In the seemingly never ending collection of ads that we get in the mail got another one the other day. Now I had said before that what I actually liked and agreed with DeWayne Burns about his stance against school choice (vouchers) and being pro-public education. Seeing this flyer is so disgusting that I have to take it back. As you know, Greg Abbott is against Burns because he didn’t go along with gutting public education, which was a number one agenda of Abbott’s this last session. But apparently the way that Burns has decided to handle it is by being a xenophobic bigot and trying to scare people about the border. That’s really what this flyer is all about, from the brown people (do you see anyone white?) in the pic to the booga-booga “Muslims might get money to have their own school’. And, what ought to be astonishing but is not is that Burns has the nerve to tout how *christian* he is through all of this. Yeah, sure, because purposely using a pic of people whose skin is a different color than yours is So So Holy. Wouldn’t it be better to go run for an elder in his church, where he could set policies to keep people of color out and be among christians who all congratulate each other for their bigotry’?
Greg Abbott wants to deny undocumented immigrants a public education. So does Burns, apparently. But the Federal government does not. And I never thought I would look back and appreciate former governor Rick Perry, but I do, because he said not educating children who came here of no fault of their own is heartless
The funny thing is that Abbott wants to cut down funding for ALL public education students, undocumented or not, in favor of his School *choice* donors.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision Arizona v. U.S. prohibits states, much less school districts, from superseding the federal government’s authority to enforce immigration laws. Abbott has repeatedly challenged this precedent.
The bill would also violate a 1982 Supreme Court decision that ensures free public education to all children, including undocumented children. With Plyer v. Doe, the Supreme Court found that Texas violated the 14th Amendment when it denied undocumented children the equal protection of laws prohibiting discrimination. The court struck down a 1975 Texas Education Code that allowed its school districts to charge undocumented children tuition. …
But Texas has increasingly shirked its responsibility to provide equal public education to all children in Texas—not just immigrant children. For over 10 years, Texas has been reducing its share of contributions to public education, forcing local property taxpayers to shoulder most of the burden. It ranks at the bottom 10 in the nation in per-pupil funding. Abbott would rather use our $33 billion budget surplus for property tax cuts, which would primarily benefit rich property owners, instead of investing that money in schools. His push for vouchers would strip state funding from public schools and dismantle them for the benefit of wealthy privateers.
Abbott’s attempt to deny undocumented children access to public education has nothing to do with concerns over public schools’ limited resources. For years, Texas Republicans have been plotting to defund and privatize our schools. What Abbott’s gambit would do, on the other hand, is have citizens in Texas point their fingers at immigrants—instead of the state—for failing to provide quality public education.
Does THIS sound christian to you? Forget christian, does it sound kind, ethical and inclusive?
And Republicans can no longer claim that they are for guarding the border or that it is someone else’s problem than theirs. History confirms Republicans rejected a once-in-a-lifetime immigration opportunity
As part of a broader spending bill to provide assistance to Ukraine and Israel, the Biden administration proposed significant new funding for immigration enforcement along the southern border. When congressional Republicans proposed adding major changes to asylum standards and other provisions to crack down on the flow of undocumented migrants, for the first time in 20 years, congressional Democrats and a Democratic president agreed to support enforcement legislation without adding legalization provisions.
While the bill is complex, the most important enforcement policies would be a massive change to the very lenient initial asylum standard and investments in asylum case adjudication. The current system using a “credible fear” standard allows the overwhelming majority of cases to proceed even though the vast majority of cases eventually will be denied. Worse, a shortage of immigration judges and related court infrastructure means those eventual denials are coming a half-decade after arrival.
If the goal was to entice undeserving applicants, you couldn’t design a worse combination of policy and resources. In comparison, the bipartisan proposal is designed to deny more cases at the initial stage and get final decisions on all cases in a matter of months.
For immigration hardliners, the moment of leverage had finally arrived: More enforcement without amnesty. However, instead of seizing this likely once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, House Republicans and former President Trump argued that the bill was not the hardliner wish list they preferred and successfully convinced most Senate Republicans to block the bill.
I don’t know why Republicans are such scaredy pants. Do they, as adults, go open their closets at bedtime and peek under the bed for ghouls? I laughed when I saw people in Iowa, IN IOWA, were scared about people coming up south to southern states. Right. Trump in Vegas
While speaking to an animated crowd of backers in Las Vegas, Nev., Trump, the current GOP front-runner, appeared to welcome the potential blame he could face if successfully persuading Republicans in CongresS to tank the bipartisan border security bill.
“As the leader of our party, there is zero chance I will support this horrible open borders betrayal of America,” Trump told his supporters on Saturday. “I’ll fight it all the way. A lot of the senators are trying to say, respectfully, they’re blaming it on me. I say, that’s okay. Please blame it on me. Please.”
Trump joins House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in slamming President Biden who on Friday said he would shut down the U.S.-Mexico border when it “becomes overwhelmed” if Congress manages to pass bipartisan border legislation.
“Let’s be clear,” Biden said in a statement on Friday. “What’s been negotiated would — if passed into law — be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country. It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”
Besides, what kind of sycophants are the Republicans? Rapist Trump says jump and they say How High?
Greg Abbott is not only lying but trying to hype up and scare Texans with the idea that somehow people leaving other countries and coming here is an invasion. It is not and shame on Republicans for trying to do this.
Republican politicians have embraced immigration as a potent political issue. In addition to making conventional arguments that the Biden administration’s border policies are bad and should move voters in the upcoming election to reject both President Joe Biden and Democrats generally, certain Republican state officials and members of Congress have taken to characterizing the increased flow of undocumented migrants as an “invasion” and to claiming that administration policies violate Article IV of the U.S. Constitution which provides that, “The United States shall … protect each [state] against invasion.”
Texas Governor Greg Abbot has used this “invasion” claim to justify open defiance of federal supremacy over control of the national border. And some Republicans pushing impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have alleged that he violated the Constitution by failing to protect the states against the supposed immigrant “invasion” (although the most recent iteration of proposed articles of impeachment against Mayorkas does not rely on the constitutional “invasion” claim, instead claiming that Mayorkas “refused to comply” with federal immigration law, among other arguments).
The causes of and solutions for the current migration surge are fairly debatable. However, the claim that a large increase in the number of would-be migrants gaining entry at the southern border constitutes an “invasion” under Article IV is constitutional nonsense. It cannot be sustained by any reasonable reading of the text of the Constitution, the original understanding of the Constitution, or subsequent interpretations of the Constitution by courts or constitutional scholars.
Again, if they were sincerely sure this was an invasion, they would have pulled out every stop to pass that border bill. They did not, so clowning around shouting at people to scare them is a pathetic way to try to govern. Ask yourself why Republicans feel the need to scare people instead of, um, FIXING things when they have the chance.
Finally, have to say about the “oh, no, Muslims might use tax money to create their own private school”. Look, pretty obvious I’m against school vouchers, but IF they were around and any other religion wanted to be in line for those funds, they could do it. The United States is NOT a christian religion state country. Here’s James Madison.
“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]
And John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen (Muslims) . . .” [Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, written by Joel Barlow, diplomatic agent to the Barbary States, ratified by the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797]
Sigh. Shame that Burns wants to align himself with bigots here and not with the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.) Messenger and Prophet, or Islam in general.
If you’re a bigot and possibly a racist (see the brown skinned pic above) and don’t want your money to go to any religion other than your own, then that’s what you’re doing, but I think it’s a far better reason to be against school choice because it takes money away from public education, which we should all be for, for the purpose of an education citizenry.