-student.

Why can't we say, "hey, I don't want any working family hurt by having to pay for these kids." Isn't that an even more legitimate argument?

Does anyone on the Planet earth believe that the increase in school expenditures alone in the borough has been off-set by the "economic benefits" of illegal immigration? Get serious. A few individual businesses profit hugely, and the bill for the social, health, education, and criminal justice costs gets sent to the working man. This is the greatest outrage of all.

Your solution proposes the same shift in cost -- only to spread it out to everyone.

As for hurting kids -- imagine the advantages our students could reap if we put the current education expenditures, including the capital improvements, solely into instruction for the children of legal and lawful citizens. The kids being hurt -- being victimized,are the children of legal residents who are being short-changed. That includes the children of legal immigrants who played by the rules and waited their collective turns.

I hate to say it -- but this attitude of compromise continues to feed the incentive system that breeds the demand and reward for illegal immigrants.

[Marc LeVine]

Rich:

I don't disagree with several key points you make in your post - least of all, those concerning the cost burdens borne by all taxpayers in providing free services, including education, to illegal aliens.

Believe me - when I say that the federal and state government should subsidize the cost of educating these people, I say that sarcastically. I'm telling our federal government that "you created this mess and force us to live with it, now pay for it?

We all know they won't give us an extra dime to educate the children of illegal aliens, because they don't have enough of our hard earned dollars to give away and they wouldn't dare think of asking us to send them more to be used for this purpose.

So, what other choices does our government have, but to give America the effective national immigration reform we need or to let us - the municipalities - deal with this issue our own way.

I agree that finding an effective way to deincentivize people from coming here (in the first place) - illegally- to get a free educaton for their children, is really the best way to go. I am totally in favor of this. Who could not be, other than the outrageous advocates and the illegal immigrants, themselves? We need to slam the door on all illegal newcomers, immediately.

My main concerns are over the people and children, already here, at a time when our federal government is still wrestling with immigration reform measures that - I'll bet my entire life's savings - will provide a way for most of the current immigrants to remain in the US after paying some fines, filing some paperwork and accepting legitimate an taxable employment.

Amnesty - I hope not. But, there WILL be some sort of legitimate status given. You can bank on that.

To create hardships for (like it or not) American children (AND, THAT ridiculous law needs to be changed!) or to place them in a hostile environment will only serve to create a separate class of American citizens, who will, someday, grow to hate this country and seek to harm it, from the inside. Britain has already created this sort of homegrown hatred among its own immigrant populations and are now paying a dear price for it evidenced by recent acts of terrorism. British citizens - the impoverished and often culturally disregarded children of recent immigrants - are responsible for bombings and murder.

People DO remember and hold grudges. African Americans still point to their ill treatment by white America during the course of slavery and well into the 20th century civil right's movement; including segregation and denial of equal educational opportunities. In Freehold Borough, the Court Street school is a sad reminder of those times. So, before we revisit this unfortunate past with a new generation of impressionable kids, let us first find out who is staying and who is going...and what conditions will apply to all who remain here after immigration reform hits.

No. The most sensible way to deincentivize illegal immigration is to deny ineligible adults jobs and housing and NOT making kids direct scapegoats by trying to deny them education. At least, not until we continue a little further down the road to immigration reform. Perhaps, it will soon be a condition within reform, but it should not be a starting point within pre-reform.

It's much more responsible to require adults to prove their authorization to work in the US and to qualify for housing, than to tell small children that they aren't wanted in our schools or concerned about by their neighbors.

If there are no jobs or housing for parents, there is no reason for them to come here or to remain here with their families. School issues will THEN become a moot point and children will most likely return with their parents to their parent's countries of origin, not because they are being denied an American education, but because heir parents are unable to accept legitimate work or meet standardized housing requirements.

I know that my kids do not hold a grudge towards any employers, who have chosen to hire other candidates over my wife or me, but they would definately grow up hating an entire nation that tried to deprive them of an education and a future.

I just don't think children's education is the best place to start dealing with illegal immigration, when there are far more effective deincentives that don't make kids the focal point of this issue or force them into becoming it's main resolve. That's an awful lot of weight to place on some tiny shoulders, when it's the parents, who really need to take responsibility for making wrong choices and breaking laws.

I am not ashamed to hold this overall view regarding the children. Our world is filled with more hatred and intolerance than I can ever remember, throughout my entire lifetime. And, our own nation and many of our incompetent leaders are not without fault. The best way out is to find better ways to balance compassion with fair expectations tied to laws that people can understand and respect. Accountability must be represented by reasonable, measured and consistent penalties, not as much for vengeance, but for more for rehabilitation.

The rationale expressed in this post is not so far off from my earlier post sharing the thought that deputizing police to do immigration's work is less preferred (by me) than the a Riverside/Hazleton-type alternative.

Just keep thinking about Jobs and Housing. These are the two main conditions perpetuating illegal immigration. Addressing them, together, is the only thing needed to deal with the problems we are facing.

Marc

[admin]

Marc, and Rich,

It is amazing how two differing views can both bring up many valid points. The point/counter point between you two is a great illustration of how very complex the issues surrounding illegal immigration are. We saw this in the posts titled"what would you do?" as well as here.

On on hand, Marc appears to be a person of caution, with a desire to work within the system and find that sure shot at handling the impact of illegal immigration. Marc also highlights the humane side of the issue and how that can effect or not effect change. There is a great deal of merit within the points that Marc makes.

And then we have Rich. Certainly a different approach here. Rich appears willing to take risks and challenge the system. I have to admit, with all respect to Marc, that is quite attractive. I have a tendency to agree, or at least, have respect for that. It is, after all, the feds and the courts who have allowed for the mess we are in. All of the towns that are engaged in civil disobedience are challenging the negligence of the feds and the bad rulings of the court system. I do find value in that and believe that element can be a very important part of the equation.

I have said before that solutions to the problems of this issue are going to be painful. No person wants to hear about any child being denied services. It is terrible to read report of a father not coming home that night because he was picked up in a raid. We do not want to hear about women who are battered not going to the police out of fear of deportation. This all highlights the humane part of the issue.

Without doubt, going after landlords and employers is very important. Getting rid of the criminal element is important. Securing the border is important.

Marc brings up the point that the feds are likely to grant the illegals already here some form of amnesty. It is unfortunate, but is likely to happen. The results are going to be predictable. That will be an invitation for more illegals to come. The ones already here will mount a massive campaign for "civil rights", backed up by all of the usual anti- American suspects, such as the ACLU. In five or ten years we will still be dealing with the issues of today, scratching our heads and wondering what went wrong. And of course, the feds will start with band aid measures to combat the problems.

The above paragraph gives Rich's view points merit. With amnesty likely to come, what is the predictable impact on the towns with high illegal immigrant populations? That will be determined by what actions the individual towns take. An inviting place like Lakewood, will have a population explosion. A place like Riverside, with an approach toward accountability, will likely not have that same population explosion.

Which ever way we look at it, the answers are not easy. Especially for a small town like Freehold. It is an uphill battle. We all have to keep the big picture in mind when looking at our town. Quality of life and keeping this town going in the right direction requires that we look at many issues. The schools are an example. Without good schools we will see Americans leave this town. But how do we solve that? The education establishment is against the greater good, demonstrated by the over ruling of the voters wishes and the unfunded mandates that cost us all a great deal. I do not have the answers, I can only hope our elected leaders make some wise decisions. I know that on the local level, they are trying.

[Marc LeVine]

Brian:

Excellent post!! I think you summed things up pretty well, so far. This is such a great thread, isn't it? Most interesting here is that we are each coming at this identical issue, with varying perspectives, but with no less resolve. We are all on the same side of this issue and we all want to see an end to illegal immigration and its social and economic ravages, especially in Freehold Borough. In the end, all we really want is for justice to prevail?

In assessing our individual approaches to this issue, there are no absolutes. Who can surely say which one of our approaches is absolutely right or wrong or is absolutely better or worse? Only, future historians will know this. More importantly, is that we equally acknowledge the need to get the financial monkey off the taxpayer's back and take all quality of life decision-making away from the slumlords and bad tenants, who seem to want to call the shots in many of our neighborhoods.

Rich is not the only risk taker among us. Risk taking really gets my blood flowing, too, and can often yield positive results. However, with illegal immigration, the deck seems to be stacked against the tiny towns trying to take on a federal government that doesn't want them to succeed and will not allow them to do so.

Already a fair number of small town Mayors have been made to look like fools by a federal government and its henchman-like court system. There seems to be some unwritten policy throughout the Washington establishment directing every branch of government to squash any and all attempts to question their jurisdiction or to challenge their authority over the immigration issue. This is truly a turf war between small town America and a very powerful Washington political machine that is refusing to allow a level playing field for an fair and honest fight. Our legislators have been totally unwilling to prioritize this issue and to resolve it in a way that reflects the general public's majority will. We have about as much chance of overriding this administration's impotent immigration policy as we do in getting President Bush to change his positions on Iraq. Even worse, this administration's political opposition has offered even fewer reasons to convince us that they have a better plan for dealing with illegal immigration in the United States.

To date, about 50 American towns have adopted Hazleton/Riverside type ordinances. Consider that there are 54 municipalities in Monmouth County, New Jersey alone.
50 American towns is not a huge number, but should be sufficient to challenge the courts on the constitutionality of these ordinances. If even one or two of these cases prevail, many more cities and towns will jump on the bandwagon embracing these ordinances and will benefit from their results without suffering the fear of legal reprisals or having to waste taxpayer money on very risky litigation. So, wouldn't we all be wise to see what happens with these pending cases, while we consider and act on many other options to deal with this, including local enforcement?

We have been tempted by other promising strategies, in the past. The RICO statutes were supposed to be a panacea a year or two ago, but that excitement seems to have faded. Making English the Official Language ordinances don't seem to be too promising and are already being shot down by the courts. Attorneys are raking in legal fees to support or fight these rapidly bursting or stalled trial balloons and not much seems to be moving forward that will serve the interests of Americans opposed to illegal immigration.

All we have gotten for our efforts, to date, is the promise of a very expensive and potentially porous 700 mile border fence that will probably be built by Haliburton!!. And, THIS small victory is only to appease the few ultraconservatives that are needed to support the President's other agenda items.

Are there even 5000 national guard troops at the Mexican border, yet? And, if so, what are they really doing to make a difference? It's all window dressing by Washington and we are all suckers for believing that our tax dollars and efforts towards reform havn't been wasted on these silly gimmicks and token gestures from our lawmakers.

We need the kind of meaningful immigration reform and related ENFORCEMENT that reaches us here in Freehold Borough, New Jersey. We need to put a stop to illegal hiring and to prevent people without the proper identification to rent housing. And, we need to overturn the constitutional amendment that makes the children of illegal immigrants American citizens, if they are born here. This would, at least in part, help address the education crisis, that Rich is so passionate about in his post. We don't have to pull small children out of class to help our cause - we can stop their parents at the Mexican border and deny them jobs and housing if they slip by, to have the same effect. In addition, the children of illegal immigrants should remain with their parents on their way home and the best way to accomplish this, humanely, is NOT to consider the American citizens, regardless of where they are born.

Perhaps, what really needs to be challenged by us is the inattentive manner in which our federal government currently conducts business. Our elected officials in Washington absolutely refuse to listen to the people who elected them to office on many topics, not limited to immigration. They do not even seem moved by poll results clearly showing that mainstream America is rabid over illegal immigration.

You want major change? True civil disobedience would be well served by
electing INDEPENDENTS in EVERY CONGRESSIONAL RACE this November. That's right, why not elect a "Jesse Ventura" for every seat in both houses to shake up Washington and send the partisans home to consider their long kist of failures. This is the right approach for revamping our so-called, two-party system and to rid ourselves of the "business as usual" politicians, who have lost touch with mainstream America.

We are headed down the wrong road and, more than ever, voters need to break free of their chains and the genetic programming that compels them to vote according to traditional party affiliation. Let's see...over the years I have personally voted for John Anderson, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader in presidential elections to challenge the status quo.

Risk taking? We are all being challenged by history to take this risk and shake up our government.

Marc