How are 8-12 people? residing “part-time” in a studio/1 br apt just barely inside the the US (~12 miles) considered “residents” who are ostensibly eligible for taxpayer-funded services, such as those provided by your organization? Are all those people living in the same apt as your “minor-clients” themselves minors (except the lessee)? If not, how many other adults are typically sharing a “tiny” apt with mom and kids?
Aside from the free breakfasts and lunches these daily border crossing students get out of the school districts of border counties (Federal food aid), it seems they may also be “eligible” for a plethora of other aid (even “professional aid” that persons such as yourself render to them) even if the parent they are presumably residing part-time with on this side of the border is undocumented themselves.
When you visit your charges at these “tiny” apts, did you ever notice whether your “clients” actually sleep there … or not? Have you actually seen their bed, where their clothes are hung and where they keep their personal effects?
Or do you usually meet them at a neutral location, such as their school? Inquiring minds want to know how YOU know that your “clients” are … beyond a shadow of a doubt … actually residents of the US.
Thank you in advance of your response.[/quote]
Yes, BG, I am sure they are living in that apartment, as part of my role is to check on the living situation. But that’s quite a long list of other irrelevant concerns and questions you have.
Funny that you managed to come up with stuff like “8-12 people living in a studio/1BR apt”…feel free to make up your own specifics, once again. Certainly provides a clue as to how you also felt comfortable making up the wild ass claim about a whole 25% of our schools, teachers and administrators being totally unnecessary because of non-resident fraudulent students. Remember that one? Yep, I’m still waiting for any back-up on that too.
Oh well, maybe in your next post you’ll finally provide some real data. Hope so, as I prefer to engage in a productive, interesting debate.
Until then, happy 4th of July! I’m looking forward to a great weekend celebrating this wonderful country and its opportunities and freedom for ALL! Enjoy! :-)[/quote]What usually happens in these cases is that one of the parents (in the case you describe here, the mom) who is seeking “residency” for US schools for her kids, gets her name put on a relative’s or friend’s/co-worker’s utility bill (to use for “proof of residency”) and pays a separate fee for each of her kids to the lessee/homeowner every month to them to accept any “school mail” for the kids and also to notify the mom immediately if the school calls regarding any of the kids or any school mail arrives for them.
The parent of border-crossing public school students (especially if undocumented) is almost never the lessee/homeowner for purposes of school attendance. They simply use someone else’s address … whether that address is “sold” to them by the month … or someone (usually a relative) offers to render a “guardianship affidavit” or “caregiver affidavit” for the parent (if the parent works locally). The “caregiver affidavits” are usually accepted on a space-available basis, so the “guardianship affidavit” seems to be more widely accepted for a wider choice of schools. These affidavits are also commonly used by US citizen-residents in attempt to justify the granting of an Interdistrict transfer.
I’m actually no longer “concerned” as you say about this phenomenon as my own kids have already gone thru the “system” and came out of it with a HS Diploma. I am however, worried about the state as a whole and its ability to keep educating, incarcerating, feeding (often reimbursed by the Federal Govm’t) and providing medical care to undocumented immigrants and their children as well as citizen and non-citizen minors who successfully cross the border every day to take up seats in our school system. I never said it was a big problem all over the county. I said it was a BIG problem in South County public schools. It doesn’t happen everywhere in SD and not to the same degree as it does in South County. I never said that 25% of students in EVERY school in South County was crossing the border every day to attend school here. I said OVERALL, we have ~25% more students than actually reside here (meaning reside in the US in a permanent home). That means, each student has a bed to sleep in (not an air mattress on the floor or is a temporary couch surfer). They have clothes in a closet at that home and personal effects stored there, PERMANENTLY. Their actual parent or legal guardian (not “`fake’ affidavit” guardian,” named solely for “residency purposes”) is leasing or owns that home.
Some schools have less than 25% and others have much, much more. The district administrators wouldn’t dare put out stats of the huge percentage of students using “affidavits” to establish residency because they are deathly afraid of a rapidly shrinking school district and all the millions from the state that will be lost from losing thousands in “head count.” We’ve been asking them publicly for this info since the early nineties but they state, “It’s not our job to `police’ where our students get up in the morning. We’re not the INS. We’re here solely to educate.” So there you have it! District administrators in TX border counties (where there is a residency law for public school attendance) have had no problem in disenrolling students found living in MX, as well as those in Imperial County, CA and even tiny Mountain Empire School District in East SD County, CA. But SUHSD and its feeder elementary school districts won’t dare to address this problem. San Ysidro is the largest land border crossing in the nation and the captive audience of a never-ending sieve of students crossing into the US every morning to attend their schools is a virtual gravy train for all of them!
This party will only be over when how the border is run is addressed and fixed at the Federal level. As far as ending birthright citizenship for those that already have it, I don’t think that’s possible. But as long as these “anchor babies” (yes, that’s a “legit” phrase and it fits) are minors living on the other side of the border, they should NOT be able to legally avail themselves of our public schools while their parent(s) reside in MX.
