Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Aging population and housing
- This topic has 185 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 2, 2015 at 1:36 PM #789800October 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM #789801
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=spdrun][quote=bearishgurl]If an infusion of 2 million Syrians seeking refuge from their war-torn existence can do same and buy/lease (from FNMA/HUD?) the bulk of Detroit’s vacant eyesores, fix them up a little and start small businesses themselves, then maybe the city can eventually right itself on the map again. [/quote]
I’d actually disagree with ghettoizing a large % of the refugees in Detroit — it would actually prevent assimilation. I’d advocate encouraging 100,000 or so to settle there, with the remainder distributed to other US cities and towns.[/quote]
Isn’t there an existing American population in Detroit for newcomers to “assimilate” with? I don’t know how big Detroit’s actual population is. Is it too small in any one given area to have any influence on newcomers?
October 2, 2015 at 2:08 PM #789802Anonymous
Guest[quote=spdrun]If they’ve been here for 10-20 years, established lives, kept their noses clean, they should be allowed to stay.[/quote]
How can you prove how long they have been here? How do you prove they kept their noses clean? Given they are living and working illegally, with false names, SSN, etc. there is no way to know their background. Even if you could, you going to pick some arbitrary number of 10 years? So the other guy who was here 9 years is not eligible and must go home?
October 2, 2015 at 2:09 PM #789803Guest[quote=FlyerInHi]I doubt it’s true.
I know a guy who crosses frequently. The border patrol grill him which causes him to be frequently late. They ask him. What are you coming for? Shopping? Where’s your money? Where’s your credit card?
Sometimes he’s sent to secondary inspection.The kids would be late to school all the time and they would fail. Plus they would have to lie to the border patrol as to the reason for crossing.[/quote]
Lie to the border patrol? OMG no way anybody would do that.
October 2, 2015 at 2:18 PM #789804FlyerInHi
GuestChildren at the trolley station is no indication of anyone crossing the border to attend school.
Mexican license plates could just mean the cars cannot be registered in california.
Maybe a better test would be to cross the border with a child dressed for school in the car. How early would you have to get up in the morning?
October 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM #789805Guest[quote=deadzone]
Lie to the border patrol? OMG no way anybody would do that.[/quote]
Not as easy as you think. The border patrol agent can just ask the kids riding in the car. After all the border patrol are highskill agents who protect our border.
October 2, 2015 at 2:28 PM #789806spdrun
Participant[quote=deadzone]
How can you prove how long they have been here? How do you prove they kept their noses clean? Given they are living and working illegally, with false names, SSN, etc. there is no way to know their background. Even if you could, you going to pick some arbitrary number of 10 years? So the other guy who was here 9 years is not eligible and must go home?[/quote]Frankly, I’d reform the immigration policy to be more reasonable, then allow anyone already here to apply for permanent residency on a case-by-case basis using criteria like length of time, means of support, community ties, and lack of criminal record.
Even if they use a false SSN, if they get convicted of a serious crime, their prints will be recorded and can be used to trace them.
October 2, 2015 at 2:35 PM #789807Guest[quote=deadzone]How can you prove how long they have been here? How do you prove they kept their noses clean? Given they are living and working illegally, with false names, SSN, etc. there is no way to know their background. Even if you could, you going to pick some arbitrary number of 10 years? So the other guy who was here 9 years is not eligible and must go home?[/quote]
Why do they need a fake SSN – so they can pay real taxes?
Our laws have lots of “arbitrary numbers” – ask any 20 year-old who tries to get into a bar.
Somehow we manage to thrive.
October 2, 2015 at 2:39 PM #789808GuestHow did the Reagan amnesty determine eligibility? Start with doing the same.
October 2, 2015 at 3:22 PM #789809ParticipantOur laws have lots of “arbitrary numbers” – ask any 20 year-old who tries to get into a bar.
If anything, I’d make it less arbitrary. And abolish the drinking age of 21 — most civilized countries are at 18.
October 2, 2015 at 3:45 PM #789810Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Children at the trolley station is no indication of anyone crossing the border to attend school.
Mexican license plates could just mean the cars cannot be registered in california.
Maybe a better test would be to cross the border with a child dressed for school in the car. How early would you have to get up in the morning?[/quote]
VERY early, and believe me, these parents don’t mind. They like to beat the rush hour and they’re used to leaving for the US early in the am. And the kids ARE dressed for school. The border agent can ask the kids anything they want. 95% of the time, these kids have their own documentation available. It’s not the border agent’s job to determine if these kids are attending school in the US using fraudulent addresses.
[quote=spdrun] . . . As far as the school issue … crack down on shills signing guardian affidavits. If they know they’ll be billed for two times the cost of school plus legal costs, they might think twice.[/quote]
True story:
Back in the early nineties, the going rate for one of those “shills” was $40 per month per student … not sure what it is today. It was a very attractive proposition for a single parent collecting aid, even one renting under a “Section 8” contract! That’s $360 year per student per school year in income to collect school district mail for the student and forward it to the parents in MX!
In this era (and even moreso after “welfare reform” was passed in 1996), able-bodied parents were put to work at least 24 hrs per week by their social worker, to gain work experience, as a condition of their continued participation in their aid program(s). As such, we had two “moms” collecting aid who were catching up our backlog of filing for us for a few months in my local govm’t office. They had known each other prior to coming to work for us and BOTH of them bragged during breaks and lunch how they were making money (under the table) hand over fist by “selling” their addresses to Mexican parents to fulfill the public school residency requirement (the “guardian affidavit requirement” as we know it today was not yet in place). One of these “aid workers” (both always well-dressed, lol) claimed that 27 students used her (2-bdrm) rental home’s address to prove their residency for the school district and the other aid worker claimed she had 43 students that year using the address of her (3 bdrm) rental home for a residency requirement. They got away with “sponsoring” so many students because EACH SCHOOL at the time only knew the addresses of the students which attended their own school and these shills “sponsored” kids (even within the same family) attending several different area schools.
So me and two coworkers (who had kid(s) enrolled in CVESD schools) eventually got together and wrote the then CVESD Superintendent, (the now infamous) Ed Brand a carefully worded letter, naming names and quoting them, documenting addresses, even giving him two very obviously boarded-up local homes to “look into” as being used for addresses for students attending certain after-school daycare homes so they (the after school-care students) could attend a “better” elementary school and the provider could pick them all up at one school.
About a month later, we got a polite one-page reply letter signed for him by his secretary essentially thanking us for the info but stating that a) the district doesn’t have the staff to check out every address on student residency verification forms for legitimacy or to see who actually lives there (we only asked them to check out 4 addresses); and, 2) the TWO employees employed by the district to check on students at home were hired solely for truant officer duties. He then stated that he would attempt to create a “task force” to develop a plan to “cross-reference” addresses used to attend one school against addresses used to attend other schools in the same district and thanked us for the “suggestion” (we didn’t make that suggestion, but ok). He further went on to say that even if CVESD could cross-reference addresses used from school to school this doesn’t fix the problem of the same address being also used for local secondary school residency purposes (SUHSD). However, he didn’t volunteer to forward our letter to SUHSD or even mention the problem to that superintendent.
Waaah … Brand’s poor “hands were tied,” folks, and, of course, he didn’t have to mention it to us but we ALL knew that it wasn’t in the District’s “best interest” to disenroll students who were regularly occupying their warm seats.
The buck stops with the superintendent, folks. If he/she’s not willing to do anything about the problem, then there is nothing any parent can do except take time out of their jobs to contact their representative (with evidence of residency fraud?) and/or periodically testify before the Legislature on this subject with same. In these parts, complaining to the school board (sadly) won’t do any good :=0
Of course, our infamous Ed Brand has since done the “super” stint three more times in two other SD County school districts (SUHSD twice) and was eventually forced out of SMUSD with a $410K buyout offer … just to get rid of him without facing a lawsuit. Then the (stupid) SUHSD Board took him back, much to the chagrin of the teachers and parents:
http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070124/news_1mi24supe.html
http://mauralarkins.com/EdBrandSweetwaterSuperintendent.html
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/jun/30/sweetwater-board-brand-superintendent-leave/
http://www.10news.com/news/sweetwater-board-votes-to-remove-superintendent-ed-brand-06302014
Finally, the SUHSD Board saw the light and voted (with “interim” trustees borrowed from SD County BoE casting 4 out of 5 votes, lol) to place their (two-time) Superintendent Brand on (fully paid) “administrative leave” three months before his ($252K annual) contract expired (he had already announced his “retirement” two months prior). This was nearly 23 years after our detailed letter of complaint (with attachments and photos), folks, and the student residency fraud problem still persists, in spite of a few minor “residency procedure” reforms (such as the bogus “guardian affidavit form”) which were enacted in the interim. I’m not blaming Brand for all of it, but he was definitely a big part of a (corrupt?) systemic dysfunction which completely looked the other way to this situation in a public school district whose southernmost schools were just over two miles from the US/MX border. Hence, the “ousting” of four SUHSD board members (and the super prior to Brand’s 2nd stint) due to their guilty pleas on various corruption charges.
When the rest of those (expensive) CFD’s in Chula Vista were built out after about 2003 or so, all h@ll broke loose among those homeowner parents who were paying very high Mello Roos for their local schools which didn’t have space for their own kids . . . and rightly so. By their sheer numbers, these parents seemed to be a lot more effective than me or my co-workers were back in the day. (The reality is that our kids didn’t attend schools built with MR bond money and thus we weren’t “damaged” enough to have our complaint taken seriously.)
If you have enough time and energy to fight “city hall” in bureaucratic Cali, spdrun, I say, go for it! I’ve already expended way too much of my talents/expertise in this regard with little to zero results to show for it and I’m done (and my kids are now long gone). Have at it. And Good Luck to all :=0
October 2, 2015 at 4:01 PM #789811GuestDoesn’t seem practical, time wise, to commute everyday from Tijuana for school in San Diego. They would have to get up at 4:00am, endure delays at the border… missing school days, etc..
The border agents do ask questions to see if entry is legitimate (shopping, tourism… ).
My friend was recently turned back because he didn’t have his credit/debit card and didn’t have enough money for shopping. The border agent actually asked to see the money.
We probably have more problems with kids who live in bad areas attending school in better areas without residency.
October 2, 2015 at 4:22 PM #789812Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Doesn’t seem practical, time wise, to commute everyday from Tijuana for school in San Diego. They would have to get up at 4:00am, endure delays at the border… missing school days, etc..
The border agents do ask questions to see if entry is legitimate (shopping, tourism… ).
My friend was recently turned back because he didn’t have his credit/debit card and didn’t have enough money for shopping. The border agent actually asked to see the money.
We probably have more problems with kids who live in bad areas attending school in better areas without residency.[/quote]
The parents are coming up to the US early, anyway, usually to work an early shift (many work in hotels, restaurants, landscaping, etc). The SENTRI lane isn’t that slow. And as I stated before, some of the parents ARE US citizens who are choosing to live in TJ because its housing is so much cheaper than SD and they can afford hired household help in MX. I also had several “professional” coworkers who chose to live in TJ with their families. All were bilingual and the ones who had kids had them enrolled in private schools in SD County. Back then, my co-workers DID put their kids in the car at 5:00 am but I hear it is a little faster now in the morning with the SENTRI lanes. Some had relatives on the US side whom they took their kids to in the mornings to dress for school and get taken to school later.
And yes, families living in areas where they don’t like the local school are forever utilizing any way can to transfer their kid to another school. The simplist way seems to be to use the “after-school care ruse,” whereby your after school caregiver is your relative who lives in LJ, etc and so your kid needs to attend school there so it will be convenient for your relative to pick them up. This doesn’t always work (and it doesn’t work well for HS/MS) but the parent doesn’t need to enter the kid in a lottery or complete an interdistrict transfer which has little chance of being admitted.
The families who live in attendance areas where one or more their schools are on the current NCLB list have more options. In this case, a district will even offer a student free bus transportation to a “better” school if their family qualifies for it.
October 2, 2015 at 4:23 PM #789813GuestI don’t really see a problem with documented bi-nationals who have family and jobs in San Diego. The kids could just as well be living in San Diego. Maybe they have 2 homes.
BG, you should live and let live. The gestapo was successful because well-meaning would snitch on one another.
October 2, 2015 at 4:39 PM #789814Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I don’t really see a problem with documented bi-nationals who have family and jobs in San Diego. The kids could just as well be living in San Diego. Maybe they have 2 homes.
BG, you should live and let live. The gestapo was successful because well-meaning would snitch on one another.[/quote]
Oh yeah, I HAVE and DO “live and let live.” Honestly, I could care less anymore. But when I saw people get out of (dusty) old cars with MX plates to take their kids through the back entrance of my kid(s) elem school grounds every morning on the way to work (so they weren’t so “obvious” to the front office), it really angered me at the time. ALL of the vehicles had MX plates and some of the vehicles were so run down that I have no idea how they made it to/from SD every day. My neighbors were angry as well, but there was absolutely nothing any of us could do about it. My kids’ elem school just ended up setting up more temporary classrooms (which are still there today) and hiring 4 more FT teachers by about 2000. But those days are gone. Schools at or over capacity are just rejecting students now (in lieu of hiring).
After my kid(s) got in HS, they just laughed at the fact that a LOT of their classmates were driving vehicles with MX plates on them and parking them in the student parking lot! These HS students were obviously driving themselves to school every day (from TJ?). My kid(s) stated that many of their fellow students admitted to them that they lived in TJ.
The joke is on the SD County homeowner (esp the South County homeowner) with school-age kids.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.