are you legal???

[novillero]

don't ask, don't tell. it's ilegal to ask

Districts still asking if kids are citizens
ACLU-NJ finds 20% may be breaking law
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
BY JOHN MOONEY
Star-Ledger Staff
At least one in five New Jersey school districts asked prospective students about their immigration status, possibly in violation of state and federal law, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey said.

Saying they were friends or family, ACLU staff and volunteers surveyed every district in the state for information on how to register a new student. Of the 515 districts that responded, at least 139 said they needed information that disclosed the child's immigration status, the ACLU said.

The results weren't much different from those of a similar survey two years ago, after which the state Department of Education issued warnings that such policies are illegal and all children -- despite their immigration status -- are entitled to public education.

ACLU officials said the number of offending districts may be higher; some districts, they said, appeared to be unclear about their own policies.

"The law is clear, so why are so many schools still illegally requesting this information?" said Nadia Seeratan, the ACLU-NJ attorney who oversaw the study. "The Constitution promises every child in the United States a right to education. Requiring proof of citizenship as a condition of enrollment breaks that promise."

Two dozen districts cited in the 2006 survey were cited again in the latest survey, the ACLU said. Among them were Trenton, Irvington, Middlesex Borough, Old Bridge, Highlands, Mt. Olive and Hackettstown, the ACLU said.

Officials in some of the districts said the problem was more a matter of miscommunication than malfeasance.

"An individual in the district said we asked for that information, when in fact we don't," Hackettstown superintendent Robert Gratz said. "It was a legitimate mistake."

But Gratz said that after revising enrollment forms last time, the district will make sure its staff is aware of the proper process.

Still, state officials said all offending districts would be contacted and ordered to remedy their enrollment process, be it correcting their websites or training staff.

Education Commissioner Lucille Davy "is very disturbed at the large number of school districts that the ACLU says are still doing this, since the districts have repeatedly been told that it is expressly forbidden by law and code," said Kathryn Forsyth, Davy's spokeswoman.

Forsyth said the state would begin monitoring and punitive actions would be considered in the future, including withholding of state aid.

www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1220416550242400.xml&coll=1

[adefonzo]

This is a topic that was brought up on this site over a year ago...and at the time I tried to explain to everyone that the state's laws prohibited a school district from requiring any proof of legal citizenship in order to enroll a child in public schools...this article about the "study" by the ACLU helps to prove that point.

What absolutely shocked me about the article was the quote by Nadia Seeratan when she said, "The Constitution promises every child in the United States a right to education. Requiring proof of citizenship as a condition of enrollment breaks that promise."

Nadia Seeratan is an attorney with the ACLU-NJ and she is misquoting the Constitution of the United States!!! This is a woman who's entire career is supposed to be based around protecting Constitutional rights of all citizens...and she apparently does not know the text of the Constitution!!!

I know...the 14th ammendment is what is commonly thrown out there as the defense for free public education, but the fact of the matter is that there is no wording in the Constitution of the United States of America that "promises every child in the United States a right to education"

I think it is a disgrace when an organization like the ACLU is misquoting the very laws that they are supposedly protecting.

[admin]

Sept 3, 2008 5:57:14 GMT -5 adefonzo said:

This is a topic that was brought up on this site over a year ago...and at the time I tried to explain to everyone that the state's laws prohibited a school district from requiring any proof of legal citizenship in order to enroll a child in public schools...this article about the "study" by the ACLU helps to prove that point.

What absolutely shocked me about the article was the quote by Nadia Seeratan when she said, "The Constitution promises every child in the United States a right to education. Requiring proof of citizenship as a condition of enrollment breaks that promise."

Nadia Seeratan is an attorney with the ACLU-NJ and she is misquoting the Constitution of the United States!!! This is a woman who's entire career is supposed to be based around protecting Constitutional rights of all citizens...and she apparently does not know the text of the Constitution!!!

I know...the 14th ammendment is what is commonly thrown out there as the defense for free public education, but the fact of the matter is that there is no wording in the Constitution of the United States of America that "promises every child in the United States a right to education"

I think it is a disgrace when an organization like the ACLU is misquoting the very laws that they are supposedly protecting.

I remember it well when you enlightened some of us about what the schools can do. I would bet our school system was not on the ACLU list. We would be foolish to make that mistake considering the microscope our town is always under.

Anyway, why such shock at the views of the ACLU? They have not, if ever, been a mainstream group in some time. With a very left leaning, "progressive" view of the world, they are hardly compatible with the real intent of the constitution. If they had their way, we would see much more legislating form the bench, a view that many would view as unconstitutional. This is one of the biggest reasons I vote on a president or other executive branch officer. I believe in constructionist, not progressive approaches and appointments to the bench.

The very concept of education as a right is scary to me. That "right" is costing me a lot of money for something I do not use. Why is it that other peoples rights should cost me so much? Just look at what the Abbot ruling alone has done to education.

I am all for some sort of system that encourages and strives to educate all kids. But, public education is a blessing and a privilege. In context of this article, Freehold is an excellent example of the problems with education as a right. We see a class warfare approach that is far from, fair. Some will say that all people pay property taxes, but that is only part of the picture. A family renting an apartment is not paying what I am. They may have kids in the school system while I do not. In other words, they are not paying our fair share and neither am I.

Illegal immigration is a prime example of why the entire education system has to be challenged.

What is even more disgusting is the very people at our local level who would scream at the top of their lungs , with the ACLU involved, if their "rights" were infringed, barely get involved with and help the schools. Almost all active PTO parents are of the American born ilk. Considering how long the illegal immigrant population has been in this town, it is a very bad reflection of that community that they are not more involved. (And yes, more American born parents should be to.) The cheap excuses as to why the illegals are not involved are getting really old. For a community that demands respect, they are not doing the right things. And Amnesty will not change that! After all, why change when you already have "rights" and strong groups backing that up.

Anyway, it is no secret that I am not a fan of public education in general. Throw in the illegal immigration topic and I just had to go off on my lunatic rant of the day.

[casualreader]

I am so glad Randy Andy DeFonz Dude is back.

No one can make a more passionate and absurd argument than he. And then there is always muddled Brian who objects to paying anything to help anyone else.

So let me see if I have Randy Andy's latest attack on immigrants correct.

We should not educate the children of undocumented immigrants, even if those children are citizens?

Or we should not educate children whose residency status is unclear?

Which is it?

Either way it is another abomination from an elected member of the school board. So Randy Andy's solution is ignorance!

Let us not educate the children we find within our borders so they can grow up without any skills or socialization whatever. Sounds like the DeFonzo dude's education plan will lead to expansion of the already overburdened corrections system.

But, at least the DeFonzo dude will still be able to claim that the immigrants of today are nothing like the immigrants of the past.
He can blame them for criminality and overlook the fact that he does not want to educate them.

Then there is this gem of 19th century thinking from Brian:

The very concept of education as a right is scary to me. That "right" is costing me a lot of money for something I do not use. Why is it that other peoples rights should cost me so much? Just look at what the Abbot ruling alone has done to education.

This would have been a very enlightening debate in the early 19th century before public education became mandatory throughout the United States. It was determined then that you could not have an educated citizenry capable of defending and maintaining democracy if they were illiterate.

So Brian I want to clarify that education is not a privilege but a requirement in every state of the union. You cannot as a parent decide you don't want your child to have an education.

Just because you are childless does not mean you do not have a social responisbility to educate the children of the nation.

My advice to you is to eat out less -- tighten your budget -- and dig deeper for the educational well-being of those around you.

Casually in Favor of Public Education

[admin]

Sept 3, 2008 14:21:15 GMT -5 casualreader said:

I am so glad Randy Andy DeFonz Dude is back.

No one can make a more passionate and absurd argument than he. And then there is always muddled Brian who objects to paying anything to help anyone else.

So let me see if I have Randy Andy's latest attack on immigrants correct.

We should not educate the children of undocumented immigrants, even if those children are citizens?

Or we should not educate children whose residency status is unclear?

Which is it?

Either way it is another abomination from an elected member of the school board. So Randy Andy's solution is ignorance!

Let us not educate the children we find within our borders so they can grow up without any skills or socialization whatever. Sounds like the DeFonzo dude's education plan will lead to expansion of the already overburdened corrections system.

But, at least the DeFonzo dude will still be able to claim that the immigrants of today are nothing like the immigrants of the past.
He can blame them for criminality and overlook the fact that he does not want to educate them.

Then there is this gem of 19th century thinking from Brian:

The very concept of education as a right is scary to me. That "right" is costing me a lot of money for something I do not use. Why is it that other peoples rights should cost me so much? Just look at what the Abbot ruling alone has done to education.

This would have been a very enlightening debate in the early 19th century before public education became mandatory throughout the United States. It was determined then that you could not have an educated citizenry capable of defending and maintaining democracy if they were illiterate.

So Brian I want to clarify that education is not a privilege but a requirement in every state of the union. You cannot as a parent decide you don't want your child to have an education.

Just because you are childless does not mean you do not have a social responisbility to educate the children of the nation.

My advice to you is to eat out less -- tighten your budget -- and dig deeper for the educational well-being of those around you.

Casually in Favor of Public Education

WOW! You twisted Andrews words around pretty good. But, I will speak for myself...

No, I do not believe in public education is as vital as some would believe. If public schools disappeared, kids would still get educated. There are millions of home schooled and private schooled kids who prove that every day.

Believe it or not, though, I am not agauinst public education in theory. I am just against what it has become. I do believe we need a far more fair system that includes people paying their fair share. And I do not apply that to just illegals. I mean that for every one. I do not mind paying something onto public education, it is no different than so many other government services. I just think the system is ay out of control and is costing me too much. Contrary to what you think, I am not responsible for other peoples kids. Parents brought theri kids into the world and it is and should be their repsonsibility to raise them.

AS a parrallel to education, I also believe that is a big part of our health care problems. If people had to pay more of their own fair share, trust me when I say costs would go down and believe it or not, quality need not suffer.

[casualreader]

Well frankly Brian dude -- I think DeFonzi's post is a bit unclear about who should NOT get an education.

I am hoping that when he gets off his bike later this evening he will enlighten us with his righteous indignation.

[adefonzo]

Sept 3, 2008 14:21:15 GMT -5 casualreader said:

I am so glad Randy Andy DeFonz Dude is back.

No one can make a more passionate and absurd argument than he. And then there is always muddled Brian who objects to paying anything to help anyone else.

So let me see if I have Randy Andy's latest attack on immigrants correct.

We should not educate the children of undocumented immigrants, even if those children are citizens?

Or we should not educate children whose residency status is unclear?

Which is it?

Either way it is another abomination from an elected member of the school board. So Randy Andy's solution is ignorance!

Let us not educate the children we find within our borders so they can grow up without any skills or socialization whatever. Sounds like the DeFonzo dude's education plan will lead to expansion of the already overburdened corrections system.

But, at least the DeFonzo dude will still be able to claim that the immigrants of today are nothing like the immigrants of the past.
He can blame them for criminality and overlook the fact that he does not want to educate them.

Then there is this gem of 19th century thinking from Brian:

Ah yes...this is exactly what I did not miss when I left the site...the wonderful, agenda driven folks who come on here, spew their nonsense by twisting words and trying to put words in someones mouth in an effort to paint the person they disagree with in a very negative tone. I mean that's so much easier than, say, dealing with what they actually spoke about and trying to have an intelligent conversation about it. Why do that when we can just fling around a bunch of poop like a group of monkeys?

Casual, you avoid the points of an argument so well, you should run for Mayor or Town Council - you'd fit right in!!

I'll tell you what...you point out where in my post I even mentioned the idea of denying an education to any child in our town, and I'll apologize. Until then, it's not worth my time to try and explain my very clear points to someone who will just continue to refuse to understand them...I hung up my dancing shoes when I left the site.

Casually pulling my "elitist snob" self off the dance floor

[novillero]

Schools told not to spurn illegals
By Heather Appel
The Herald News (Passaic, NJ), September 8, 2008
myheraldnews.com/view.html?type=stories&action=detail&sub_id=43917

Faulted for asking for citizenship proof

Some local school districts are reevaluating their enrollment procedures after the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey found that many improperly asked parents for Social Security numbers or other citizenship documents to enroll their children.

Thirteen Passaic County districts were listed as 'serious offenders' and received letters early last week informing them of federal and state laws that prohibit schools from asking for Social Security information.

Schools may require proof that a child resides in the district, but under a 1982 Supreme Court ruling they are not allowed to request information that would reveal a child's or parent's immigration status. The decision said that all children have a constitutional right to a free public education, regardless of immigration status.

'It's a fundamental principle - and good public policy - that children in kindergarten through 12th grade, regardless of status, have a right to education, which benefits our economy,' said Shai Goldstein, director of the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network.

In July and August, ACLU staff and volunteers surveyed districts around the state about their enrollment requirements. Out of 516 that responded, 139 illegally required information that would reveal the immigration status of students, the ACLU reported. Another 48 suggested that immigration information would be helpful in the registration process.

In releasing its findings, the ACLU also wrote to Education Commissioner Lucille Davy with the survey results and urged her to monitor compliance with the law.

Local districts said they have the correct policies in place, but some individual staff members may not have gotten the message.

Both Paterson and Passaic, districts with large immigrant populations, were reported to have asked for Social Security numbers. Zaida Padilla, an affirmative action officer for the Paterson schools, said staff members are aware that they should not ask for that information. 'If there is any parent that is requested that, we'd like to know about it, and we'll take corrective action right away,' Padilla said.

Passaic Superintendent Robert Holster said he was calling a meeting with the principals and administrators this week to reassure himself that everyone knew the policy. 'Historically, I have made it very clear that we do not ask for immigration status, nor do we ask for a Social Security number as a formality for registration,' Holster said.

North Haledon and Pompton Lakes schools were identified as 'repeat offenders.' They were notified after a similar survey in 2006 that they were violating the law, and then again this year. North Haledon Superintendent Donna Cardiello said her office was surprised by the findings. 'We were looking at our forms and looking at our forms, saying, 'What are we missing here that they're picking up on?'' said Cardiello. The district revised a form for bilingual students that contained a word about citizenship after receiving the letter last week from the ACLU, Cardiello added.

Pompton Lakes administrators did not return calls for comment Friday.

Diana Autin, co-director of the Statewide Parent Advocacy Network, or SPAN, a resource and advocacy center for parents, said her organization received calls from some parents earlier in the year about what they are required to provide to the schools. In many cases, parents don't know who to ask for help, Autin said, and that may hinder their access to the public schools.

'Undocumented immigrant parents aren't going to call anybody,' Autin said. 'They're just going to be intimidated and afraid, and they're going to walk away.'

In most districts, the problem was not the forms, said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ executive director. When volunteers called to find out how to register a student, the person who answered the phone often gave wrong information. In Ringwood, for example, a secretary answered and told the caller she 'should absolutely bring immigration papers,' Jacobs said.

Ringwood Superintendent Patrick Martin said he was frustrated that the letter from the ACLU did not specify the source of the problem, but said that 'if in any way there's a misstep and somebody brings it to our attention, we quickly work to correct it.'

Jacobs said her office has heard from many superintendents, wanting to know where the breakdown in communication happened. ACLU staff were able to share with those administrators more detailed information on the date they called and whom they spoke to.

'When administrators say, 'We don't really know where the problem lies,' it's very clear to me that the problem lies in training the people who respond to these questions,' Jacobs said. 'If you don't know the answer to these questions, you shouldn't answer.'

Goldstein said it was troubling that so many districts were not complying with the law.

'This is not something new,' Goldstein said, 'And that there are still districts engaged in the practice is cause for concern, even if just one district is doing it.'

Goldstein said he hoped the New Jersey Department of Education would step up its enforcement of the law and explore sanctions against districts that violate it.

Kathryn Forsyth, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, said the commissioner was sending letters to all the districts identified as violating the law, telling them to 'cease immediately.' The department plans to monitor the districts' behavior itself and may consider withholding state aid to districts that don't comply with the law, Forsyth said.