texas new education policy

Post Reply New Topic

We guarantee access to schools supported by plundering the tax payers and we are still headed for economic disaster.

ruveyn

Education does not work. It does not make people smarter.

It has become the kiddie prison and propaganda machine.

A degree, from High School, University, prepares you for nothing.

It is only a show of conformity to the social structure.

It is a way to break livestock into pulling someone else's plow.

How did you learn your first language? It was by means of some type of education. Not all education is self education. Sometime you have to learn stuff from other people.

ruveyn

If the shoe was on the other foot they would of done the same thing and they have in other parts of the country. It's a joke that public education is so politicized from both sides of the spectrum. Everybody has an agenda it seems. Maybe it'll balance it's self out since most teachers are left leaning.

Maybe I just went to a crappy inner city public school but we didn't really cover Thomas Jefferson or John Calvin in any detail.

The scary thing really is, the new text books from Texas may possibly influence the teaching of history in public schools all around the country. I only hope and pray the rest of the country - or at least the blue states - will have enough sense to resist this reactionary imbecility.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The influence of the Republic of Texas on school books exists because the board in Texas controls such a large volume of purchases. It is a matter of wallet.

ruveyn

He is the link to the Japanese on Wikipedia: Japanese history textbook controversies. States cannot make up there own Immigration laws and also those dumb Arizonians want to deny Citizenship to people born to illegal immigrants which violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

I haven't really noticed any liberal ideals being taught in school, just verification of evolution in my biology class and of the separation between church and state in my government class. Abortion was also mentioned, but mainly in the context of when and how it became legal, and nothing else. The textbooks my classes used mentioned close to nothing about homosexuality. I would say that the curriculum of my classes was more moderate than anything.

No laws are being made up, the 14th states born here and subject to the jursdiction of, which the children of people from other nations are not. If you are legal, come on a tourist visa, and have a child in the US, the child is not an American.

The law in use since 1952, which updated an earlier law that said the same, "If one parent is an American, and has resided in America for five years after turning sixteen, the child is an American."

Non Citizens can gain no rights by having a child. The child is subject to the same jursdiction as the parents. Having an American birth certificate does not make a Citizen. That is why the nationality of the parents is on the birth certificate.

That birth certificate will not get you a Passport.

There is no legal problem with asking if someone is a citizen, here on a legal visa, and in Mexico not being legal will get you an automatic two years in jail, then deported. To rent a hotel room you have to show your visa.

A six foot six Arab on a camel with an AK-47 in south Texas is not given the benefit of doubt of being an American. Questions are in order.

Citizenship can not be stolen in the night.

The states do not have authority to dictate exactly how Federal laws are enforced. If they did, the local marshals and FBI offices in my state would spend one heck of a lot less time prosecuting people for growing a few pounds of pot.

Arizona's law requiring all citizens to carry their papers with them at all times, just in case they might be suspected of being illegals while walking down the street, violates this provision. It arrogates to the individual state a right guaranteed to the Federal government by the 14th Amendment. Further, as it addresses a specific class of people (unlawful immigrants, as distinct from other persons violating laws), and prescribes a penalty for them, this law may qualify as a Bill of Attainder, which power is prohibited to the states by Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.

The only penalty is being referred to Federal Immigration.

State and local cops will bust you for pot.

You can tell the police you refuse to show ID, go ahead, it is your right.

Being in the country illegally also means being in the State illegally, and that is a State issue.

Now when States start deporting people, you might have a case.

As States collect income tax, and unemployment, workmans comp, they do have a right to regulate illegal employment.

This has nothing to do with the 14th, which is about natural born subject to the jursdiction of the United States, these people and their children are subject to the jursdiction of other countries.

In the State of New Jersey, if a law officer or duly appointed court official asks one to identify himself (provide name and address if one has one), he is legally obliged to do so.

Name, rank, serial number.

ruveyn

America was never meant to be a "country".

America started as 13 different countries with their own laws and taxes. They formed an association of countries similar to the European Union for the purpose of free trade and mutual defense.

In the Constitution it says that any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government is illegal.

Most of the things that the Federal Government does are unconstitutional.

Alll Rights not granted to the Federal Government, or to the several States, are hearby reserved to the People of the United States.

The People reserve the right to change the form of Government at any time, by a simple majority vote.

The majority of the People are demanding that the undocumented are deported. It is the existing law, this year we are on track for 600,000 deported, and it is the duty of the Federal Government to do so.

They are not Citizens, their children are not Citizens, they are breaking a lot of our laws.

I had heard about this so-called revision to the Texas history books and one think I found appalling was how the Texas board of education chose to revamp the word slavery and instead call it the Atlantic trade, how absurd for it was simple slavery and one should deem it as such then again, some people wish not to have a memory of such nor be reminded so I guess some people simply change history in their own way to erase such.. Lastly, I find the whole think nutty indeed..

Your interpretation of statute is not consistent with the application of citizenship law in the United States. Every person within the borders of the United States is subject to her jurisdiction, except for those persons who are specifically excluded by law. These are limited to foreign diplomats, consuls and internationally protected persons (e.g. the Secretary General of the United Nations). A child born to one of these classes of persons is excluded from citizenship, but every other child born within the United States is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.

While there is some question about the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment and about various formulations of nationality law, the principles of statutory interpretation are limited to the four corners of the statute concerned. What matters is not what one or another legislator believed the statute to mean, but what words are actually in the statute. Since a person illegally in the United States cannot claim to be immune from the application of United States law, it is a straightforward assertion that the same person is, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.



The state of the law prior to the enactment of the existing legislation is irrelevant, except for the cases of persons born while that precursor legislation was in force.



Only partially correct. While no rights attach to the parents of a child born in the United States, and while that child might be a national by derivation of its parents country of nationality (for example, people who are Canadian citizens by derivation cannot confer citizenship on their children born outside of Canada). The balance of your assertion is incorrect.



Actually, that is precisely the document that will get you passport. That is why Arizona legislators are now trying to figure out a way to withhold birth certificates from children whose parents do not have valid immigration status.



There is a legal problem if a person does not have the legal authority to demand production of identification. I am perfectly entitled to refuse to identify myself, my nationality or my immigration status to a private individual who approaches me and demands that of me. I am not entitled to refuse to do so when asked by an officer of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. The constitutional question that will have to be answered is whether I would be obliged to submit to the demand from a peace officer in the employ of a state.

The practices of Mexico are not relevant.



Leaving aside the irrelevance of a subject's height, the unlikely presence of a camel, and the far more cogent questions arising from the presence of an AK-47, your statement regarding the presumption of the law is correct. But that presumption applies to every, single individual within the United States, regardless of their age, race and sex.