John Young’s heart in the right place while board member Evan’s head up ass!

That specifically is what board member George Evans objected to. He had several concerns about the resolution, not least of which it would place district staff and administrators “in the line of fire” by asking them to deny requests made by federal agents.

“It takes a position to present a demand or obstacles to federal officials who may want to take some action either at a school or something along those lines,” he said, adding, “That’s not the way the law works.”

He wanted the resolution to be vetted by the district’s lawyers or edited down substantially. He also wished to remove parts of the resolution that told staff not to ask about families immigration status, calling it “censorship.”

First I like to said, I am skeptical of this board resolution feeling its nothing more than an attack on the President of The United States. But same could be said of board members opposing Race to The Top. HOWEVER, I know John Young and he is sincere and is truly concerned for all children. Personal I take issue with those in this country illegally! But I’ll set that aside.

On to board member Evans. His opinion is his but in my opinion its full of shit! All school district should protect student records! If state or federal law enforcement or agencies want access the should be required to produce a warrant! The only obstacle present would be those individuals not following due process!

Undocumented children even if illegal immigrants should stay out of the fight. The Criminal process should start with illegal parents. Therefore, if law enforcement or the federal government wants to hang school records as bases for probably cause for criminal action then we have a more serious problem in this county with our Constitution. Mr. Evans, the law is to work using the law and due process. Should children be afford less than a biker club when it come to legal due process?  

Children of illegal parents aren’t criminals! Also, Delaware law does not prohibit children of illegal parents for receiving public education! I wonder, should the same government agents have access to employees and administration records without following due process?

Mr. Young’s harmless resolution has open a can worms! Does the district freely disturb student file information without following legal due process? Would Mr. Evans feel the same if the witch-hunt was on African-Americans associated with Black Lives Matter? Would Mr. Evan step aside allowing free access to student records! Did Mr. Evans take the same school board member oath as Mr. Young? I believe there is something about the State and U.S. Constitution in that oath and nothing within suggest government is exempt from provision within. Therefore, school board members are obligated to protect the rights of school children within their district! Interesting! 

Advertisements

13 responses to “John Young’s heart in the right place while board member Evan’s head up ass!

  1. “Mr. Young’s harmless resolution has open a can worms!”
    1. The resolution is not harmless. It commits a district to continue to assign resources to students, who may or may not have legal rights to the services provided by the legal residents of the community.
    2. The resolution commits or attempts to commit the district to openly defy Federal immigration law.
    3. The resolution sides with a partisan court decision Plyler vs. Poe which places districts, states and federal law in an incongruent situation.
    While children here illegally may not have initiated the criminal act of illegally crossing the U.S. border (their parents or relatives did), their presence does in fact, place an undue burden on the LIMITED RESOURCES(schools), paid for by legal citizens. If the children or families are undocumented, what is being used to allow their entrance into the school. Doesn’t the school request some form of identification to place the child in school?? Birth certificate-from where? Drivers license? – issued to illegal residents? Why would we issue legal documents to people or children who are not legally here? Wait, Governor’s like Markel and Gerry Brown did just this. Hmmm, connecting the dots now voters?? Granting legal documents to illegal residents grants them legal status. See the conundrum? Your public institutions, your school board members, your mayors, your former POS POTUS and your governors are or are attempting to ENABLE ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR.
    Should drug addicts be enabled to buy more drugs?
    Should physical abusers be enabled to commit more abuse?
    Should child abusers be enabled to commit abuse again?
    Should individuals who cross a country’s border illegally be enabled to live normal lives?
    Well, if you answer YES to the first 3 then I guess you’d answer YES to the fourth. If you answered NO to the first 3, you should be answering NO to fourth. That is not what John Young’s proposal or the Plyler vs. Doe case does. It is incongruent with the rule of law and incongruent with the rights of citizens.

    Like

    • “Elizabeth, I have to ask, how is it you feel comfortable in suggesting that states/ districts should be allowed to provide sanctuary from our federal laws?”

      MRyder, as kindly as I tried to defend your right to free speech, I have my own right to believe that laws are sometimes inhumane and in some cases need to be amended. I do not object to removing those who have entered our borders illegally. I object to Immigration coming into a school and attempting to talk to a child or take other actions with a child absent that child’s parent. Some children simply don’t know that they are here illegally. The process of removing these children and returning them to homelands they have never known or cannot remember will be emotionally devastating in and of itself. We should in the very least, as humanitarians ensure that a parent is with their child during the process wherever it begins.

      Furthermore, the same federal laws that you enjoy and wish to protect as are, prevent school officials from requesting any information from families. Schools and their building leadership do NOT know who is legal and who is not. Thus a school leader cannot verify immigration information when ICE comes knocking. There can be no margin of error in processes such as these that concern children. Yet, federal law literally ensures that there will be opportunity for error.

      You also wrote: “Sincerely, what laws should be enforced and what laws shouldn’t? Who should decide that? You, Me, JK?”

      I can give you a list of laws I would like to see enacted, starting with granting legal status to all immigrants within our borders today and then promptly closing illegal entrances. The benefits are two-fold – it puts immigrants to work legally, to pay into the system from which they and their children are already receiving benefits and makes them known to US officials, such as Homeland Security, who can now hold immigrants here in bad faith to our country’s punitive and corrective system. Legalizing them also drains the swamp.

      You write, “My point is you are advocating that the state should not have to abide by other laws under the umbrella of the U.S. government.”

      I am by far not the first to advocate that the federal laws do not reflect the will of the people in some states. I will bring your attention to marijuana which is federally illegal yet Alaska, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington have passed laws legalizing both the sale and possession of both medicinal and recreational pot. Granting asylum to all ilegals could be likened to the decisions of these forward thinking states who now profiting on the sale of a federally illegal drug.

      You took issue with my statement “What CSD and all Delaware school districts need is legislation that affirms that churches and schools are sanctuaries from immigration officials,” and proceeded to add “We are all Americans (at least the ones legally here) and you are attempting to advance the opinion that districts should be allowed to shield people that have broken U.S. sovereignty laws. Do you understand why this is objectionable to some?”

      Yes, I do understand why this is objectionable for some. Fortunately, I’m not running for office – unlike the incumbent in CSD Nominating G who up for re-election in May. You are correct in that I want to advance the opinion that while CHILDREN whose parents have broken the law, who are on school campus, should be shielded until united with a parent. It is that legislation that I would like to come to fruition.

      You also wrote: “I am not being racist or anti-immigrant. I am being rational when certain individuals are contemplating giving away other people’s resources for the benefit of non-legal residents. If I were to come into your home, take your belongings and give them away, would you accept that? I doubt you would be comfortable with that but that sounds like what you want the districts to do.” I believe I have already covered this topic. Good attempt to pivot, though.

      You’ve shared: “And as far as refugees go, how comfortable are you of letting in people who do not respect your way of life or worse, threaten your society, neighborhood, and friends. This is NOT fear mongering, it is fact and yet doesn’t seem to factor into your opinion of whether Refugees be allowed into our state. http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/swedish-rape-crisis-boils-over-as-media-stays-silent/ Do you want this to happen here? What makes America different that Syrian Refugees wouldn’t do the same thing here? Again, this isn’t fear mongering, it is a concern for our country, our neighbors, our loved ones and our way of life, from people whose culture is far different than ours. I am not willing to endanger you, my neighbor, my family or even JK for a group of people who do not share our values and in some cases seek to take advantage of our goodwill. How many people did it take to plan and commit the Boston Marathon bombing? How many people are you willing to sacrifice or put in harms way for a ‘feel good’ emotion of letting refugees in?

      I read your link. I’d like to introduce to mine and some specific text to speed things along: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/11/are-migrants-really-raping-swedish-women.html In this story, it is written ” Indeed, according to official statistics on file with The Swedish Crime Survey, the sexual violence rate in Sweden has remained about the same between 2005 and 2014. In fact, it actually decreased by .3 percent between 2013 and 2014. That said, the country has the highest rate of rape in Europe, a statistic that has been partially attributed to both Swedish law, wherein rape is given a wider definition than in other countries, as well as a higher tendency among women to report the crimes to the police.” If you follow the link, you find a much deeper and more accurate evaluation of the sexual assault culture in Sweden.

      Actually, the United States is per capita the country with the highest rape/sexual rate in the world. One could easily twist this data and say that refugees and immigrants are putting themselves in greater danger by entering our country legally or not.

      Lastly, you wrote : “I trust you can appreciate that my concern is for our state, our communities and DE residents from the actions of the politically correct. It is not from some twisted ad hominem attack by JK.”

      I have no opinion of JK. Beyond that, I appreciate your concern for your fellow Americans. I only wish that we as Americans would set the standard treat deportation with humanity.

      Like

  2. Should idiotic, brow-beating. hate-mongering racists be allowed to continue posting inane, off-topic comments that distract attention from the reality of an important issue and are intended to convince fellow fear-mongering bigots that their cause is “just” and “patriotic”?
    John Kowalko

    Like

  3. JK – I don’t comment much anymore. But, “idiotic, brow-beating, hate-mongering racists” who post “inane, off-topic comments that distract attention from the reality of important issue” have the same right to free speech as you and me – the non-idiotic, non-brow-beating, non-hate-mongering racists – so long as their speech does not impinge on our other constitutional rights.

    I sincerely hope JY’s resolution comes back as a vetted board policy. Schools like churches should be treated as sanctuaries. While there is no formal law that affirms churches as sanctuaries, it has consistently been a practice to not involve faith in state/federal issues due to the constitutional promise of the separation between church and state. What CSD and all Delaware school districts need is legislation that affirms that churches and schools are sanctuaries from immigration officials. Both should be strongholds that protect our children from aggressive efforts to “drain the swamp” of illegal immigrants. Alternatively, Gov. Carney could re-affirm fmr. Gov. Markell’s 2015 statement that Delaware will welcome refugees.

    Regardless of where they are born, children should always be a protected class.

    Like

    • Elizabeth, I have to ask, how is it you feel comfortable in suggesting that states/ districts should be allowed to provide sanctuary from our federal laws? Sincerely, what laws should be enforced and what laws shouldn’t? Who should decide that? You, Me, JK? My point is you are advocating that the state should not have to abide by other laws under the umbrella of the U.S. government.
      “What CSD and all Delaware school districts need is legislation that affirms that churches and schools are sanctuaries from immigration officials.”
      We are all Americans (at least the ones legally here) and you are attempting to advance the opinion that districts should be allowed to shield people that have broken U.S. sovereignty laws. Do you understand why this is objectionable to some? I am not being racist or anti-immigrant. I am being rational when certain individuals are contemplating giving away other people’s resources for the benefit of non-legal residents. If I were to come into your home, take your belongings and give them away, would you accept that? I doubt you would be comfortable with that but that sounds like what you want the districts to do.

      And as far as refugees go, how comfortable are you of letting in people who do not respect your way of life or worse, threaten your society, neighborhood, and friends. This is NOT fear mongering, it is fact and yet doesn’t seem to factor into your opinion of whether Refugees be allowed into our state.
      http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/swedish-rape-crisis-boils-over-as-media-stays-silent/
      Do you want this to happen here? What makes America different that Syrian Refugees wouldn’t do the same thing here? Again, this isn’t fear mongering, it is a concern for our country, our neighbors, our loved ones and our way of life, from people whose culture is far different than ours. I am not willing to endanger you, my neighbor, my family or even JK for a group of people who do not share our values and in some cases seek to take advantage of our goodwill. How many people did it take to plan and commit the Boston Marathon bombing? How many people are you willing to sacrifice or put in harms way for a ‘feel good’ emotion of letting refugees in?

      I trust you can appreciate that my concern is for our state, our communities and DE residents from the actions of the politically correct. It is not from some twisted ad hominem attack by JK.

      Like

  4. Merely a rhetorical question for M Ryder although he’ll probably need to google “rhetorical”
    John K.

    Like

  5. If it isn’t the fluffy haired one, back again. As offensive and insulting as ever.

    JK you clearly are part of the subversive group who chooses to overgeneralize, defame, and attack via ad hominem rather than address the real issues. Returning the compliment, you’ll probably have to look “ad-hominem” up. Were any of your friends the ones who rioted in DC and trashed the Starbucks and bank? I would expect better from a legislator but then again you have clearly displayed you do not represent a ‘normal’ legislator. You are a fringe element more akin to a socialist than a defender of democracy. Your vicious and inane adjectives only drive home that on the issues, you are wrong and inappropriate but keep spewing them. Maybe someday voters will finally see the absurdity of you in office.

    1. & 2. Establishing a district as a ‘sanctuary’ or as a defender of residents who are here illegally, runs contrary to the rule of law. Please explain how it is complying with the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., they are foreigners so they cannot be citizens), are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person (citizen) of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person(citizen) within its jurisdiction (being in the U.S. illegally means they are NOT within the jurisdiction of U.S. law) the equal protection of the laws.

    http://www.cairco.org/book/export/html/267
    “The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense.”

    -If the state or district is depriving its ‘citizens’ of educational resources (by using them to educate non citizens), are they not abridging citizens rights? Are they not depriving citizens of their property? (tax revenue)

    3.Plyler vs. Poe puts states/ districts in direct conflict with the 14th amendment. This means the decision is bad law. Not that that doesn’t stop people like yourself, JK, and others from demanding bad law be followed, it just means you only want to follow laws that you agree with. Judges, legislating from the bench is strictly a left wing tool to avoid getting representatives from passing appropriate legislation.

    Like

  6. My thoughts exactly Elizabeth:” I can give you a list of laws I would like to see enacted, starting with granting legal status to all immigrants within our borders today and then promptly closing illegal entrances. The benefits are two-fold – it puts immigrants to work legally, to pay into the system from which they and their children are already receiving benefits and makes them known to US officials, such as Homeland Security, who can now hold immigrants here in bad faith to our country’s punitive and corrective system. Legalizing them also drains the swamp.”- Elizabeth

    JK, questioning who can post comments here?? I’m pretty sure your comments have proven a long time ago that the bar is set pretty damn low

    Like

  7. Pencadermom,
    I’d suggest you take a reading comprehension course if you interpret my comment as “questioning WHO can post comments here?”
    Representative John Kowalko

    Like

  8. LOL. Ok I’ll rephrase it… JK, questioning WHAT can be posted here?? I’m pretty sure your comments have proven a long time ago that the bar is set pretty damn low. Better?

    Like

  9. Wizard of Oz parallel:
    Pay no attention to the fuzzy haired one behind the curtain, …. As an individual who has been privy to all the state budgets for roughly 12 years, and along with his other blue representatives, submits Union supporting budget busting letters to the NJ, he just doesn’t like a meager little ankle biting dog like myself exposing him behind all the bluster and pomposity. He’d much rather cloak himself in the cape of a so called justice defender, rather than be fiscally responsible with state coffers. His gaggle of sycophants are far more agreeable than ankle biters and they too like spending other peoples money, then disappear like Joey Wise when it comes time to pay the check.
    JK, how about doing the taxpayers a ‘solid’ and spearhead a BINDING state wide school and governmental efficiency / cost cutting commission that cuts all the waste, kills prevailing wage, and consolidates school districts? Guess what would happen to the budget? You’d end up with a toxic word to democrats, ‘surplus’. No you won’t do that, you’ll raise the gas tax, raise the tolls, raise property taxes, raise city wage taxes, and take more and more of contributors money to keep the state blue. The playbook is already written and foolish blue voters keep electing people like Hansen and JK hoping some ‘magic’ will appear to correct their instinctual governmental misfeasance AND nonfeasance.

    Go ahead John, Pontificate some more and bestow more insults to show your superiority to the plebeians of Delaware. Enlighten us with new forms of gutter mouth you’ve concocted in the bowels of the legislative chamber. Always nice to hear how you fight for the underdogs but bully constituents who you disagree with.

    Like

  10. One other thought here, just so we all recognize what some members of the CSD board were proposing.
    They have proposed not cooperating with the Federal gov’t on issues related to identifying students / parents who may be here illegally.
    They are proposing to NOT cooperate with the Federal gov’t (who supplies them funding) in the federal efforts to insure that CITIZENS’ children are receiving education that CITIZENS’ children are ‘entitled’ to.
    This means they are attempting to insure students, who may not be entitled to educational services, receive educational services.
    By contrast, this is the same district that was WITHHOLDING FUNDING from charter schools where some students choose to receive educational services.

    Everyone see the irony? Defend students’ resources (even when they may not be entitled to them) when it serves the particular board member’s political/ financial interests. Claim it is ‘for the children’. BUT, deny charter student children resources when it is in opposition to the board member’s political/ financial interests. We are still talking about children in the district, difference is just ‘whose’ children CSD’s board wants to facilitate the education of. It really isn’t about ‘the children’ and that is the criminal aspect to this charter/ TPS fight. One more clarification it isn’t about ‘ALL children’, it’s about ‘SOME children’. It is about protecting turf. It is about protecting influence and protecting a public school ‘system’ that has been lobotomized by the conflicted legislators and unions that depend on it for a revenue stream.

    Like

  11. “Every child deserves a world class education, no matter the child’s background or immigration status.” said JY.

    OMG, JY you are truly in a class by yourself that your high moral turpitude can so twist the facts: that this thinking is: what has lead to a state budget 400 million in the hole, what has lead a district to believe it offers ‘world class education’ while thousands of students leave to go to alternative schools, what has lead the district to perceive a students ‘right’ to receive taxpayer funded services TRUMPS whether or not they are in the country ILLEGALLY

    NJ article out today identifying CSD is again stipulating what CSD should or shouldn’t do in the case of an ICE investigation. Attempting to clarify whether or not State school staff should or shouldn’t cooperate, support or comply with Federal investigators in their efforts to identify and remove children/ parents who are in the country / state ILLEGALLY.

    A school district, which is receiving millions of dollars from the Federal gov’t, is attempting to create a situation where they will not, willingly, cooperate with the Federal gov’t in the Federal gov’t’s efforts to enforce immigration law. The district is attempting to figuratively, go limp/ dead fish, with a federal agency that is part of the administration which is paying a large part of the bills in the district. It would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that it is completely in line with the other backward decisions the district has made. Biting the hand that feeds comes to mind but who will ultimately pay if the district pursues this? The taxpayer of course. If the Feds withhold funds, WHICH THEY SHOULD, if CSD pursues this, would ultimately mean our district’s legal students/ parents would pay the price for the utterly retarded logic of defending illegal immigrants over the legal students.

    Again, the most agregious point in this is that CSD is attempting to shield, or make it as difficult as possible, to get to ILLEGAL students & their families. Which means they are protecting expenditures to students who are ineligible to receive them, while denying expenditures to some students who are legally ENTITLED to them. Pot meet kettle. When’s the next referendum that is ‘All about the kids’? Should we support a referendum when the district lacks funds, when funds were redirected to students/ resources, that were ineligible to receive them? They might not need a referendum or ESL programs if all the students were here Legally.

    Like