US SC dismisses English-deficient student's case

[Evangeline]

Of course the decison, as usual was 5 to 4. The 5 conservative Judges don't want to make sure non-English speaking students get all the help they need to learn English. The 4 liberal (sort of) Judges think they should.

I don't understand conservative thinking. They say everyone has to learn English. They even want English to be the official and legal language of the USA. But when it comes to making sure schools are funded in order to teach children English, they refuse to do it.

It's such a case of have your cake and eat it too. Conservatives make it impossible for liberals to do what needs to be done to make this a better country.

WTF?

Alito was backed by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
But in a lengthy dissent -- parts of which were read from the bench -- Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling was "misguided," calling it "a mistaken effort to drive a wedge between review of funding plan changes and review of changes that would bring the state into compliance with federal law." He was backed by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/25/nogales.english.language.suit/

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-289.pdf

http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2009/06/horne-v-flores-no-08-289.html

[Michael]

I'm not opposed to the majority opinion in this case.

I consider it part of the disfunctional immigration policy issue.

It is unreasonable for the Federal government to insist on various treatments of immigrants (the very high cost of teaching them English and providing specific language services to assist them) and expect other jurisdictions that have ZERO control over the issue to pay for it.

That is to say, the disfunctional US immigration policy that results in huge waves of illegal latino immigrants pouring into the Southwest is made in Washington - but the monetary cost of dealing with the problems is borne by local jurisdictions.

This issue is a very common one. It all boils down to 'who should pay for it?'

And I do find it very difficult to have any sympathy at all for illegal immigrants who can't speak English. I fail to see how the state has any obligation here at all. How is the state to be held responsible for the educational failings of any given student? The failure of any given student isn't necessarily caused by a funding shortage.

[Michael]

I might add that SCOTUS came down with a suprising 8:1 decision last week as well - one that defended the powers of the voting rights act in the most expansive way possible (only Thomas dissented).

In other words, the present makeup of SCOTUS may be a tough barrier to liberal progressivism, but I do think they do a decent job on a majority of cases.

Remember that SCOTUS can only read the law. They cannot make law unless the law is there for them to make.

If you don't like SCOTUS decisions, change the laws.

[Birdzeye]

When I was 12 yo, my father took a job in Argentina. Even though I started getting Spanish lessons before we moved, I still couldn't speak Spanish well enough to "get around" when we arrived. It was pretty much learning by total immersion for all the family.

We got a lot of help along the way from English speaking people in the town, but we learned the language eventually.

While I have no sympathy for illegal immigrants, I do have sympathy for the legal immigrants who are struggling with English. How much help they should get from the local schools and governments is debatable, I guess, but because of my own experience as an "immigrant," I'd like to see that they (at least the legals) get some help in learning the language here.

[Americano]

When I was 12 yo, my father took a job in Argentina. Even though I started getting Spanish lessons before we moved, I still couldn't speak Spanish well enough to "get around" when we arrived. It was pretty much learning by total immersion for all the family.

We got a lot of help along the way from English speaking people in the town, but we learned the language eventually.

While I have no sympathy for illegal immigrants, I do have sympathy for the legal immigrants who are struggling with English. How much help they should get from the local schools and governments is debatable, I guess, but because of my own experience as an "immigrant," I'd like to see that they (at least the legals) get some help in learning the language here.

The only difference I've ever been able to determine between legal and illegal immigrants in the US is the legals having education levels or other assets which equate into political clout to make the cut. Illegals are attracted for the same reasons, a far better standard of living than in their native countries but without legal protection.

If the US economy hadn't required low-cost illegal labor to keep local labor intensive jobs, IMO federal resources would have been immediately thrown at the perceived problem. Enforcement, currently based on the snitch system of busting employers employing illegal immigrants employed by corporate entities who can import the current domestic production by illegals with acceptable margin (government regulation to benefit special interests), didn't begin until the US economy tanked.

The US is still a leader in technology origination. To enact a viable guest worker program was and is certainly within our means. But why do that now when Americans are/will be seeking jobs they once scorned? The US immigrant issue is much deeper than language. The US is broke and education of non-English speaking children, legal or illegal, is a no-brainer political cut that few 'real Americans' (sarcasm) will argue.

I could use Dominick on this subject. I'm now the only true cynic forum member.

[Lily]

Anthony Bourdain, my favorite cynical chef/writer/commentator, once remarked that if illegal immigrants were driven out of New York City, no diner would ever get a decent meal again.

I live in an agriculurally rich area of Florida. The family of an EMT with whom I work, owns a very large farm here. They use quite a few "hispanic workers" during the harvest, most illegal, I would guess. I asked her with the economy so bad why some of the locals couldn't do the work. She laughed. "None of these boys would be caught dead working the fields," she said. I suspect wages had something do with that. She agreed. "We pay them a fair wage, but that's it," she said. "You think Americans would work all day for that and no other benefits? It's hard work."

A fair wage. Somehow, I doubt that, but I didn't argue.

What is debatable is the cost to farmers of employing legal workers, paying them a fair wage, and what that would do to the cost of food in the grocery stores and retail outlets such as fast food. According to the Coalition of Immokalee (Fla) Workers (CIW), a group that staged a four-year boycott of Taco Bell over tomatoes and has won an increase in pay for its workers, its not the farmers who are up in arms but the huge conglomerates that buy the products, groups such as Burger King that is owned in part by Goldman Sachs and Texas Pacific Group.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/93183/farmworkers_beat_burger_king,_but_face_resistance_ from_growers/

According to a Seattle Times article, low-cost wages among illegal farm workers have little impact on retail produce prices. The paper cites the work of two Ohio State University agricultural economists who studied a wide range of produce prices. They concluded that by eliminating illegal workers, some produce prices would spike in the short term while others would see a minimal bump in prices.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003265139_imprices19.html

The sources above resulted from a quick google search and are by no means comprehensive. I wonder, though, the true costs of trying to eliminate all illegal immigrants from the U.S. workforce. I come back to the EMT whose family owns a farm. If they were to stop employing all illegal immigrants, offer minimum wage and better working conditions, would that business attract local and legal workers? I truly have doubts.

[Michael]

If you are concerned about the 'cost' of food, government subsidies are the overwhelming factor.

In the USA, there are at present no fewer than 10 direct and 10 indirect programs of agricultural subsidies. In absolute numbers, US agricultural subsidies reached today an amount of US$ 150 billion for a total agricultural production of US$ 128 billion, which makes subsidies represent 115% of the effective production. These stunning numbers signify that the USA has long ceased being a market economy in the agricultural sector.

According to the Heritage Foundation the cost is: a total of $190 billion in taxes on American families and an additional burden of $271 billion in inflated food prices.

Source (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/10/23/afx4249139.html)

I'm thinking that if one is concerned about food prices, the wages paid to illegal workers is probably miniscule compared to the effect of government subsidies.

[Americano]

If you are concerned about the 'cost' of food, government subsidies are the overwhelming factor.



Source (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/10/23/afx4249139.html)

I'm thinking that if one is concerned about food prices, the wages paid to illegal workers is probably miniscule compared to the effect of government subsidies.

As I recall, with the exception of sugar, a majority of subsidies go to mechanized farming where manual labor, legal or illegal, isn't a factor, big ag. Subsidized, exported US corn has been destroying small Mexican and S. American farmers.

[Michael]

Agricultural subsidies is a great topic for discussion. :)

Unfortunately, it isn't the topic of this thread.

[Americano]

Agricultural subsidies is a great topic for discussion. :)

Unfortunately, it isn't the topic of this thread.

If subsidized big ag required illegal, non-English speaking labor I'd think the topic would be increased education funds for non-English speaking students.

[Michael]

The only difference I've ever been able to determine between legal and illegal immigrants in the US is the legals having education levels or other assets which equate into political clout to make the cut. Illegals are attracted for the same reasons, a far better standard of living than in their native countries but without legal protection.
The difference between "legals" and "illegals" in the USA is purely political.

If the US economy hadn't required low-cost illegal labor to keep local labor intensive jobs, IMO federal resources would have been immediately thrown at the perceived problem. Enforcement, currently based on the snitch system of busting employers employing illegal immigrants employed by corporate entities who can import the current domestic production by illegals with acceptable margin (government regulation to benefit special interests), didn't begin until the US economy tanked.
As a general rule, the US Government has never been very active at all in applying any legal punishments upon large-scale employers of illegal labor.

As far as I understand, the data shows that the US Government devotes most of its resources in this sector to harrassing the illegal laborers themselves (money spent patrolling the southern border as well as rounding up illegals and deporting them).

The US is still a leader in technology origination. To enact a viable guest worker program was and is certainly within our means. But why do that now when Americans are/will be seeking jobs they once scorned? The US immigrant issue is much deeper than language. The US is broke and education of non-English speaking children, legal or illegal, is a no-brainer political cut that few 'real Americans' (sarcasm) will argue.

Yes, this is generally true, though the US 'lead' in technology origination is becoming increasingly dependent upon imported foreign labor.

The employer-invited guest-worker H1 visa (a backbone of Silicon Valley) accounts for approximately 10% of actual annual legal immigration. The high technology and research companies insist that they will be killed if you close this window for importing PhD's.

Btw, US official legal immigration 'quota' is one million. In reality, the US averages only about 750,000 legal immigrants per year (ie. "green cards" issued).

It is generally estimated that about a million illegal immigrants (mostly 'Hispanics' from Mexico and Central America) arrive each year, though this number tends to fluctuate up and down substantially depending upon the state of the US economy.

And I'd object to the assertion that the US is broke. There is more than enough money already sloshing around the US government to pay for universal public education and an expanded public healthcare policy - easily paid from cutting a few wasteful programs in the Pentagon budget and agricultural subsidy programs.

[Michael]

If subsidized big ag required illegal, non-English speaking labor I'd think the topic would be increased education funds for non-English speaking students.
That's a good point and I most certainly agree. :)

[Lily]

If you are concerned about the 'cost' of food, government subsidies are the overwhelming factor.



Source (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/10/23/afx4249139.html)

I'm thinking that if one is concerned about food prices, the wages paid to illegal workers is probably miniscule compared to the effect of government subsidies.


I don't disagree; however the issue of paying illegal farm workers a living wage seems to be a slick political football, one that nobody really wants to grab onto. Nevermind educating them or providing a means to obtain adequate healthcare.